Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why are kids with gender dysphoria being treated like lab rats?

By Damian Wilson | RT | December 1, 2021

A damning investigation in Sweden has found that doctors are ignoring the physical harm and irreversible damage caused by giving puberty blockers to primary school children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Wherever you stand on trans issues, no one could fail to be shocked by the revelations coming out of Sweden about the life-changing injuries and harmful side effects inflicted on children by cavalier doctors at the Karolinska University Hospital, all in the name of the great gender debate.

The youngsters treated at the Stockholm hospital had all been diagnosed with gender dysphoria – the unshakeable feeling that their physical characteristics were mismatched with how they felt about their gender – and were subsequently injected with regular doses of oestrogen, testosterone or other hormones to effect a physical transition to their new identity.

Gender dysphoria, it must be pointed out, is not a physical affliction in any way. It is all in the head.

Now, some of those children treated at the hospital are showing signs of osteoporosis, reduced bone density, liver damage, massive weight gain – one child piled on 25kg in just one year – and severe mental health issues. Some of those transitioning to male have changed their minds and want to identify as female again, but are stuck with the irreversible characteristic of a deep voice, thanks to testosterone injections, according to an investigation by the country’s national broadcaster SVT.

This is Dr. Frankenstein territory. How can the supposedly super-progressive liberals of Sweden allow this to happen? What’s even more outrageous is that in the case of one 11-year-old in the programme, the treatment continued for three months after doctors were alerted to skeletal deformation.

These are just kids who have been treated like lab rats. Tweenies and even younger who are crying out for help with their mental health, not hormone injections. It’s mind-boggling to think that a child still in primary school can be making life-altering decisions that will put them on a one-way transitioning journey, yet they have not even experienced puberty. Their brains are not fully formed, they can’t legally drink, smoke, vote or drive a car, yet they are being credited with a self-awareness far beyond their years.

One study in the Journal of American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry revealed that around 80% of children grew out of gender dysphoria, although research for the UK’s Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic found that those who began medical intervention were less likely to change their minds.

That still doesn’t make a majority, however. So surely it makes sense that if the probability is that a child will change their mind about transitioning, then mental health support should be prioritised as the prime intervention, before harmful drugs are administered?

Where in the Hippocratic Oath – ‘primum non nocere’ (first, do no harm) – is the exception for this scandalous abuse? How can medical professionals treat children like this, so that distraught parents are left blaming themselves, with one Swedish mother heartbreakingly admitting, “Of course you feel anger towards those you trusted. But also towards myself; I am the one who will protect my child, but I have not done that in any way”?

The SVT probe found that despite most medical professionals recommending that puberty blockers should not be prescribed for longer than two years, over the last five years, one in five children in what Swedish doctors call ‘trans care’ has been given the hormones for three years. Talk about not reading the label.

One of the medical professionals involved, chief physician and pediatric endocrinologist Ricard Nergardh, admitted that administering puberty blockers was “chemical castration.” But, remarkably, it still didn’t stop him or his colleagues from doling them out.

Sure, it’s all new. Gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has really only been on the radar since around 2013. But it’s a boom time for the medical profession, with many who should know better reluctant to suggest to their younger patients that maybe this is ‘just a stage’ they’re going through, in case they attract unwanted attention from the increasingly vocal trans lobby.

However, it’s not just in Sweden that the pressure is on an increasingly compliant medical profession to imperil the mental and physical wellbeing of our children, while playing along with a wrongheaded critical theory on gender.

Questions will be raised in Sweden, no doubt, but they also need to be raised in the UK, the US, Canada and Australia, where gender transition has become the cause du jour. Before any more children are irreversibly damaged.

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

The State of Emergency, Coercive Medicine, and Academia

By Maximilian C. Forte | Résistance Scolaire – Québec -Academic Resistance | December 1, 2021

“Two weeks to flatten the curve,” is what we heard across Canada1 just after March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization unilaterally declared a global “pandemic” according to new criteria developed in 2009 that emphasized transmissibility over lethality.2 We are now approaching two years of a crisis that is routinely and deceptively blamed on “Covid”. Politicians, public health officials, and the mass media have made persistent pronouncements that tended towards the inflation of grim numbers and the exaggeration of threats.3

The State of Emergency and its Consequences

Building on expanded threat perception, authorities have deliberately promoted fear, induced panic, and created stress.4 With the public suffering an epidemic of fear bordering on mass psychosis,5 states have multiplied and escalated the number and types of restrictions, few of which have the support of even a single published scientific study6: quarantining the healthy; school closures; shutting down small businesses; travel bans and internment of returning citizens; masking; social distancing; fines; curfews; vaccine passports7; and now, mandatory vaccination campaigns that threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands across Canada, including students, support staff, and professors, and impeding non-vaccinated Canadians from leaving the country.8 In the case of Quebec, such measures have been advanced under a State of Emergency deployed in accordance with the Public Health Act,9 which has seen the “emergency” renewed every seven days. Since the “emergency” was first declared on March 13, 2020, it was renewed 84 times (to October 27, 2021), and continues being renewed without consultation and approval by the National Assembly.10 On each occasion, the Government of Quebec has failed to explain the nature or even the existence of a situation that merits classification as an “emergency”.11

By displacing the political onto the medical, in biologizing and thus naturalizing political acts, both governments and the media typically assign blame to “Covid,” the “pandemic,” or the “unvaccinated,” to justify authoritarian emergency measures and to rationalize the ensuing social upheaval. But the virus is just a virus. The virus is neither a politician, a legislator, an economic adviser, a public health official, a corporate CEO, nor is it a media executive. The virus has not been “managed”: it has been worked.

The social, economic, political, medical, psychological, and cultural damage wrought by emergency measures, though inadequately documented and tallied in Canada, appears to be both vast and ongoing. At least 36 studies explain why our unnecessarily extended period of lockdowns not only failed to control the virus or lower mortality, but may even have increased excess mortality.12 Quebec’s Minister of Health, Christian Dubé, publicly acknowledged the impacts of the emergency on delayed treatments and surgeries, often for illnesses far more severe than Covid.13 The health system’s lopsided emphasis on Covid, coupled with fear that kept many patients with severe illnesses away from hospitals and clinics, created such a backlog of surgeries and treatments that emergency rooms exploded far beyond capacity by the summer of 2021, as reported Covid infections plummeted. Quebec’s Ministry of Health estimated that up to 4,000 people have gone undiagnosed with cancer as a result of a sharp decline in mammograms, pap smears and colorectal cancer screenings.14 Across Canada, projected cancer cases are expected to surge in the thousands.15 During the lockdowns, deaths caused by opioid overdoses rose by 88% in 2020 when compared to 2019.16 Alcohol abuse, suicides, and even homicides in domestic settings all increased substantially. Statistics Canada reported that during this emergency period, deaths from “accidental poisonings” (substance abuse) reached a new high, while the numbers for deaths caused by alcohol abuse, and drug use all increased, particularly for younger Canadians.17 StatCan noted that “the economic, social, and psychological impacts” as well as “the public-health measures in place may have played a role in increasing alcohol use”.18 In North America, lockdowns had a disproportionate impact on minority youths in terms of education and employment.19 Families with children at home reported dramatic degrees of deteriorated mental health.20 The economic devastation wrought by the lockdowns further increased the social, psychological, and medical harms.21 In Montreal, the homeless population doubled in size just from March 2020 to October 2021.22 Canada’s federal debt increased by 66%; provinces and even most universities also posted vastly increased deficits; and, hundreds of thousands of retail businesses were expected to permanently close.23 Both the savings and the ability to save for working-class Canadians simply vanished, and personal debt levels skyrocketed; women and minorities were among those hit hardest.24

How is public health served by spreading fear, creating stress, inducing anxiety, and terminating the livelihoods of those who do not comply with arbitrary and indiscriminate measures? What kind of public health is it that assaults the dignity of those to be saved, creating divisions, escalating tensions and conflict? We have certainly come a long way from “two weeks to flatten the curve”. Today, federal employees, healthcare workers, and educators across Canada are being suspended and fired, sentenced to a form of social and economic internal exile, thus effectively rendered aliens in a country which also traps them within its borders. Citizens are now effectively criminalized based on their medical status.

Coercive Medicine

All of the devastation, displacement, and divisions have been to what end? What is it about the nature of this particular virus that makes it so spectacularly special that extreme measures are not only said to be warranted, but must also be continually multiplied and extended? Why are these “public health” measures so narrowly focused on only one specific solution—universal “vaccination”—when that “solution” has been shown to solve so little at the core of this crisis?

Encouraged by government and the media to conflate the two, most Canadians seem to have trouble remembering the difference between transmissibility (i.e., infectiousness) and lethality, such that any report of “cases” immediately sparks fears of impending and generalized death. The appearance of a “case” in an institution is called an “outbreak,” an alarmist term that inspires fear. Yet it is still true that official statistics reveal that this particular coronavirus, with its non-distinctive symptoms, is responsible for the deaths mostly of the very elderly, and even then those with advanced co-morbidities. In Canada as a whole, 63% of reported Covid deaths occurred among those aged 80 years or more; that number increases to 83% when we include those aged 60 years or more.25

This virus was never a lethal threat to the general population, but it has been governed as if it were. The global survival rate for Covid, for persons under the age of 70, is 99.83%; others report that it is as high as 99.95% (without “vaccination”), and for those under 45 years of age the infection fatality rate is almost zero.26 For the vast majority of the infected, 76.5%, Covid produces no symptoms at all, and for 86.1% no symptoms specific to Covid; for most of the rest, the symptoms are mild.27 The Norwegian government and the UK parliament have both recognized that Covid has fallen in lethality when compared with the seasonal flu.28 What then is the medical basis for instituting emergency measures, imposed on the total population? In early 2020, a few national leaders declared a “war on the virus”—but how do the facts of the virus justify use of tools of war, such as a state of emergency?

Throughout this crisis, premised on the generalization of the threat of death, we have nonetheless seen a differential and selective valuation of deaths.29 Death, rather than the possibilities for normal life, has been greatly emphasized. Regardless of co-morbidities, those who died with Covid were almost always reported as “Covid deaths,” even if Covid was not the cause of death. Yet, when persons have died after receiving injections, their deaths are usually attributed to co-morbidities, and they are not publicly reported by the media or state spokespersons as “vaccine deaths”. Some deaths, we discovered, matter more than others.

Having succeeded in spreading generalized fear of “Covid death,” the authorities have singled out that one “solution” of theirs: inoculation of the entire population, regardless of age, health, or natural immunity.30 They have denied effective early treatment of symptoms. They have obstinately ignored the fact that natural immunity has been proven to offer longer-lasting, broader and stronger protection than the current crop of novel gene therapies.31 We have been told, with absolute conviction, that these experimental gene therapies are “safe and effective”.32 Less assuring, however, has been the authorities’ refusal to share trial data with scientists.33 Doctors and scientists who question the “vaccine” dogma are censored, silenced, suspended, or fired, even as hundreds of thousands of doctors and healthcare workers worldwide34 have precisely detailed why these novel therapies are neither safe nor effective,35 with abundant empirical support and a growing number of published studies.36 Between the US and UK alone, nearly 20,000 persons have already died from the injectables, and more than two million people have suffered severe adverse reactions, according to officially published data.37 Yet the injectables themselves offer, at best, a 1.3% reduction in absolute risk of becoming ill from Covid. “Herd immunity” via “vaccination” is clearly impossible,38 particularly when the “vaccines” in question provide no sterilizing immunity, and when the virus has ample natural reservoirs in the wider animal population.

Given that the “fully vaccinated” can still be infected and transmit the virus among themselves, the stated logic for the domestic “vaccine passport” system has been nullified39—yet the mandate remains in place. Even with such mandates in place on US college campuses, with almost all students, staff and faculty injected, “outbreaks” have occurred.40 It should now be obvious that the “vaccine passport” is not a public health measure designed to “protect” people and “save lives”. Instead, it is a political measure designed to maximize control and foment divisions among the wider population, deflecting blame away from the state and toward the new dangerous Other, the “unvaccinated”.41

Questions for Academia

Universities in Quebec and across Canada have internalized the “vaccine passport” system, notwithstanding public knowledge of the facts as shown above. They have done so even when aware of the differential impact on religious and ethnic minorities.42 Institutions that have adopted principles of “equity, diversity, and inclusion,” have failed the first real test of their policies. In Canada, as in the US, Black and Indigenous communities are among the most “vaccine hesitant” or “vaccine resistant” of all ethnic groups.43 However, given that the “war on the virus” has become a de facto war on the people, a larger segment of the national population has been created as a new minority suffering discrimination, one that has been as stigmatized as it has been caricatured.44 Where do academics stand here?

If “vaccination” was intended as a means of exiting the WHO’s declared pandemic, that has clearly not happened. Is it in fact intended as an exit, or as a gateway to something else? This is just one of many questions that academics should have been addressing, instead of cowering in fear before Covid, deferring to political authority, and clamouring for still more draconian restrictions.

As academics who have committed ourselves to ethics, integrity, and honesty, do we not see anything problematic in what is happening before our very eyes? Are we not disturbed by what is being committed in our name, for this alleged “common good” which none of us were ever called upon to define? What “common good” is it that thrives on coercion, exclusion, and works towards the monopolistic profits of Pfizer, which has an established criminal history,45 and Moderna, which has never before produced a vaccine?

Whether one is “adequately vaccinated” or not—according to the shifting standards and definitions of the moment—is not the core issue that should concern us. What should concern us is that the legal rights of all citizens are being transformed into temporary privileges; that coercion trumps democratic participation; that key institutions—including academic ones—are being rapidly conscripted for political purposes, and their basic missions are being undermined and distorted.

While many believe and assert that a “public health emergency” must limit basic human freedoms, it is precisely when faced by a real or alleged emergency that we need to be most careful and protective of human rights. Basic human rights are inalienable, and cannot be “suspended” because of any war, disaster, or other emergency.46 Bodily autonomy,47 informed consent, and by extension not being subjected to invasive testing or genetic treatment, are among the key rights which have been suspended or violated.48 Rights of conscience, as guided by religious and spiritual beliefs, along with the right to political beliefs and freedom of expression, must also be protected.49

Did we as scholars anticipate living in a country where our universities would purge tenured professors, fire support staff, and expel registered students (even escorting them off campus in front of other students), because of their health status, their innate biological characteristics, and their desire to preserve their privacy and bodily autonomy free from discrimination? When did we become comfortable with violating the right to an education and the right to work? How did we come to accept this discrimination, this deliberate segregation of a category of persons from the rest of society? Did we predict that one day we would see a demarcated group of Canadians being targeted not just for segregation, discrimination, and demonization, but that they would also be denied their livelihoods? Did we imagine that leaders, from the Prime Minister to the Premier, would verbally assault this same group and use the most threatening and dehumanizing language against it? This is happening, right now, all around us, right in front of us. Now that history has found us, how do we meet history? Do we even stop to take notice? When are we going to stand up and speak out?

In Canadian universities, many if not most scholars and students are not living up to goals of offering critical and independent perspectives on a crisis of momentous proportions. Ethics, freedom of choice, privacy, and democracy, have not been defended by our universities. Instead what has risen is a culture of silence, with some willingly reinforcing an instant orthodoxy that could only have been produced by widespread fear and unconditional trust in the authorities. Is this what we expect from our universities? Should students and professional scholars not be dedicated to developing independent, critical analytical abilities? Should they be trusting the authorities to the point of silently acquiescing with or even staunchly upholding their edicts and decrees? By not defending basic ethical principles of bodily autonomy, informed consent, and freedom of choice, and by even going as far as denying these rights, universities are actively engaged in violating human rights that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by international human rights law. By not challenging mandatory “vaccination” and “vaccine passports,” we allow a ready-made canon, furnished by the state and media, to supplant our own investigation and knowledge production. Worse yet, by directly engaging in censoring and silencing scientists, and by allowing intimidation and mobbing, universities in Canada appear to be engaging in intellectual, moral, and ethical suicide. What kind of university will emerge from this process? Can we even properly speak of a “university” in such a context?

In our universities, we have looked on silently as the media, backed by powerful private interests and our own bureaucrats, actively censor fellow scientists’ research and stifle critical questioning, to the benefit of transnational corporations such as Pfizer.50 We have watched tenure being invalidated, rendered null and void according to the whims of the state, as the terms and conditions of our employment are radically altered to depend—in clear violation of the Privacy Act—on disclosure of our medical status.51 Professors have been involuntarily deputized as auxiliary police forces, made to enforce mask mandates in their classrooms. Simply questioning the logic of such measures, and asking to see the scientific evidence that supports them, risks censure for “spreading misinformation”. Faculty unions have turned against faculty who resist the mandates, while most faculty either remain silent, or loudly support harsh restrictions.52 Academic freedom is in greater peril in Canada today than it ever has been.53 We have witnessed science succumb to the dictates of politics. As one concerned epidemiologist observed, with obvious restraint: “there will be lasting consequences from mingling political partisanship and science during the management of a public-health crisis”.54

In both medicine and international human rights law, the principle of voluntary and prior informed consent is fundamental and inviolable. Yet without adequate information, consent cannot be informed. The denial of informed consent is a grave violation of human rights, as established under multiple instruments of international human rights law. Coercion is also a denial of informed consent. Penalties, punishments, and threats offer the same kind of “choice” that is offered during the psychological torture of detainees under abusive interrogation. It is strange medicine that restricts family members from gatherings, worshippers from communing, workers from working—that creates unemployment and targets dissenting persons’ ability to clothe, house, and feed their families. “Vaccine hesitant” adults are treated as children, with medicine forced down their throats by a paternalistic state. Even if we had been dealing with actual children, in Canada we were supposed to have moved past our history of such abusive treatment. Mandates and restrictions have been overbearing, indiscriminate, redundant, authoritarian, arrogant, and punitive. Our strange medicine is the outcome of the politics of dispossession, which has reached such an extreme that it would have people sign off the rights to their immune system to a giant pharmaceutical corporation with a criminal record.

In such an environment, “vaccine refusal” is treated as tantamount to treason, an expression of “selfishness,” and a “threat to the community”. Yet a more sober and considered view would highlight the realization that, “mandatory vaccination amounts to discrimination against healthy, innate biological characteristics, which goes against the established ethical norms and is also defeasible a priori”.55

Independent, rational, critical analysis that seeks truth has been supplanted by deference to authority and its alternative “science”: the science of politicians, technocrats, the media, and lawyers. This alternative science has us thinking what was previously unimaginable, and doing what was previously unacceptable: never do you quarantine the healthy; never do you vaccinate the immune; never do you inject new treatments into children who do not need them;56 never do you vaccinate during a pandemic; and, never do you try new drugs on pregnant women.57 As we think the unthinkable, collaborate with the unimaginable, and support the unsupportable, we as academics are conspiring with those who demand we assert the unquestionable.

This has to change, and it has to change now.

Notes

1 “Here’s what each Canadian province is doing to ‘flatten the curve’ of the novel coronavirus,” Toronto Star, March 15, 2020; “Our window to flatten the COVID-19 curve is narrow, says Dr. Theresa Tam,” The Canadian Press, March 15, 2020.

2 The WHO’s original definition of a pandemic specified simultaneous epidemics worldwide that were marked by “enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses”; this definition was changed just prior to the declaration of the 2009 swine flu “pandemic,” by deleting the criteria of severity and high mortality. See: Ron Law, “[Response] WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies’,” British Medical Journal, June 4, 2010, p. 340; Peter Doshi, “The Elusive Definition of Pandemic Influenza,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, pp. 532–538.

3 ON PCR TESTS AND THE PRODUCTION OF “CASES”:
One of the means by which numbers were inflated lies in the use of inappropriate testing procedures and their interpretation. Positive results using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, or just “PCR tests”) were reported as “cases,” a term that denotes a patient receiving medical attention, when in most cases persons did not even show symptoms. Numerous scientists criticized the use of PCR tests, beginning with Dr. Kary Mullis who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR testing process now in wide use to diagnose coronavirus infection. Dr. Mullis is on record for challenging the utility of PCR tests: “it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that”—see: Patrick Howley, “Inventor of PCR Test Said Fauci ‘Doesn’t Know Anything’ and is Willing to Lie on Television,” National File, March 15, 2021. The World Health Organization advised caution in using PCR testing, warning of the potential for increased false positives and recommending that PCR testing be used only as “an aid for diagnosis”—see: “WHO Information Notice for Users 2020/05: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2,” World Health Organization, January 20, 2021.

The original publication which advocated using PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 (the “Corman-Drosten paper”) came in for severe criticism from 22 scientists who identified 10 fatal flaws with the paper, including its rush to publication after a single day of peer review. The Corman-Drosten paper, which influenced policy worldwide, originally recommended using 45 cycles of thermal amplification of swab samples for SARS-CoV-2—yet a published study reported that even at 35 cycles of amplification, up to 97% of the positive results using RT-PCR tests would be false (see: Rita Jaafar, Sarah Aherfi, Nathalie Wurtz, et al. “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(11), 2021). The Corman-Drosten article has since been subjected to three stages of correction. See: Victor M. Corman, Christian Drosten, et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR,” Eurosurveillance, 25(3), 2020. For the critical review of the Corman-Drosten paper, see: Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al., “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results,” Corman-Drosten Review Report, January 2021; also see: Peter Andrews, “A global team of experts has found 10 Fatal Flaws in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed. As they should,” RT, December 1, 2020, and, Peter Andrews, “Flawed paper behind Covid-19 testing faces being retracted, after scientists expose its ten fatal problems,” RT, December 9, 2020.

The practical utility of using PCR testing to gauge infectiousness was also called into question by various public health agencies. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cautioned that, “detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms” (“CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel,” CDC, July 7, 2021, p. 38). The Department of Health of the Government of Australia cautioned, “that PCR tests cannot distinguish between ‘live’ virus and noninfective RNA” (“Novel coronavirus (COVID-19): Information for Clinicians,” March 2020, p. 2). This was echoed by Ireland’s specialist agency for the surveillance of communicable diseases, which stated: “PCR does not distinguish between viable virus and non-infectious RNA,” and warned of the dangers of false positives—see page 10: “Guidance on the management of weak positive (high Ct value) PCR results in the setting of testing individuals for SARS-CoV-2,” HSE Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), July 7, 2021. “RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus”: this is stated at the outset of a published study supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada and its National Microbiology Laboratory—see: Jared Bullard, Kerry Dust, Duane Funk, James E Strong, et al., “Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 71(10), November 15, 2020, pp. 2663–2666. For similar cautions, see: “Interpreting the results of Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAT; or PCR tests) for COVID-19 in the Respiratory Tract,” BC Centre for Disease Control/BC Ministry of Health, April 30, 2020.

In November of 2020 in Portugal, a verdict from the Lisbon Appeal Court ruled that a positive PCR test result could not definitively prove that someone was infected with SARS-CoV-2. In addition, the court cited published research that reported that, at the high cycle thresholds that were commonly used, the rate of false positives could be as high as 97%. See: Proc. 1783/20.7T8PDL.L1, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa, November 11, 2020, and Peter Andrews, “Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it,” RT, November 27, 2020.

In 2007, in an article in The New York Times titled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” what was believed to be an epidemic of whooping cough in New Hampshire turned out just to be a common cold—what is instructive is how health officials came to make this mistake which created what the paper called a “pseudo-epidemic”. At the centre of this pseudo-epidemic was reliance on PCR testing; experts quoted in the paper called them unreliable, and stated that they should not be used. PCR testing was applied to a sickness that had non-distinctive symptoms. This mistake led to further mistakes, that were not seen as mistakes: “Yet, epidemiologists say, one of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time”. Doctors tested anyone with a cough or runny nose, and the PCR tests returned false positive results for whooping cough. See: Gina Kolata, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” The New York Times, January 22, 2007.

In July of 2021 the CDC announced that, “after December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only,” in part because of the test’s inability to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal flu (“Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing,” CDC, July 21, 2021).

ON COVID DEATH STATISTICS AND EXAGGERATION OF THREATS:

Official reports on the numbers of deaths ascribed to Covid, have also been revealed to be highly controversial. In most countries, “Covid deaths” included both those who died with Covid, and those who specifically died from Covid, thus producing the largest possible number. On April 20, 2020, the World Health Organization published its “International Guidelines for Certification and Classification (Coding) of Covid-19 as Cause of Death”. The WHO advised public health authorities that when Covid-19 is the “suspected”, “probable,” or even just the “assumed” cause of death, then it must always be recorded in death certificates as the “underlying cause of death” (see pps. 3-7). This was to be done even if a decedent suffered from serious chronic illnesses. Indeed, comorbidities such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or chronic non-Covid respiratory infections, should only be indicated as a “contributing cause” lower down in a death certificate. The WHO added: “Always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not” (p. 8).

In Quebec, both the Premier, François Legault, and the Director of Public Health, Horacio Arruda, publicly admitted that Quebec’s Covid ceath numbers were higher than Ontario’s, because in Quebec—regardless of the actual cause of death—once one had tested positive for Covid, the death was attributed to Covid. As Dr. Arruda explained, “Anytime, in Quebec, someone dies from cancer or another disease, if they have COVID-19 it will be counted as COVID-19”: Kelly Greig & Selena Ross, “Legault asks if Ontario’s under-counting COVID-19 deaths, drawing scientist’s ire,” CTV News, October 29, 2020.

Such practices, as recommended by the WHO and widely followed internationally, were subject to a successful legal challenge in Portugal. On May 15, 2021, a ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa found that verified deaths from SARS-CoV-2 amounted to just 0.9% of all reported Covid deaths—that is, 152 deaths rather than the 17,000 plus Covid deaths reported by the state. See: Mordechai Sones, “Lisbon court rules only 0.9% of ‘verified cases’ died of COVID, numbering 152, not 17,000 claimed,” America’s Frontline Doctors, June 23, 2021; the ruling can be accessed here. In Italy there were also questions stemming from data published by the government’s national institute of health—Istituto superiore di Sanità—regarding the alleged Covid mortality rate; according to one interpretation, only 2.9% of registered Covid deaths from the end of February 2020 were due to Covid as such, thus of the 130,468 official Covid deaths, only 3,783 can be attributed to Covid alone—see: Franco Bechis, “Gran pasticcio nel rapporto sui decessi. Per l’Iss gran parte dei morti non li ha causati il Covid,” Il Tempo, October 21, 2021.

One exceptionally detailed empirical analysis of public health pronouncements and media reports in Canada found a consistent pattern of misdirection. The pattern was one that generalized from the situation of the deaths of very elderly persons with comorbidities (whose average age exceeded the national average for life expectancy), and who were primarily confined to long-term care homes, to the rest of the population. As of April, 2021, nearly 91% of all Covid deaths recorded in Canada occurred in long-term care homes for the elderly. By imposing a “one size fits all” approach, Canadians were thus increasingly taught to fear for the safety of their children. Canada had only one seriously deadly wave, and that was the first wave in March-May of 2020—the majority of those deaths took place inside of tightly controlled institutional settings which in many cases were publicly-administered. Long-term care and retirement homes, added to hospitals, and prisons, together accounted for 98.6% of all Covid deaths; thus if 13,611 Covid deaths occurred inside such tightly-controlled institutional settings, only 178 deaths occurred in the wider community. Yet what was an institutional crisis was then inflated into a population-wide health crisis. There was a massive failure that occurred on governments’ side of the institutional barrier, with attention subsequently and deliberately redirected to the rest of the population—healthy people had to be locked in their homes presumably to save the lives of those in nursing homes. For this, and much more, see: Julius Ruechel, “The Lies Exposed by the Numbers: Fear, Misdirection, & Institutional Deaths (An Investigative Report),” May 28, 2021.

Another study found that there was “no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality in Canada, which can be ascribed to a Covid-19 pandemic” and that “several prominent features” in all-cause mortality per week during the Covid-19 period, “exhibit anomalous province-to-province heterogeneity,” one that is “irreconcilable with the known behaviour of epidemics of viral respiratory diseases”. The authors of the study stated: “We conclude that a pandemic did not occur”. See: Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Jérémie Mercier, “Analysis of all-cause mortality by week in Canada 2010-2021, by province, age and sex: There was no COVID-19 pandemic, and there is strong evidence of response-caused deaths in the most elderly and in young males,” August 6, 2021.

In Quebec, the public is familiar with how during the “first wave” a massive number of deaths occurred in long-term care and retirement homes: 73% of all deaths occurred in such institutions (CHSLDs). About 92% of people who died between February 25 and July 11, 2020, were 70 and older, according to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ). This was the high point of claimed Covid deaths; there has been no repetition of the mortality level we saw in that period. However, even here there is reason to doubt official numbers. Given the conditions in the homes, as reported by nurses, physicians, and by the Canadian military, an unspecified number of residents died due to starvation, dehydration, neglect, and even the deliberate administration of morphine to accelerate death—while all of these deaths were tallied as “Covid deaths”. In the UK there were similar reports of the administration of Midazolam which has been “been associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation” according to published warnings. For more on these reports, see: Levon Sevunts, “Military report on conditions in Quebec nursing homes details several flaws,” Radio Canada International, May 27, 2020; Brig-Gen. F.G. Carpentier, “Observations sur les Centres D’hébergement de Soins Longues Durées de Montréal,” 2nd Canadian Division and Joint Task Force (East), May 18, 2020; The Canadian Press, “‘Systemic ageism’ to blame for CHSLD deaths during pandemic’s first wave, says expert,” CTV News, November 1, 2021; The Canadian Press, “Officials blamed COVID-19 for Herron deaths, when some were due to hunger, thirst: witness,” CTV News, September 14, 2021; The Canadian Press, “Health officials, Herron staff clashed as situation got worse, Quebec coroner hears,” CTV News, September 16, 2021; The Canadian Press, “Doctors concerned about rise in dangerous medications in long-term care homes during pandemic,” CTV News, December 3, 2020; Tu Thanh Ha, “Quebec nursing home often gave morphine rather than treat COVID-19 patients, inquest told,” The Globe and Mail, June 16, 2021; Emily Mangiaracina, “‘I had never seen deaths happen so quickly’: Quebec nursing home gave COVID patients morphine instead of virus treatments,” LifeSite News, July 22, 2021; and, despite the deceptive headline which adopts the perspective of an official responsible for instituting the use of morphine in Quebec nursing homes, see The Canadian Press, “No ‘euthanasia’ in Quebec care homes during COVID-19, expert tells coroner’s inquest,” CTV News, November 2, 2021.

Similar reports of inappropriate or questionable administration of sedatives such as Midazolam, that accelerated death among nursing and retirement home residents, were also registered internationally—see for example: Stephen Adams & Holly Bancroft, “Did care homes use powerful sedatives to speed Covid deaths? Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic,” The Mail on Sunday, July 11, 2020.

4 The Canadian Joint Operations Command used the WHO-declared “pandemic” as an opportunity to test new propaganda techniques on unsuspecting Canadians, using techniques similar to those used for counterinsurgency in Afghanistan; the Canadian Forces also invested in training public affairs officers on “behaviour modification” techniques: David Pugliese, “Military leaders saw pandemic as unique opportunity to test propaganda on Canadians: report,” National Post, September 27, 2021. Also see: Susan Delacourt, “‘The nudge unit’: Ottawa’s behavioural-science team investigates how Canadians feel about vaccines, public health and who to trust,” Toronto Star, February 21, 2021. The behavioural science sub-group (SPI-B) of the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) prepared a document in May of 2020 advising on measures to be taken to increase public adherence to social distancing measures. The promotion of fear was explicitly advocated: “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat” (emphasis in the original)—see: SPI-B, “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures,” SAGE, March 22, 2020; also see, “How SAGE and the UK media created fear in the British public,” Evidence Not Fear, June 27, 2020. On the “doom loop” created by the UK government’s behaviour modification techniques—which dangerously spread fear when it is known to weaken immune systems—and which used the UK public for psychological experimentation, see Gordon Rayner, “State of fear: how ministers ‘used covert tactics’ to keep scared public at home,” The Telegraph, April 2, 2021, and Gary Sidley, “A year of fear,” The Critic, March 23, 2021. Sidely describes how the UK Government’s Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) developed strategies that would create “‘low cost, low pain ways of ‘nudging’ citizens…into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’. Several interventions of this type have been woven into the Covid-19 messaging campaign, including fear (inflating perceived threat levels), shame (conflating compliance with virtue) and peer pressure (portraying non-compliers as a deviant minority)”. See also Laura Dodsworth, “Winter is coming, and so are the nudges,” October 4, 2021.

5 Knowing that “a frightened population is a compliant one” (Sidley, fn. 4), state officials and the media promote fear, and thus justify ever accumulating and restrictions on civil liberties and negation of key human rights. The demonstrable result of the prolonged and coordinated promotion of fear is an emergent mass psychosis, one that inoculates those suffering from psychosis from rational questioning and normal scepticism. For some psychiatrists, the real public health crisis of this period has been the wide extent of mass delusional psychosis, an indicator of the harm done to mental health in the name of “controlling Covid”. What a psychosis fueled by a sustained sense of everpresent danger has spawned, is a culture of control, or authoritarian risk management that redirects blame away from the virus (and the fact that the state cannot control its spread) and directes blame toward the behaviour of “unruly” others, thus also fomenting divisions and inter-personal and inter-group hostility. In the US, such divisions have been enlisted in the service of heightened partisanship. In such a context, truth has been replaced by authority: people looking up to the authorities for guidance, rather than seeking out knowledge individually, independently, and critically. While stressing “scientific evidence,” the tendency in this culture of mass control is to steer away actual evidence, with fear-driven mandates persisting. For more on these points, see: Philipp Bagus, José Antonio Peña-Ramos, & Antonio Sánchez-Bayón, “COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1376), 2021; S.G. Cheah, “Psychiatrist: Americans Are Suffering From ‘Mass Delusional Psychosis’ because of Covid-19,” Evie, December 22, 2020; “Are We Experiencing a Mass Psychosis?” The Pulse, August 17, 2021; and, Emma Green, “The Liberals Who Can’t Quit Lockdown,” The Atlantic, May 4, 2021.

Fear appeals have also been very effective in North America and Europe in promoting “vaccine” uptake (even if fear can also undermine the effectiveness of injected treatments). Psychologists have found that, “Moderation analyses based on prominent fear appeal theories showed that the effectiveness of fear appeals increased when the message included efficacy statements, depicted high susceptibility and severity, recommended one-time only (vs. repeated) behaviors, and targeted audiences that included a larger percentage of female message recipients. Overall, we conclude that (a) fear appeals are effective at positively influencing attitude, intentions, and behaviors, (b) there are very few circumstances under which they are not effective, and (c) there are no identified circumstances under which they backfire and lead to undesirable outcomes”: Melanie B. Tannenbaum, Justin Hepler, & Rick S. Zimmerman, et al., “Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories,” Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 2015, pp. 1178–1204. Scientists writing in the bulletin of the WHO warned in 2011 about the creation of “pandemics of fear” and a “culture of fear” caused by health-scares about viruses, leading to worst-case thinking and disproportionate responses that cause harm. Looking at prior “pandemics of fear,” they noted: “the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon. We therefore need fewer, not more ‘pandemic preparedness’ plans or definitions. Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in exaggeration. There is no reason for expecting any upcoming pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968, no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives”—see: Luc Bonneux & Wim Van Damme, “Health is more than influenza,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 2011, pp.539–540.

Furthermore, fear can also produce negative immunological effects. Excessive and prolonged fear, suffered by large parts of the population during the past 19 months, can do both serious damage to persons’ physical health, and it can damage their brains—see: Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, “Chronic Stress, Anxiety can Damage the Brain, Increase Risk of Major Psychiatric Disorders,” ScienceDaily, January 21, 2016, and Debra Fulghum Bruce, “How Worrying Affects the Body,” WebMD, September, 2020. A published study from a team of researchers at the University of Nottingham stated: “It is well known that when negative mood states persist over time they result in the dysregulation of physiological systems involved in the regulation of the immune system. Thus, there exists significant potential for the psychological harm inflicted by the pandemic to translate into physical harm. This could include an increased susceptibility to the virus, worse outcomes if infected, or indeed poorer responses to vaccinations in the future”—see: Ru Jia, Kieran Ayling, & Trudie Chalder, et al., “Mental health in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analyses from a community cohort study,” BMJ Open, 10(9); Rosa Silverman, “What a year of lockdown has done to our immunity – and how to strengthen it,” The Telegraph, February 24, 2021; Shaoni Bhattacharya, “Brain study links negative emotions and lowered immunity,” New Scientist, September 2, 2003; APA, “Stress Weakens the Immune System,” American Pyschological Association, February 23, 2006; and, Suzanne C. Segerstrom & Gregory E. Miller, “Psychological Stress and the Human Immune System: A Meta-Analytic Study of 30 Years of Inquiry,” Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 2004, pp. 601–630.

For more conceptual and philosophical understandings of fear in the contemporary context, the following is recommended: Giorgio Agamben, “What is Fear?” Old News, October 26, 2020, and Gustavo Esteva, “Uses of Fear,” D. Alan Dean, March 28, 2020.

6 ON LOCKDOWNS:
Published scientific research has found little if any evidence to support the notion that lockdowns reduced mortality. Instead, deaths rates tended to be determined more by the greater proportion of elderly citizens, the environment, and the prevalence of metabolic diseases—see: Quentin De Larochelambert & Andy Marc, et al., “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation,” Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 2020. Another study concluded, “it has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect. Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK’s experience with that of other European countries”—see: Johan Giesecke, “The Invisible Pandemic,” The Lancet, 395(10238), 2020. One cross-national study reported that an “examination of lockdown intensity and the number of cumulative deaths attributed to Covid-19 across jurisdictions shows no obvious relationship,” adding that, “an examination of over 100 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on false assumptions that over-estimated the benefits and under-estimated the costs of lockdown,” and it reaffirmed that, “the unconditional cumulative Covid-19 deaths per million is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries”—see: Douglas W. Allen, “Covid-19 Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature,” International Journal of the Economics of Business, 2021. Another study that measured and compared weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries, found no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality rates: Christian Bjørnskov, “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison,” Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 2, 2020. A medical study concluded that, “rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people,” and that “obesity, advanced age and higher per capita GDP are associated with increased national case load and mortality”—see: Rabail Chaudhry & George Dranitsaris, et al., “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes,” EclinicialMedicine, 25(100464), 2020. In the critical case of Italy, published research found that tiered restrictions not only failed to reduce the spread of infection, such measures might have even been counterproductive for limiting the reproduction of the virus: Maurizio Rainisio, “The tiered restrictions enforced in November 2020 did not impact the epidemiology of the second wave of COVID-19 in Italy,” medRxiv, September 13, 2021.

ON MASKS:
Masking and mandates governing mask-wearing are likely among the very last to go. Yet, from the outset, there was no conclusive scientific evidence to support the notion that masks could ever reduce transmission or infection by any significant measure, and public health officials who supported masking had in previous weeks denied their utility. States have taken the reversal and turned it into decrees, with fines imposed for not wearing a mask; in some countries, arrest is possible. Masking also publicly spreads fear of infection and intensifies calls for increased risk management. There is also some scientific evidence that shows the different harms caused by prolonged masking. In Quebec, millions of masks had to be recalled due to their incorporation of known carcinogens and other toxic substances. See: Kai Kisielinski, Paul Giboni, &Andreas Prescher, et al., “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4344, 2021; LifeSiteNews Staff, “47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects,” LifeSite News, July 23, 2021; Shane Neilson, “The Surgical Mask is a Bad Fit for Risk Reduction,” Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), 188(8), 2016, pp. 606–607; Antonio I. Lazzarino, et al., “Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis,” BMJ, 369(1435), 2020; Jingyi Xiao, Eunice Y. C. Shiu, & Huizhi Gao, et al., “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(5), 2020; Michael Klompas, Charles A. Morris, & Julia Sinclair, et al., “Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era,” New England Journal of Medicine, 382, 2020; Anna Balazy, Mika Toivola, & Atin Adhikari, et al., “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?” American Journal of Infection Control (AJIC), 34(2), 2006, pp. 51–57; Youlin Long, Tengyue Hu, & Liqin Liu, et al., “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 13(2), 2020, pp. 93–101; Angel N. Desai & Preeti Mehrotra, “Medical Masks,” Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 323(15), 2020, pp. 1517–1518; ECDC, “Using face masks in the community: Effectiveness in reducing transmission of COVID-19,” European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, February 15, 2021; Heow Pueh Lee & De Yun Wang, “Objective Assessment of Increase in Breathing Resistance of N95 Respirators on Human Subjects,” The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 55(8), 2011, pp. 917–921; Cong Liu, Guojian Li, & Yuhang He, et al., “Effects of wearing masks on human health and comfort during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Earth and Environmental Science, 531, 2020; Richard Besser & Baruch Fischhoff, “Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic,” The National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine, April 8, 2020; Robert C.Hughes, Sunil S.Bhopal, & MarkTomlinson, “Making pre-school children wear masks is bad public health,” Public Health in Practice, 2, 2021; Tom Jefferson, Chris B Del Mar, & Liz Dooley, et al., “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses,” Cochrane Library, November 20, 2020; WCH, “Face masks – the risks vs benefits for children,” World Council for Health, October 2, 2021; Damian D. Guerra & Daniel J. Guerra, “Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment,” International Research Journal of Public Health, 5, 2021; Arjun Walia, “Masks Do ‘More Damage to the Children’ than COVID: Belgian Academy For Medicine,” The Pulse, October 11, 2021; Tom Jefferson & Carl Heneghan, “Masking lack of evidence with politics,” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, July 23, 2020; SPR, “Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence,” Swiss Policy Research, October 2021; Henning Bundgaard & Johan Skov Bundgaard, et al., “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 174(3), 2021, pp. 335–343; Kiva A. Fisher, Mark W. Tenforde, & Leora R. Feldstein, et al. “Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(36), 2020, pp. 1258–1264; Lillian Roy, “After recalling graphene-coated masks out of safety concerns, Health Canada says some models can come back on the market,” CTV News, July 14, 2021; Gabrielle Fahmy & Selena Ross, “Montreal transit workers the latest to learn they’ve been wearing potentially toxic masks,” CTV News, March 29, 2021; The Canadian Press, “Quebec’s education union wants to close down establishments where recalled masks were distributed,” CTV News, March 28, 2021; Selena Ross, “‘I just now feel a bit betrayed’: Quebec teachers and parents respond after potentially toxic masks pulled,” CTV News, March 26, 2021. For a philosopher’s understanding of masking, see Giorgio Agamben, “The Face and the Mask,” Old News, October 11, 2020.

7 David Cayley, “The Case against Vaccine Passports,” First Things, September 16, 2021; Giorgio Agamben, “Bare Life and the Vaccine,” D. Alan Dean, April 16, 2020; Lisa Bildy, “Trudeau’s vaccine passports are an affront to liberty,” Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, August 15, 2021; Douglas Farrow, “An Open Letter on Coercive Mandates and Vaccine Passports,” Crisis Magazine, August 30, 2021; Claus Rinner, Laurent Leduc, & Jan Vrbik, et al., “No, COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination do not ‘protect the health and safety of Canadians’,” Toronto Sun, August 24, 2021; Aaron Rock, “25 reasons to ban vaccine passports,” LifeSite News, August 31, 2021; Anthony Furey, “Why vaccine passports make things worse,” National Post, September 7, 2021; Jon Miltimore, “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished,” FEE Stories, August 30, 2021; Ann Cavoukian, “Vaccine passports to create ‘appalling’ level of surveillance tracking: Former Ontario privacy watchdog,” BNN Bloomberg; Isaac Teo, “Vaccine Passports Will Create a ‘Global Digital Infrastructure of Surveillance’: Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner,” The Epoch Times, October 20, 2021; OPCC, “Privacy and COVID-19 Vaccine Passports: Joint Statement by Federal, Provincial and Territorial Privacy Commissioners,” Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, May 19, 2021; Jeremy Loffredo & Max Blumenthal, “Public health or private wealth? How digital vaccine passports pave way for unprecedented surveillance capitalism,” The GrayZone, October 19, 2021; The Canadian Press, “Debate on vaccine passports would expose Quebecers to conspiracy theories: Legault,” CTV News, August 12, 2021; Daniel J. Rowe, “‘We have to confront our clients’: Quebec bars and restaurants struggling with COVID-19 vaccine passport rollout,” CTV News, September 24, 2021.

8 In almost all provinces of Canada, tenured and tenure-track plus part-time faculty, students, and staff, face expulsion and loss of employment for refusal to comply with the demand that they disclose their private and personal medical status; others have explicitly refused mandatory vaccination, while others still have rejected discriminatory testing in order to keep their jobs. See: Dr. Byram Bridle, “An Open Letter to the President of the University of Guelph,” September 17, 2021; Dr. Michael Palmer, et al., “Open letter to UW officials: Repeal the COVID vaccination and testing mandates,” August 26, 2021, see also “Requests to Repeal UW’s Mandatory Vaccination and Testing Policy”; CCCA, “Ethics professor threatened with dismissal for refusing vaccine,” Canadian Covid Care Alliance, also Arjun Walia, “Canadian Ethics Professor Dismissed For Refusing COVID Vaccine: A Powerful Message,” The Pulse, September 8, 2021; Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, “University Fires Surgeon Who Voiced Safety Concerns About COVID Vaccines for Kids,” The Defender, June 23, 2021. Many faculty unions have not only failed to stand by colleagues who faced termination over an abrupt change in the terms and conditions of their employment, the unions themselves have pushed for mandates. On the domestic travel ban that blocks non-vaccinated Canadians from accessing means of travel within the country, and that blocks them from leaving the country by normal means, see: Justin Trudeau, “Prime Minister announces mandatory vaccination for the federal workforce and federally regulated transportation sectors,” Prime Minister of Canada, October 6, 2021.

9 See in particular, “Division III: Public Health Emergency” (articles 118–130) of the Public Health Act (Bill 36, 2001, chapter 60), Second Session of the 36th Legislature, National Assembly of Quebec, 2001.

10 For the complete list of Quebec’s emergency measures, see: Measures adopted by Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders related to COVID-19), Gouvernement du Québec,

11 Indeed, the Government of Quebec has gone as far as to admit publicly that the state of emergency is not being used because of a “public health emergency,” but as a political tool that permits interference in collective bargaining. Quebec Premier François Legault said on Thursday, November 18: “Right now we’re paying an additional $4 an hour (for staff) because there’s a shortage of people working in health establishments. To do that, which is something not included in the collective agreement, we’re obliged to use the state of emergencyWe need the state of emergency to pay bonuses and we still need those bonuses to get more people working in health establishments” (emphases added). Reporters also noted that, “Legault made no reference to the province’s opposition parties, which have for weeks called for the state of emergency to be lifted in order to debate government decisions in a democratic manner. He was also silent concerning legal and rights experts who are questioning why emergency measures remain in effect”. These observations record the fact that the Quebec government has failed to explain or demonstrate the need for any continued state of emergency—see: The Canadian Press, “Quebec’s state of emergency will remain in effect until start of 2022,” Montreal Gazette, November 19, 2021. On the concept of rule by “state of emergency” (or state of exception), and the consequences of such rule in Canada, see the following: David Cayley, “Pandemic Revelations,” December 4, 2020; “Coronavirus and philosophers: M. Foucault, G. Agamben, S. Benvenuto,” European Journal of Psychoanalysis; Giorgio Agamben, “The State of Exception Provoked by an Unmotivated Emergency,” Praxis, February 26, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “The Coronavirus and the State of Exception,” Autonomies, March 3, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Contagion,” Write.as, March 11, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Reflections on the Plague,” Enough 14, April 7, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Social Distancing,” Ill Will, April 9, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “A Question,” An und für sich, April 15, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “New Reflections,” D. Alan Dean, April 22, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Medicine as Religion,” An und für sich, May 2, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Biosecurity and Politics,” D. Alan Dean, May 11, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “State of Exception and State of Emergency,” Old News, July 30, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “When the House Burns,” Architects for Social Housing, October 15, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “Some Data,” Old News, November 2, 2020; Giorgio Agamben, “War and Peace,” Ill Will, February 24, 2021.

12 Virat Agrawal, Jonathan H. Cantor, Neeraj Sood, & Christopher M. Whaley, “The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Policy Responses on Excess Mortality,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 28930, June, 2021; AIER Staff, “Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence,” American Institute for Economic Research, December 19, 2020; Greg Ip, “New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly,” Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2020.

13 The Canadian Press, “‘We’ll be living with overflow for a few months,’ says minister Dube regarding Quebec emergency rooms,” CTV News, July 5, 2021; Adam Kovac, “Many Quebec ERs stretched to capacity even as COVID numbers shrink,” CTV News, June 16, 2021. The explosive growth in ER visits for non-Covid sickness, as a result of delayed treatments, is also occurring in the US: “Except for initial hot spots like New York City, many ERs across the U.S. were often eerily empty in the spring of 2020. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency departments dropped to half their normal levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until the summer of 2021. But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where COVID-19 isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than they were before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care”—see: Kate Wells, “ERs are now swamped with seriously ill patients — but many don’t even have COVID,” NPR, October 26, 2021.

14 The Executive Director of the Quebec Cancer Coalition was reported as saying, “Where this gets us is another pandemic”; Dr. Neil Fleshner, Chair of Urology at the University of Toronto: “I do believe that patients with cancer in Canada…are being rendered fatal, terminal or incurable, as a result of what’s happened”—see: Tom Blackwell, “Pandemic-related cuts in cancer screening, surgery have doctors worried more people will die,” National Post, April 13, 2021.

15 StatCan, “Disruptions to cancer screening may lead to increases in cancer rates and deaths,” Statistics Canada, March 11, 2021.

16 Stephane Giroux & Luca Caruso-Moro, “Montreal records increase in opioid deaths in pandemic year as national fatalities skyrocket,” CTV News, June 25, 2021; Health Canada, “Opioid- and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada,” Government of Canada, September, 2021.

17 Becky Robertson, “Way more young people in Ontario died from effects of lockdown than of Covid itself,” BlogTO, July, 2021; Nadine Yousif, “‘Very, very concerning’: Pandemic taking heavy toll on children’s mental health, Sick Kids study shows,” Toronto Star, July 8, 2021; and, Denette Wilford, “More young Canadians died from ‘unintentional side effects’ of the pandemic, not COVID,” Toronto Sun, July 13, 2021.

18 “Provisional death counts and excess mortality, January 2020 to April 2021,” Statistics Canada, July 12, 2021.

19 Simran Kalkat, Julie Yixia Cai, & Shawn Fremstad, “Over 3.8 Million Young Adults Found Not Working or in School in Early 2021,” Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), June 23, 2021.

20 Anne C. Gadermann, Kimberly C. Thomson, Chris G. Richardson, et al., “Examining the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Family Mental Health in Canada: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Study,” BMJ Open, 2021.

21 Professor Douglas Allen, economist at Simon Fraser University, concluded that the lockdowns were possibly Canada’s greatest peacetime policy failure, one that also increased excess deaths—see: Douglas W. Allen, “Covid Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature”; HillNotes, “Impacts of COVID-19 on Employment in Canada by Sector,” Library of Parliament, June 25, 2020.

22 Matt Gilmour, “Number of homeless Montrealers doubled in pandemic; Plante floats new approach on campaign trail,” CTV News, October 11, 2021.

23 Tristin Hopper, “What 16 months of COVID lockdowns have cost us,” National Post, July 28, 2021; Nicole Gibillini, “Up to 225,000 Canadian firms could close because of COVID: CFIB CEO,” BNN Bloomberg, November 11, 2020; The Canadian Press, “Canada has slipped into recession due to COVID-19, C.D. Howe council says,” Global News, May 1, 2020.

24 Zara Liaqat, “Why COVID-19 is an inequality virus,” Policy Options Politiques, April 30, 2021. We note that “the virus” has no power to breed inequalities; this crisis bears only the imprints of the heavy hands of the state and large transnational corporations.

25 Government of Canada: Covid-19 daily epidemiology update.

26 Cathrine Axfors & John P.A. Ioannidis, “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview,” medRxiv, July 13, 2021; John P.A. Ioannidis, “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, October 14, 2020; Andrew T. Levin, William P. Hanage, & Nana Owusu-Boaitey, et al., “Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications,” European Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 2020, pp. 1123–1138; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine, appearing on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical AssociationNetwork conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner; Dominick Mastrangelo, “Stanford doctor: Coronavirus fatality rate for people under 45 ‘almost 0%’,” Washington Examiner, July 2, 2020.

27 UCL, “Symptoms of Covid-19 are a poor marker of infection,” UCL News, October 8, 2020, and Irene Petersen & Andrew Phillips, “Three Quarters of People with SARS-CoV-2 Infection are Asymptomatic: Analysis of English Household Survey Data,” Clinical Epidemiology, 12, 2020, pp. 1039‒1043.

28 The Norwegian Directorate of Health and the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) via: Office of the Prime Minister, “Norge går over til en normal hverdag med økt beredskap,” Regjeringen, September 24, 2021; in the UK, Jo Churchill, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, stated that, “as of 15 July [2021], Public Health England’s modelling group, with the MRC Biostats Unit, estimated that overall infection mortality rate is approximately 0.096%”: “Coronavirus: Death—Question for Department of Health and Social Care,” UK Parliament, July 12, 2021; the last point is relevant to the fact that, by some estimates, Covid is less fatal than the annual flu—see Simon Thornley, “The covid-19 elimination debate needs correct data,” BMJ, 371(3883), November 8, 2020.

29 Responding to news that a woman died from blood clotting caused by the AstraZeneca injectable (AstraZeneca has since been pulled from the market in Canada), Quebec Premier François Legault stated the following: “I’m very sad to know that a 54-year-old woman in good shape….died because she was vaccinated. Unfortunately these cases happen….I think people will still continue getting vaccinated. It’s very unfortunate and we’re sad about it, but unfortunately, that’s the price of vaccination” (emphases added): Amy Lift & Luca Caruso-Moro, “Experts worry AstraZeneca death will deter others from getting vaccinated,” CTV News, April 27, 2021. Death by “vaccination” was accepted as “the price to pay,” while even one death from the virus was condemned as “one death too many”—see: Franca Mignacca, “Quebec children can enjoy Halloween this year — but with some conditions,” CBC News, October 15, 2020, Kalina Laframboise, “Quebec mulls stricter COVID-19 measures but decision will be made next week, Legault says,” CTV News, December 11, 2020.

30 See this study which, “demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity”: Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, & Galit Perez, et al., “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,” medRxiv, August 25, 2021; plus, Jennifer Block, “Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?” BMJ, 374(2101), 2021. For a study conducted in Vancouver, that showed that, “more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2”: Abdelilah Majdoubi, Christina Michalski, & Sarah E. O’Connell, et al., “A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2,” JCI Insight, 6(8), 2021. This research echoes what was published in the summer of 2020 by Sweden’s prestigious Karolinska Institute which showed that, “many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies….this means that public immunity is probably higher than antibody tests suggest”: “Immunity to COVID-19 is probably higher than tests have shown,” Karolinska Institutet, August 18, 2020; see also, Takuya Sekine, André Perez-Potti, & Olga Rivera-Ballesteros, et al., “Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19,” Cell, 183(1), 2020, pp. 158–168.

31 Jeremy Loffredo, “We’re Not in a ‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated,’ Peter Doshi Explains During COVID Panel,” The Defender, November 5, 2021. Just as Peter Doshi critiqued the redefinition of the term “vaccine” to include treatments, the descriptive phrase “novel gene therapy,” is one that came from its developers—see: Grant A. Brown, “Can We Really Inject Our Way Out of This Pandemic? Part Two of a Special Series,” C2C Journal, September 22, 2021. This point was reinforced by Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, who explained that cell and gene therapies have been marketed as “vaccines” to the public, to make them more palatable: Jack Bingham, “Bayer executive: mRNA shots are ‘gene therapy’ marketed as ‘vaccines’ to gain public trust,” LifeSite News, November 10, 2021.

32 On the advertised safety of the Pfizer product, see the whistle blower’s damning account of the nature of the actual safety trials: Paul D. Thacker, “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial,” BMJ, 375(2635), November 2, 2021. See also, Peter Doshi, “Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine?” BMJ, August 23, 2021, and, Alex Berenson, “More people died in the key clinical trial for Pfizer’s Covid vaccine than the company publicly reported,” Unreported Truths, November 16, 2021.

33 Aaron Siri, “FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data,” Injecting Freedom, November 17, 2021.

34 See the Great Barrington DeclarationDeclaration of the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists; the Canadian Covid Care Alliance COVID-19 DeclarationCanadian Frontline NursesWorld Council for HealthWorld Doctors’ AllianceDoctors for Covid EthicsChildren’s Health Defense.

35 Several prominent Canadian scientists, doctors, and academics wrote in an open letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford regarding recommendations by the Science Advisory Table (SAT). The SAT’s claims were: 1.That COVID-19 vaccines are safe; 2. That COVID-19 vaccines are effective; 3. That general infection prevention and control to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is imperfect whereas vaccines provide safe and effective protection; and, 4. That efforts to counter ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among the most vulnerable, e.g., racialized workers, through ‘education’ and ‘personalized outreach’, will lead to trust building and will avoid losing ‘valuable members of the workforce’”. The authors of the open letter summarized their response as follows (backed by published scientific research): “None of these claims are based on scientific evidence”. See: Claudia Chauffan, Stephen Pelech, & Deanna McLeod, et al., “Response: COVID-19 vaccine mandates for Ontario’s hospital workers,” United Healthcare Workers of Ontario (UHCWO), October 28, 2021. See also, Arjun Walia, “UBC Immunologist Cautions People On COVID Vaccine Safety & Efficacy,” The Pulse, November 16, 2021.

36 For more on each of these points, see the following: Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele, & Michel Vaillant, “COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room,” The Lancet, 2(7), E279-E280, 2021; Paul Elias Alexander, “22 Studies and Reports that Raise Profound Doubts about Vaccine Efficacy for the General Population,” Brownstone Institute, October 28, 2021; Harald Walach, Rainer J. Klement, & Wouter Aukema, “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—Should We Rethink the Policy?” Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, 3, 2021, pp. 87‒99; Barbara A. Cohn, Piera M. Cirillo, & Caitlin C. Murphy, et al., “SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection and deaths among US veterans during 2021,” Science, November 4, 2021; Berkeley Lovelace Jr., “Israel says Pfizer Covid vaccine is just 39% effective as delta spreads, but still prevents severe illness,” CNBC, July 23, 2021; “UK study finds vaccinated people easily transmit Delta variant in households,” Reuters, October 28, 2021; Michelle Roberts, “Covid: Double vaccinated can still spread virus at home,” BBC News, October 28, 2021; Anika Singanayagam, Seran Hakki, Jake Dunning, “Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study,” The Lancet, October 29, 2021; HART, “Compulsory vaccination for NHS staff back on the agenda?” Health Advisory & Recovery Team, June 3, 2021; Paul Elias Alexander, “96 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted,” Brownstone Institute, October 17, 2021; Carolina Lucas, Chantal B.F. Vogels, & Inci Yildirim, et al. “Impact of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants on mRNA vaccine-induced immunity,” Nature, October 11, 2021; Gaëlle Breton, Pilar Mendoza, & Thomas Hagglof, et al., “Persistent Cellular Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” bioRxiv, December 9, 2020; Jennifer M. Dan, Jose Mateus, & Yu Kato, et al., “Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection,” Science, 371(6529), 2021; Victoria Jane Hall, Sarah Foulkes, & Andre Charlett, “SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN),” The Lancet, 397(10283), 2021, pp. 1459–1469; Jackson S. Turner, Wooseob Kim, & Elizaveta Kalaidina, et al., “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans,” Nature, 595, 2021, pp. 421–425; Ronald B. Brown, “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials,” Medicina, 57(199), 2021; Peter Doshi, “Pfizer and Moderna’s ‘95% effective’ vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data,” BMJ, November 26, 2020; and, note that even when giving full approval to Pfizer, the FDA in a letter to the company listed numerous safety studies yet to be undertaken by Pfizer, and in some cases the completion dates for these studies are in 2025—the list of 13 safety studies to be undertaken begins on page 5.

37 See: VigiAccess, produced by the WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring with the Uppsala Monitoring centre, reported a total of 2,528,564 adverse events reported for Covid-19 vaccines; “From the 11/5/2021 release of VAERS data: Found 18,461 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died,” National Vaccine Information Center; MHRA, “Coronavirus vaccine – weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting,” Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; “29,934 Deaths 2,804,900 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database of Adverse Reactions,” Vaccine Impact; and, Megan Redshaw, “Reports of Injuries, Deaths After COVID Vaccines Climb Steadily, as FDA, CDC Sign Off on Third Shot for Immunocompromised,” The Defender, August 16, 2021.

38 “Even if vaccination were universal, the coronavirus would probably continue to spread”: Melissa Healy, “CDC shifts pandemic goals away from reaching herd immunity,” Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2021.

39 See: Paul Elias Alexander, “28 Studies on Vaccine Efficacy that Raise Doubts on Vaccine Mandates,” Brownstone Institute, October 28, 2021; Catherine M Brown, Johanna Vostok, & Hillary Johnson, et al., “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings – Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(31), 2021, pp. 10591062; Laurel Wamsley, “Vaccinated People With Breakthrough Infections Can Spread The Delta Variant, CDC Says,” NPR, July 30, 2021; S.V. Subramanian & Akhil Kumar, et al. “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States,” European Journal of Epidemiology, September 30, 2021; Günter Kampf, “The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing,” The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 11, December, 2021; Pnina Shitrit, Neta S Zuckerman, & Orna Mor, et al., “Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021,” Eurosurveillance, 26(39), 2021; Kasen K. Riemersma, Brittany E. Grogan, & Amanda Kita-Yarbro, et al., “Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination,” medRxiv, October 15, 2021; Venice Servellita, Alicia Sotomayor-Gonzalez, & Amelia S. Gliwa, et al., “Predominance of antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants in vaccine breakthrough cases from the San Francisco Bay Area, California,” medRxiv, October 8, 2021; Charlotte B. Acharya, John Schrom, & Anthea M. Mitchell, et al., “No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups When Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant,” medRxiv, October 5, 2021; Nguyen Van Vinh Chau & Nghiem My Ngoc, et al., “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam,” The Lancet, October 11, 2021; “Pandemic of the Vaccinated – Worldwide data on 188 countries proves the highest Covid-19 case rates are in the most vaccinated countries,” The Exposé, November 2, 2021; and, Will Jones, “Vaccine Passports Make No Sense as the Vaccinated Are More Likely to Be Infected, Scientists Tell MPs,” The Daily Sceptic, November 22, 2021.

40 Elizabeth Redden, “Hundreds of Positive COVID Tests at Mostly Vaccinated Duke,” Inside Higher Ed, August 31, 2021; Kate Murphy, “Duke sets new campus restrictions after rise in COVID cases among vaccinated students,” The News & Observer, August 31, 2021; Joseph Silverstein, “Despite 95% vaccination rate, Cornell today has five times more COVID cases than it did this time last year,” The College Fix, September 4, 2021.

41 Eva Bartlett, “‘It’s absolutely appalling’: Unvaccinated Canadians become social outcasts and the new persecuted minority,” RT, October 21, 2021.

42 Even as the administration proclaimed its support for the vaccine passport system, and adopted it for all “non-essential” campus services (which include eating and fitness), the public relations unit of Concordia University proudly directed attention to new research involving Concordia that confirmed the large presence of “traditionally underrepresented groups” among the “vaccine hesitant”—see: Patrick Lejtenyi, “New data from a Montreal-led global study helps explain vaccination rates and vaccine hesitancy,” Concordia University News, August 31, 2021. See also, Kennedy Hall, “‘Absolutely forbidden’ to give COVID shots to kids, young men and women, Jewish court rules,” LifeSite News, November 2, 2021.

43 Statistics Canada reported that, “Among people designated as a visible minority, 74.8% reported being very or somewhat willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Some differences exist for willingness among particular visible minority groups. Compared to non-visible minorities (77.7%), a much lower proportion of the Black population (56.4%) reported being somewhat or very willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine….A lower rate of vaccine willingness was also seen among the Latin American population (65.6%)”: StatCan, “COVID-19 vaccine willingness among Canadian population groups,” Statistics Canada, March 26, 2021; see also Cosmin Dzsurdzsa, “Trudeau ignores impact of mandatory vaccines on First Nations, black Canadians,” True North, August 9, 2021; Michèle Newton, “Vaccine hesitancy a problem for us all,” Toronto Star, August 26, 2021; and, Selena Ross, “Vaccine refusal very high in Nunavik for ‘religious’ reasons or fears; cases escalating,” CTV News, November 8, 2021. However, note the dismissive and disbelieving CTV News headline in the latter reference, putting religious reasons inside quotation marks, as if such reasons were false or not worthy of respect—this, while Canadians preach about the dangers of “systemic racism”. Similar impacts on minorities from mandates are felt in the US—see: Joseph Goldstein & Matthew Sedacca, “Why Only 28 Percent of Young Black New Yorkers Are Vaccinated,” The New York Times, August 12, 2021; Kevin Jenkins & Joshua Coleman, “Thanks to Vaccine Mandates, Segregation Is Making a Comeback. Once Again, Black Americans Will Suffer Most,” The Defender, August 13, 2021; “Voter ID is racist but this isn’t? Fury over New York City vaccine pass that ACTUALLY discriminates against black Americans,” RT, August 3, 2021.

44 For studies and reports that paint a more realistic portrait of the “unvaccinated,” see: Bruce Anderson, “Typical ‘vaccine hesitant’ person is a 42-year-old Ontario woman who votes Liberal: Abacus polling,” Maclean’s, August 11, 2021; also, Amy Judd, “Polling the unvaccinated: Why Canadians say they won’t get a COVID vaccine,” Global News, November 3, 2021. On educational levels see UnHerd, “The most vaccine-hesitant group of all? PhDs,” The Post, August 11, 2021 and in particular this survey which found that, “The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤high school education(RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree”: Wendy C. King & Alex Reinhart, et al., “Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey,” medRxiv, July 23, 2021.

45 Robert G. Evans, “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Healthcare Policy, 5(4), 2010, pp. 16–25; DoJ, “Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History,” The United States Department of Justice, September 2, 2009; FBI, “The Case Against Pfizer,” The Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2, 2009; Drew Griffin & Andy Segal, “Feds found Pfizer too big to nail,” CNN, August 2, 2010; Pratap Chatterjee, “Pfizer Admits Bribery in Eight Countries,” CorpWatch, August 8, 2012; Richard Gale & Gary Null, “Pfizer’s History of Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Progressive Radio Network, March 10, 2021.

46 Gail Davidson, “The Right to Say No to COVID-19 Vaccines: International Human Rights Law Guarantees Rights and Prohibits Unlawful Restrictions,” Canadian Covid Care Alliance (CCCA), October 28, 2021.

47 Michael Kowalik, “Ethics of vaccine refusal,” Journal of Medical Ethics, February 26, 2021.

48 “The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE [antibody-dependent enhancement] should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent”: Timothy Cardozo & Ronald Veazey, “Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease,” The International Journal of Clinical Practice, 75(3), 2021.

49 See: Title II, Chapter I, Art. 7 of Quebec’s Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services.

50 Arjun Walia, “Rockefeller Foundation Pledges $13.5 Million To Censor Health ‘Misinformation’,” The Pulse, July 19, 2021.

51 Janice Flamengo, “How Covid-19 Killed Academic Tenure,” The Pipeline, October 14, 2021.

52 Janice Flamengo, “The Silence of the Professors,” Truth USA, August 31, 2021.

53 See the Special Issue on Covid Policies and Universities in Canada, published by the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, and edited by Janice Flamengo.

54 Joseph A. Ladapo & Harvey A. Risch, “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?” Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2021.

55 Michael Kowalik, “Ethics of Vaccine Refusal,” Journal of Medical Ethics, February 26, 2021. See also Lisa Boothe, “Why I’m Not Vaccinated,” Newsweek, November 15, 2021; and, Raelle Kaia, “What’s To Be Done about the Vaccine Hesitant?” November 11, 2021.

56 Ronald N. Kostoff, Daniela Calina, & Darja Kanduc, et al., “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” Toxicology Reports, 8, 2021, pp. 1665–1684; Heidi Ledford, “Deaths from COVID ‘incredibly rare’ among children,” Nature, 595, July 15, 2021; and, Larry Kwak, Steven T. Rosen, & Idit Shachar, “Applying brakes on ‘Warp Speed’ COVID-19 vaccinations for children: The long-term side effects are unknown,” The Washington Times, October 28, 2021; Elia Abi-Jaoude, Peter Doshi, & Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum, “Covid-19 vaccines for children: hypothetical benefits to adults do not outweigh risks to children,” BMJ, July 13, 2021; Jonas F. Ludvigsson, Lars Engerström, Charlotta Nordenhäll, Emma Larsson, “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden,” New England Journal of Medicine, 384, 2021, pp. 669‒671.

57 Zachary Stieber, “Researchers Call for Halt on COVID-19 Vaccines for Pregnant Women After Re-analysis of CDC Study,” The Epoch Times, November 2, 2021; Aleisha R. Brock & Simon Thornley, “Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy,” Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, 4, 2021, pp. 130–143; Colleen Huber, “COVID vaccines may rival or exceed ‘the morning-after pill’ in abortion efficacy,” The Defeat of Covid, August 6, 2021.


Résistance Scolaire – Québec -Academic Resistance (RSQAR) is a collective of Quebec professors and teachers at all levels of the education system who have joined with students and support staff in fighting against the state of emergency and coercive medical practices.

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Arctic River Discharge Growing

image

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | November 30, 2021

AMHERST, Mass. — A civil and environmental engineering researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has, for the first time, assimilated satellite information into on-site river measurements and hydrologic models to calculate the past 35 years of river discharge in the entire pan-Arctic region. The research reveals, with unprecedented accuracy, that the acceleration of water pouring into the Arctic Ocean could be three times higher than previously thought.

The publicly available study, published recently in Nature Communications, is the result of three years of intensive work by research assistant professor Dongmei Feng, the first and corresponding author on the paper. The unprecedented research assimilates 9.18 million river discharge estimates made from 155,710 orbital satellite images into hydrologic model simulations of 486,493 Arctic river reaches from 1984-2018. The project and the paper are called RADR (Remotely-sensed Arctic Discharge Reanalysis) and was funded by NASA and National Science Foundation programs for early career researchers.

Figure 2

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/809497

The key thing about this study is not that river flows are greater than previously estimated, but that they have increased over the period of the study, 1984-2018:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27228-1

This is significant because it means the Arctic Ocean is gradually becoming fresher. Exactly the same phenomenon occurred during what was called The Great Salinity Anomaly, GSA, which began in the 1960s. As Dickson & Osterhus described in their study, One Hundred Years in the Norwegian Sea in 2007:

Though other factors were involved in the freshening of the Arctic Ocean, such as the NAO, the GSA marked a dramatic shift in the Arctic climate, putting an end to what is known as the Warming of the North between 1920 and 1960 and bringing a much colder era.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that freshwater freezes at higher temperatures than salty water, leading to an increase in sea ice. The GSA is also known to have slowed down the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).

HH Lamb also wrote about it, particularly how the GSA was triggered by greater run off from rivers in Canada flowing into the Arctic:

HH Lamb: Climate, History & The Modern World

And a Russian study by Viktor Kuzin shows that 11% of the world’s river water flows into the Arctic, a considerable amount.

Source

A milder Arctic tends to be a wetter one, but a wetter climate leads to freshening of the ocean and a return to colder conditions. In other words, it is cyclical.

All of this reinforces the likelihood that the Arctic will become much colder, with sea ice expanding again in the not too distant future.

November 30, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

New law allows for warrantless spying on Australians – where next?

By Kit Klarenberg | RT | November 30, 2021

The Australian Signals Directorate, Canberra’s equivalent of Britain’s GCHQ or the US National Security Agency, will be granted sweeping new powers to spy on Australians for the first time since its November 1947 founding.

The move allows the agency to collect signals intelligence on individuals within the country without a warrant, although allegedly only in situations where there is an “imminent risk to life.” Domestic terror suspects are cited as a key target in the Directorate’s crosshairs, and it will also collect intelligence in conjunction with the Australian Defence Force for military operations, with ministerial authorization.

Rules governing the reform and protecting citizens’ privacy will be published on the agency’s website, and subject to review and scrutiny by the Australian parliament’s security and intelligence committee. While framed as sincerely concerned with keeping Australians safe, experts have expressed grave reservations about the development. Among them is John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Australian National University, himself a military intelligence veteran, who warned the powers were ripe for abuse.

“I’m a former insider… I have a much greater appreciation of the need for checks and balances, because power tends to corrupt,” he cautioned. “My concern is the legislation we put forward is being drafted by insiders, it’s drafted with their own concerns in mind.”

Drafted by insiders, the legislation certainly was – it’s inspired by the findings of an extensive review by Dennis Richardson, former chief of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the country’s FBI, conducted in close consultation with Australia’s assorted intelligence services, in a manner akin to foxes being quizzed on how best to guard a henhouse.

Published in December 2020, his appraisal’s discussion of “authorisations” noted that these agencies can already conduct warrantless intelligence-gathering if they believe it to be “necessary, proportionate, reasonable and justified” in certain circumstances, and “would like the ability” to not only use various investigative techniques without official permission, but also with “protection from criminal liability” when doing so.

Leaked documents exposed by journalist Annika Smethurst in April 2018 showed that high-level plans for untrammeled domestic spying by the Australian Signals Directorate date back even further. They revealed how the respective heads of Australia’s Defence and Home Affairs ministries had discussed allowing the agency to access citizens’ emails, bank records and text messages without approval, or trace. A government source told Smethurst they were “horrified” by the proposals, given “there is no actual national security gap this is aiming to fill.”

Australian Federal Police raided both the alleged leaker of the files and Smethurst the next year. In a perverse irony, the charges against her were dropped in May 2020, as Australian High Court judges unanimously ruled that the warrant secured from a magistrate in relation to the raid was invalid, because it not only “misstated the terms of the offence” but was also ambiguous if not outright absurd.

“[The warrant] lacked the clarity required to fulfil its basic purposes of adequately informing Smethurst why the search was being conducted and providing the executing officer and those assisting in the execution of the warrant with reasonable guidance to decide which things came within the scope of the warrant,” the High Court damningly concluded.

In other words, it was impossible to know from the warrant’s wording what the investigation actually concerned, what evidence or information was sought, and what, if any, crime she may or may not have committed. That this baseless and broad investigative authorization was formally granted at all renders the Directorate’s newfound power to conduct warrantless surveillance all the more disquieting. If such procedural perversion can occur even with putative oversight, what abuses will be engaged-in without any meaningful supervision?

Misuse of these capabilities is almost inevitable. In 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled warrants were mandatory for domestic intelligence gathering. Two years later, a Senate investigation found that the NSA and other US intelligence agencies had nonetheless been engaged in unauthorized spying on American citizens, including anti-war protesters, civil rights activists, and political dissidents, monitoring all their private communications from telephone conversations to telegrams. This led to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it a dedicated criminal offense to eavesdrop on American citizens without judicial oversight.

Yet,it was revealed in late 2005 that the NSA had all along continued illegally intercepting the phone calls and digital communications of US citizens, with the witting help of major telecoms giants, which passed copies of all emails, web browsing and other internet traffic to and from its customers at home and abroad to the agency, and its British counterpart GCHQ. Files disclosed in 2013 by whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed this criminal dragnet was truly global in scale, and very much ongoing.

Key components of this international spying network, known as ‘Five Eyes,’ are situated in Australia, at the Pine Gap and Kojarena satellite surveillance bases. According to investigative legend Duncan Campbell, around 80% of the messages intercepted by the latter – which employs US and British staff in key posts – are sent automatically to GCHQ and the NSA. While every Five Eyes member can theoretically veto requests for such material, “when you’re a junior ally” like Canberra, “you never refuse,” Campbell records.

One can’t help but wonder if the Directorate’s new domestic purview is an experiment, gauging levels of backlash and controversy among the Australian public, before similar measures – provably or potentially already in operation – are openly codified across all Five Eyes member states. Ongoing legal battles against mass data collection in various jurisdictions clearly necessitate the practice being legalized and legitimized. If Canberra’s American and/or British friends politely requested they run such a pilot scheme, would or even could they decline?

Reinforcing this interpretation, mere days after the Directorate’s remit was expanded, the Australian government pledged to introduce new laws forcing social media giants to “unmask” anonymous users who post offensive comments, with hefty fines doled out to those companies which are unwilling or unable to do so. The reasons for Canberra’s haste are unclear, although it’s surely no coincidence that London and Washington have battled for many years to end online anonymity for good – it’s only due to intense domestic opposition that these efforts have so far failed.

 Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

November 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dr Byram Bridle: The unanswered vaccine safety questions

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | November 25, 2021

EARLIER this month Dr Byram Bridle, a Canadian viral immunologist whose faculty at the University of Ontario has disowned him for his repeated assertion that Covid-19 vaccines are not safe, gave a remarkable off-the-cuff interview to a reporter. Bridle starts by explaining the reasons why heavily vaccinated countries are experiencing high case rates, why adverse reactions are not being reported or diagnosed and discusses the overwhelming evidence for ivermectin as an ant-viral treatment for Covid where studies have been conducted correctly.

You can watch the full video below.

DR BYRAM BRIDLE: A recent study came out looking at 68 different countries and they plotted on a graph the case rate for Covid-19 and the vaccination rate in the country. And the more vaccinated the country is, the more problems they’re having with Covid-19. So these people have the vaccine. Remember all the antibody titers they’re showing, that’s in the blood, but these people, on average, are quite poorly protected in their upper airways. And it’s not the virus that’s deep down in the alveoli that gets transmitted to other people because of the dead airspace when we exhale. It’s the viral particles that are in the upper airways. So that’s why the vaccinated can spread this just as efficiently as somebody who’s completely unprotected. And so these vaccines on that basis, because they don’t come close to conferring sterilising immunity, they don’t properly protect the upper respiratory tract, they only confer about four and a half months of immunity, it’s absolutely 100 per cent impossible to achieve the goal of herd immunity with these vaccines. 100 per cent impossible.

What I’ve seen way too much of – and it does cause me very serious concern – is we’re seeing people who had cancers that were in remission or that were being well-controlled, and their cancers have gone completely out of control after getting the vaccine. And what we do know with the vaccine is the vaccine causes at least a temporary drop in T-cell numbers and those T-cells are part of our immune system, and they’re the critical weapons that our immune system has to fight off cancerous cells. So there’s a potential mechanism there. And all I can say is I’ve seen . . . I’ve had people contact me with way too many of these reports for me to feel comfortable. I do feel that that’s probably, I would say, my newest major safety concern. And it’s also the one that is going to be by far the most underreported on any adverse event database. Because if somebody’s had a cancer before the vaccine, there’s no way public health officials will ever link it to the vaccine. But what we’re seeing is oncology teams that had pushed the cancers into remission or keeping them well-controlled can no longer control them after the vaccine.

So we know in Canada it’s very upsetting, because in Canada we have a system that will never, never detect problems with these vaccines – that’s why we’ve always had to rely on other countries. Like with the AstraZeneca vaccine, we told Canadians that the AstraZeneca vaccine was 100 per cent safe, despite the fact that 12 European countries had paused the programme to look for potential links to the blood clotting, potentially fatal blood clotting. And we were told as Canadians that we didn’t have to worry because ours was from a . . . they announced that the problem was associated with a single batch from a single production facility in Europe and ours was coming from India and therefore it didn’t apply to us. The European Medicines Agency will tell you that was never the case. And of course, then eventually, after there were Canadians that did die and many that did have to be treated for the blood clots, then we finally admitted that it was a problem.

And that’s how our system . . . our system is never going to work, because this is the thing. First of all, we’re not informing people when they get the vaccine that they’re to report any unusual medical condition up to eight weeks after receiving a dose of the vaccine. And then the attending physician is required to, by law, to report anything unusual. Most physicians are not. And now some of them are . . . many don’t, because they don’t want to contradict the current narrative. And the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has turned out to be incredibly tyrannical and are crushing many physicians and threatening many who don’t go with this narrow public health narrative. Many also can’t get their submissions done because they’re onerous. So, for example, British Columbia can take up to 40 minutes to submit one of these reports, and you can imagine if there’s an Emergency Room physician who sees five people in a shift that come in with problems and have recently been vaccinated, they can’t afford to spend hours on that shift, reporting it, right?

So there’s many reasons why people aren’t reporting to the physicians, and there are many reasons why the physicians aren’t reporting to the local Medical Officer of Health. And that’s the next step is, if a physician submits it, it doesn’t necessarily go into our database, it goes to the local Medical Officer of Health. This is the thing: the physicians are not supposed to make a determination of whether they think the medical condition that’s occurred after the vaccine is or is not related to the vaccine. They’re not supposed to make that determination. The local Medical Officers of Health are. And as you can imagine, with the huge bias that exists there, the majority of them, we’re seeing unusually high percentages of these reports that do get submitted being rejected at the level of the local Medical Officer of Health. And then from there, the ones that they do approve go to the Public Health Agency of Canada and then they could be filed into our adverse event database. But because of that, because of all the filtering that’s going on, this is the problem. We’re not getting accurate numbers.

So yes, a statistician, of course, could be looking for these. But if you don’t get accurate numbers reported, you can do all the analysis you want, it’s not going to be accurate, right? Your analysis is only as accurate as the data, the raw data you have to work with.

A D-dimer test is definitely a good one to do, because it can be suggestive of micro clots, which could be an indicator of blood clotting. But yeah, we’re finding that most physicians won’t do it. And we’re also finding a shortage, actually, of the blood collection tubes that are needed to do that as well.

Yeah, yeah, no, this is a virus. But ivermectin has clear-cut antiviral properties. For example, it has multiple mechanisms of action, but one is it inhibits the binding of the spike protein on the virus to these receptors that we have on the cells of our lungs. And yeah, what’s interesting is a lot of countries . . . so, that’s what’s frustrating for me as a vaccine developer, I knew that there was going to be no outlet for the vaccines if there were effective early treatment strategies. So I followed the science for the early treatment strategies, and I saw that the studies were flawed early on.

For example, a lot of the studies that were being done were being done in countries where things like ivermectin were available over the counter. So in other words, they were testing their treatment group, which was getting a defined amount of ivermectin and comparing it to a control group which had an undefined amount of ivermectin. So essentially comparing ivermectin treatment to ivermectin treatment, right? And then they showed there was no benefit. Well, of course not. If you’re comparing, you know, a treatment group to a treatment group.

And so when the science has been done properly, there’s an overwhelming [body] of scientific data showing that it works. And so even though I love vaccines, I couldn’t help but wonder why we were providing initially this authorisation for interim use, what we call emergency use in the United States, because we had clear, effective early treatments. I have worked with many physicians. These things clearly work. In fact, a lot of the countries that are having the most success, like, for example, a lot of the low income countries have had no choice. I mean, look, they’ve been left to take the leftovers for the vaccines. They can’t afford a lot of expensive treatments. So they have been relying on these effective early treatment strategies using repurposed generic drugs that are really cheap, and they’ve had a huge success.

So, for example, Egypt is a good example. Egypt, you know, Egypt has a three per cent vaccination rate. Three per cent of their eligible population is double vaccinated compared with Canada, which is at around 64 or 66 per cent. And they have 14 cases of Covid-19 per 100,000 people per day on average, whereas we have about 570 cases per day, so vastly higher.

And this is what people are seeing. A recent study came out looking at 68 different countries, and they plotted on a graph the case rate for Covid-19 and the vaccination rate in the country. And the more vaccinated the country is, the more problems they’re having with Covid-19. And when you look at these countries that have low vaccination rates, they’ve been relying on effective early treatment strategies.

So for example, with Egypt, I didn’t realise, but I asked that question to my collaborators, ‘What is Egypt doing right that we’re not doing here in North America?’ They sent me the official treatment protocol for Covid-19. Do you know what the number one thing is that they go to first? [It] is hydroxychloroquine and number two is ivermectin.

And if you look at Israel – Israel has the highest vaccination rate in the world, right? And the Delta variant is completely out of control, which is why they’ve been administering the third dose, why they’ve committed to a fourth dose. And with these numbers I was telling you, so they have the highest vaccination rates. So again, keep this in mind so as to understand – Egypt: three per cent vaccination rate, 14 cases per 100,000 of the population per day. Israel is at over an 80 per cent vaccination rate and has over 5,000 cases right now per day.

So these things work best as an early treatment strategy, so they should be administered. The sooner you administer them, the better the outcome. So we’ve had physicians – and I know these people and they’re good friends of mine – who have been absolutely destroyed for using ivermectin with their patients, and they’ve kept their patients out of the hospital, they’ve kept them out of the ICU. I find this exceptionally frustrating because I keep getting criticised for raising my concerns about the vaccines and harms, and I have physicians coming at me and saying, ‘Well, if only you saw on the front lines what happens to people who die from Covid and how terrible it is.’ And yes, it’s awful, and I feel terrible for all of them. But the other thing that I point out is it’s estimated that more than half the people that have died in this pandemic would be alive today if we had accepted these early treatment strategies. That’s the reality, and I’ve seen it with every physician who has administered this. They talk about our ICUs being overrun, but every physician that I have worked with – and I’ve worked with many who have used these effective treatment strategies – they’ve kept their patients out of the ICU. They don’t go to the ICU and they don’t die.

Do you realise that the way we’ve been treating patients is they go to the hospital and if they aren’t sick enough to go on a respirator, they typically get sent home and it’s, you know, take fluids and some of these other . . . maybe some aspirin. It’s basically what were they like to call in medicine, ‘watchful waiting’, which means, ‘we’re going to do nothing’, right? And you literally have to wait till you’re sick enough to come in and basically be put in the ICU and put on a respirator.

That’s not how you treat disease, right? The earlier you intervene, the better the outcome. And we have these early treatment strategies, and I think it’s no coincidence the only one we’ve approved in Canada is called remdesivir. It does have genuine safety issues and does virtually nothing for Covid-19. But it’s on patent and there’s tons of money that can be made. These other ones are dirt cheap. Ivermectin, you can treat somebody for about a dollar a day. So they’ve been using it to great effect in all these low income countries. But in North America, we’ve refused to adopt these strategies.

And you have to understand, and they even talk about safety issues. Well, one of the things is, so, there’s rare cases of safety issues associated with using the veterinary form, and that’s simply because of calculation errors – people making simple mathematical errors when trying to convert to the human dose. And the reality is that ivermectin is on the list for the World Health Organisation of one of the 50 most needed drugs in the entire world, has an unbelievable safety record. It’s used worldwide to effectively treat all these parasitic diseases. It was approved by Health Canada in 2018 to treat exotic parasitic diseases when Canadians are travelling. And so there’s absolutely no excuse.

Dr Bridle: My own physician, honestly, criticised me, saying I’m giving out this messaging, talking about patients of hers that died.

I respectfully pointed out that I’m also on the front lines and I’m trying to deal on a daily basis with family members of people who have died from the Covid-19 vaccines. And so I’m seeing these horrible deaths as well on the other side.

And the difference to me is, had they not rejected these effective early treatment strategies, at least half of the patients that died in their practices would be alive today.

So I’m sorry, I don’t have a lot of patience for these physicians. And I’m just going to point out one thing as well that’s important for the general public to know. I usually don’t ever, ever criticise anybody’s expertise in their particular area of work. But we’re in unique times. And so I think the public needs to be aware.

We put a lot of faith in our physicians. The average family physician knows almost nothing about immunology and certainly about vaccines. People forget vaccinology is a sub-discipline of immunology. The average family physician in Canada gets between five and ten lectures in their first year on immunology, of which a tiny fraction of that is going to be dealing with vaccines.

They are not immunologists, they are not vaccinologists and they’re ignoring the vaccinologist here in Canada. They are promoting the vaccines and the reality is they don’t understand the science, and they do not have a deep enough understanding, on average, to understand the science and to understand the debates that are going on.

Interviewer: If information has been deliberately suppressed about these treatments, that would be a crime, seeing that people are dying?

Dr Bridle: Yes. Yes.

Interviewer: Doctor, will we see a national debate, like with top scientists on this subject ever in Canada? Like their side for pro, and our side? Do you think we’ll ever see that in Canada?

Dr Bridle: I and my colleagues have been open to that for months, many months. I would love to see it done. The public should be insisting on it, like the old-fashioned good scientific debates.

I would argue scientists can talk about the science. We can put aside our emotions. We can talk about it respectfully. I would argue what I would like to see happen is have a team – if it’s too big, it gets a little unwieldy – so I’d say between three and five scientists and/or physicians who want to debate both aspects of the Covid-19 policies and then have it moderated by somebody. And it has to be very public.

And that’s what I keep pointing out to the public. People who keep arguing that those of us who have legitimate concerns are wrong, providing misinformation, that we’re lying and that we don’t know what we’re talking about, have to keep asking themselves why then are many of us standing there in the arena like the gladiators of old? We’re standing in the arena, we’re waiting. None of their champions will step forward. None. We’ve tried it.

So we tried this in Ontario with (their Premier) Doug Ford. It was attempted in Alberta. It was attempted in Saskatchewan, where their premiers were also invited to have these open scientific discussions.

Nobody so far – and I know I’ve issued invitations. Every single person who attacks me I invite them to come on and talk publicly. I was even being interviewed once and live in the chat somebody was trolling the whole talk.

It was interesting. The person who was interviewing me stopped and invited the person to come on. They logged off pretty quickly. And that’s what we’re seeing over and over again. It’s remarkable.

I’ve asked thousands of people, not one person, not even one, in all these months has been willing to talk openly, publicly about the science and medicine underlying Covid-19. It’s exceptionally frustrating.

Even my own colleagues at the university who have attacked me, there are 83 of them, about that number, who signed a letter to the public saying that I was lying to the public, providing misinformation.

Do you realise some of these individuals were just down the hallway from me, in the same hallway, just a few doors down? None, not one of them, not one of those people was ever willing to talk to me on the phone, in a Zoom meeting or come to my office – and I have an open door policy and I invited many of them to do so – not one person.

And then, even after they signed that off, saying that I was giving misinformation, I had written a scientific document to outline the science that I’d been talking about, because this was birthed from a short interview that I gave on the radio, where I expressed concerns that the messenger RNA vaccines might be linked to the heart inflammation that was occurring in young people. And then I was attacked on that. 

I wrote a document with all the science because, of course, I was not able to deliver all of my scientific arguments in that short interview.

People argued to the public, ‘You realise he only told you half the story.’ And I laugh about that because I say, ‘Well, you’re giving me far too much credit because I didn’t even get to deliver one per cent of the story.’

They’re trying to mean that I didn’t get to the other side of the story. No, there was so much more science, so many more mechanisms of action, of potential harm of these things.

And after I wrote that document, this letter was written by my colleagues. You realise that of those who I was able to get a straight answer from, none of them had even read my science. None of them had even bothered to see what my arguments were for my position. This is what’s happening right now, and the censorship is extreme it’s really unbelievable.

Interviewer: Some of your colleagues, they also said that it doesn’t alter DNA. Would you care to comment on that?

Dr Bridle: Yeah. So when it comes to the DNA, there isn’t sufficient data to … my personal opinion is that it’s not substantially altering the DNA.

All I can tell you is it was thought that human cells did not have a type of protein that’s needed to convert the messenger RNA in the vaccine into DNA. It turns out we do actually have these types of proteins present. So it’s theoretically possible.

Personally, I would think that it’s probably not a substantial issue, but theoretically possible. So as this is theoretically possible, I would argue as a scientist that it would be worthwhile investigating that – doing the research just to alleviate our concerns, people’s concerns, about that.

That’s the thing, people ask these questions and as you see that there’s theoretical possibilities for these happening, that used to be the scientific basis for then conducting the research and definitively answering people’s questions. So many of the questions that you have, I can’t definitively answer because we’ve lost this whole concept of conducting research to address the tough questions.

Interviewer: What I find interesting with what you’re saying is what I’m seeing, very clearly, is you’re confronting a talking point, not a science. And let me illustrate what I mean by that.

You ask a doctor about all this and what’s their answer if you really push them? ‘Well, we’re following the advice of x, y, z and they’re following the science that we trusted?’ Right? You go to the level above them, same thing. You go to the level above them, same thing.

Dr Bridle: We’ve tried, as scientists …

Interviewer: I understand that. You guys will talk to science because you’re working with it. The other side is purposely convoluting science from a talking point.

Dr Bridle: Yes.

Interviewer: I honestly wonder if they have a science. My wife and I survived …

Dr Bridle: Well, at this point I can tell you, as a scientist – that’s why I’m willing to debate anybody on it – they don’t have the science on their side. That’s very clear. And in fact, you no longer need to understand the science, you just need to understand the contradictions that are coming.

Because, this is the thing, the reason why people like Dr Palmer and myself can stand up and talk off the cuff without any script here is because we’re speaking the truth. We’re speaking based on our knowledge, and we don’t have to keep track of a story when we’re speaking the truth.

We don’t have to make sure that what we’re saying today matches what we said at last week’s rally or the one before that. But the public health narrative has become so discombobulated now that they’re constantly contradicting themselves.

And there’s so many examples that I could give you. But let’s take one, for example. I encourage people now to start taking headlines from the mainstream media from months ago, which had people like myself censored, and line them up side-by-side with headlines that they have today.

‘So a great example is this whole issue of the vaccine mandate and the fact that, you know, what are we telling people right now? If you have one dose of the vaccine, you’re lumped in with the unvaccinated. You’re dangerous, you’re the same as somebody who has been unvaccinated, you’re unprotected and you’re going to kill everybody else, right?

We know from the very get-go, the two-dose regimen was proclaimed to have 95 per cent effectiveness. So, this is the thing, a lot of people who are accepting this current messaging about the ‘one dose doesn’t count’ have forgotten about the one-dose summer.

Remember when Trudeau (the Canadian Prime Minister) was pushing and all we were hearing about was the one-dose summer? So in Canada, the world was watching us in bewilderment and wondering what the basis was for us going from the approved three or four-week interval, depending on whether it was the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, to a four-month interval.

And if you recall, the reason why we could go for the one-dose summer and not worry about getting people two doses is because we were told one dose was 95 per cent effective.

‘A lot of you don’t realise this. If you don’t believe me, you can go on the Health Canada website right now and look. They will have on there that the one dose of the Pfizer vaccine is 95 per cent effective.

So now you have to start asking yourself, using their own messaging: If one dose is 95 per cent effective and two doses is 95 per cent effective, then why are the people with one dose being lumped in with those who are unvaccinated? Why was that OK then, when trying to justify going to a four-month interval, which had no scientific basis?

But now those same people who are sitting with one dose are told, ‘No, no, no. It’s not 95 per cent effective, it’s the equivalent of being unvaccinated altogether.’

This is where we’re getting to. So on that basis alone, that’s what I’m saying is, it’s become blatantly obvious. You don’t have to understand the science. They are not following the science, they’re contradicting themselves over and over and over again.

DR BYRAM BRIDLE:  There’s been a remarkable number of young people who have died for no apparent reason. And in many cases, we can’t confirm their vaccination status. But I’ve been particularly concerned about the number of varsity athletes at our universities who have been dying completely unexpectedly and suddenly. And the only thing that I can tell you – and I don’t know whether they were or were not vaccinated – well, actually, I can’t tell you when they were vaccinated. What I can tell you is that no varsity athlete in Ontario can participate in a varsity team without being vaccinated. They weren’t allowed exemptions.

INTERVIEWER: My point on that example was simply this: if you’re following the science, that first statement that that head doc released would never be said.

BRIDLE: Yes.

INTERVIEWER: You would say, ‘We don’t know.’

BRIDLE: Exactly. That’s exactly, yes.

INTERVIEWER: But that’s the way they’re reporting it tells you . . .

BRIDLE: As you heard from me, yeah.

INTERVIEWER:  . . . their complete agenda.

BRIDLE: As you heard from me. I won’t say definitively that it’s because of the vaccine. I’m a scientist, I’m open to that possibility that there is some other underlying condition with any individual case. But there’s too many of these to not investigate properly. Absolutely.

INTERVIEWER: And if anybody’s paying attention, that whole approach should really put your guard up.

BRIDLE: Yes.

INTERVIEWER: You should realise there’s something drastically wrong with public health officials who would talk with that kind of language.

BRIDLE: Yeah, well, look at the language. So, another contradiction is . . . so, for example, at my university, our president hosted the local Medical Officer of Health who declared the whole reason why the vaccine mandate made so much sense is that there is essentially no such thing as a breakthrough infection. And that’s still being claimed by many, although their ability to claim that continues to be eroded. But that was the idea, and they cited like a 0.003 per cent breakthrough infection rate, so essentially zero, meaning you’re completely protected.

And when our President was asked about that recently, she actually created quite a furore on our campus, because she completely contradicted the messaging that they had just given. Well, the reason why, of course, they still have to mask and physically distance is because, hey, you know, it’s well known that people who are vaccinated can still get infected, still get Covid and transmit the virus. And in fact, there’s very good immunological reasons why people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus and the scientific data that is emerging is showing that they can transmit at least as efficiently as somebody who has no immunity whatsoever.

And the reason is, is because when we put the vaccine in the shoulder, we’re tricking our bodies into thinking that it’s what we call systemic infection. And so, the problem is that is where your body wants to protect the most is the blood, because if a pathogen gets into the blood it can disseminate throughout the whole body. And so we got all these antibodies in the blood.

So, the one place in our respiratory system where these antibodies will spill over into, if you’re trying to protect against a systemic infection, are the lower airways. And that’s because you just think about gas exchange. There’s barely a physical barrier between the alveolar space and the blood vessels to allow that ready air exchange, which also means it’s very easy for a pathogen that gets deep into the lungs – so that would be what we call pneumonia – for that pathogen to get into the blood. So we put antibodies in the lower airways if we think we have a systemic infection. But we aren’t getting proper antibody protection in the upper airways like we would if we were naturally infected. So these people that have the vaccine, yeah, remember all the antibody titers they’re showing, that’s in the blood. But these people, on average, are quite poorly protected in their upper airways. And it’s not the virus that’s deep down the alveoli that gets transmitted to other people, because of the dead airspace when we exhale, it’s the viral particles that are in the upper airways. So that’s why the vaccinated can spread this just as efficiently as somebody who’s completely unprotected.

And so these vaccines, on that basis, because they don’t come close to conferring sterilising immunity, they don’t properly protect the upper respiratory tract. They only confer about four and a half months of immunity. It’s absolutely 100 per cent impossible to achieve the goal of herd immunity with these vaccines. 100 per cent impossible. For these companies it would be such a quick and easy and cheap study to do, and they could definitively rule this problem in or out. And whenever there’s such easy to do research to be done and they won’t do it, that for me is always a red flag.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah, exactly why isn’t that happening?

DR BYRAM BRIDLE: Yes. All I can say is, again, we’re not being provided with accurate data. So it’s hard to answer any of these questions to do with, you know, what’s actually due to COVID, what’s due to other things? And how we’re defining these things is crazy. Like I said, we’re not even defining somebody who’s vaccinated until they’re 14 days out from their second dose. The second dose is serving as a booster, right? And so typically, the immune response would be peaking actually about five to ten days after receiving that. So we’re actually taking people who would theoretically be at the absolute peak of a vaccine-induced immunity, and we’re calling them not fully vaccinated, for example.

And so for example, if people were to die in that time frame, even if it was linked to the vaccine, it’d be linked as somebody who was not fully vaccinated having died. So it’s very difficult with all these kind of nuances that are going on. All I can say really is what we do know is that the problem of Covid, the number of cases has been dramatically overestimated, but to an unknown degree, because of the way we’ve misused the PCR test. And we know that the problems associate with the vaccines have been grossly underestimated, but to an unknown degree.

And so until we have accurate numbers for these – which I can’t see we’re going to have at any time soon unless we completely change the way we’re monitoring these things – we’re not going to be able to come up with accurate assessments as scientists of . . . you know, with these kind of questions. But the issue was at the beginning, or the problem was, people kept arguing that this could have between a 1 and 10 per cent fatality rate, infection fatality rate, meaning for every 100 people who were infected with the virus between 1 and 10 would die. But the thing is, as we never knew what the proper denominator was, how many people were getting infected – we still don’t know, because again, like I mentioned, there’s many of us . . . well, in fact, just right here, there was an individual who has gone now, but showed me his test result. He had had a positive Covid test result almost a year and a half ago, when he showed me his antibody response for the spike protein, it’s higher, way higher than the average person who’s been vaccinated at the peak, at the peak of their antibody response. So there’s somebody who clearly acquired immunity naturally. And we’re not tracking these people at all, because in many cases where people have actually been infected they didn’t even know it and have natural immunity.

We’re running this clinical trial where we’re evaluating natural acquisition of immunity. We’re finding a huge number of people who never realised that they were sick have clear evidence of immunity against this virus. So that means that for those individuals they were infected but this was not a pathogen for them and they recovered without, you know, without developing disease. And so we have no idea – and we now know this is much more common than we accepted at the beginning – but we have no idea just how common, right?

So the point is, we still don’t know the full extent of the denominator. But when it was updated in February, what was published at that time was that the infection fatality rate was 0.15 – so not even 1 per cent like we were being told, but 0.15 per cent – and that was for the entire population. And if you took out those who were 70 years and older, it dropped to 0.05 per cent. So, just to put that into perspective, a bad flu season would be at 0.1 per cent.

So again, if you go out of the high risk, the highest risk demographic, those over 70. And we’re actually dealing with a problem that is less fatal than the annual flu. And especially when we start talking about children – we’ve had one infant in BC who died. We’re, you’re talking about taking these vaccines down now, in the next phase, to five-year-olds and then all the way down to six months of age. And when you start getting down to under ten years of age, virtually nobody has died. And when you look at the flu, it’s far more dangerous for these individuals.

And if you want to look at another one, respiratory syncytial virus, which we live with – far more dangerous to young people. And this is where even pregnant or breastfeeding women are being told, encouraged, to get vaccinated to protect their infants. It’s crazy. It’s all based on this . . . it’s easy to make people feel that infants are very fragile, very fragile human beings, which in some ways they are. But when it comes to SARS-CoV-2, this was presented today: the younger you are, the fewer receptors you express in your respiratory system that this virus can use to latch on to your cells. And in fact, when you get down into the infants, they’re quite resistant to infection with this virus. And that’s why we haven’t been seeing deaths among that population.

So it’s very unusual, with any other infectious disease you always have two peaks: the frail elderly and the very young. And it’s very clear why, because the frail elderly . . . well, as we get older, our immunological function declines so we in essence become somewhat immunosuppressed as we get older. And then on the very young side, our immune systems don’t fully mature until we’re 16 years old. Still, some components of the immune system maturing as young teenagers. So we’re dealing with less mature immune systems, immune systems that aren’t fully mature as we get into the youngest population. So that’s why we usually see these peaks in the oldest and the youngest. But SARS-CoV-2 is not like that, it’s very unusual in the sense that, yes, infants are relatively immature in terms of their immunological functioning, but they’re physically very resistant to infection with this virus.

So this is all crazy to be encouraging breastfeeding women to be vaccinated, to protect their infants. Their infants are already naturally protected. And as we go down and we start vaccinating six-month-old breastfeeding infants, what we’re doing is we’re bypassing the natural protection they have from the virus when we inject these vaccines, where we start getting their body to manufacture the spike protein. And again, I can’t emphasise enough. The spike protein is not the inert target that we were hoping it would be for the immune system. It has all kinds of biological activities in our bodies that can potentially be harmful.

And what people have to understand is that the receptor that that spike protein can bind to in our children and infants is expressed at the same concentration internally as in adults. And that’s because that protein doesn’t exist to serve as a receptor for the virus, it actually exists to serve basic physiological processes such as regulating blood pressure and so on. So, they’re naturally protected from infection from SARS-CoV-2, but when we put the vaccines in, they’re at least as susceptible as adults to all the harms.

November 28, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

Canadian landlord says tenants need to show a vaccine passport to live in building

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 27, 2021

Strategic Group, a major rental housing provider in Alberta, Canada, announced that all new tenants need to show a vaccine passport to live in its properties. Critics claim the renter’s vaccine mandate sets a dangerous precedent.

“Vaccination of everyone in our community is the only way we are going to get through this pandemic and back to a sense of normalcy,” said Riaz Mamdani, founder and CEO of Strategic Group, in an October 28 press release.

“The safety of our team and our residents is a top priority, so ensuring full vaccination across the board is the least we can do.”

The press release said that “all employees, residents, and prospective residents” have to be vaccinated. Existing tenants will have to show proof of vaccination. Anyone “unable to be vaccinated (i.e., children under the age of 12) is exempt until able to receive the vaccine.”

“These rules apply to all of Strategic Group’s residential communities in Alberta.”

The renter owns more than 100 1 and 2-bedroom units in Edmonton and Calgary.

The Canadian Press reported that the Strategic Group COO Tracey Steman said that the company was “very proud” of the mandatory vaccination policy.

“And we’d like to see other landlords implement the same policy… It will help to end this pandemic,” Steman continued.  “We’ve had really good feedback from our tenants.”

According to the company’s CEO, residents inspired the new policy as they were saying that “they value knowing that all their neighbors are vaccinated – they feel even safer in their own homes.”

Eva Chipiuk of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) told LifeSiteNews that Strategic Group’s vaccine mandate for tenants “sets a dangerous precedent in Alberta and in Canada.”

“According to this renter’s policy, you do not deserve a roof over your head unless you have taken an experimental injection,” said Chipiuk.

“Such a policy, utterly unthinkable two years ago, is now frighteningly announced with pride,” she added.

“Under what authority is this policy being made?”

Chipiuk noted that the laws banning smoking indoors were discussed in “government housing.”

“This is not the same. These rental companies are taking the law into their own hands. If we allow this to happen, what will be next and who will find themselves without a place to live?” the lawyer asked.

In an article on The Lawyers Daily, landlord-tenant lawyer Caryma Sa’d explained why it is illegal for landlords to enforce vaccine passport mandates for tenants. Sa’d noted that refusing a potential client because of their vaccination status is discrimination.

Also, “landlords cannot simply make unilateral changes to the terms of the agreement, which would include imposing proof of vaccination as a condition of the tenancy.”

“This would prevent a landlord from attempting to evict a tenant based on vaccination status, unless it can be established that the tenant is substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of others within the unit or otherwise causing serious problems at the residential complex because of their vaccination status,” the lawyer continued.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations John Dickie told the Canadian Press that it was “possible” for some landlords to follow Strategic Group’s lead and implement a vaccine passport mandate, but that was not likely to be “very widespread.”

“We’re not the health police,” said Dickie.

“Rental housing providers realize people need housing. We’re not in the habit of inquiring into people’s political views.”

November 27, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

They Just Admitted What The Passport System Is For

By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | November 16, 2021 

You’ve probably seen a handful of people on social media say that vaccine passport systems make them “feel safe.” You know and I know that these systems have nothing to do with health or safety.

Well, some authorities in Canada just admitted what you and I knew: the aim is to punish the unvaccinated.

The British Columbia Parks and Recreation department says: “Remember, the purpose of the PoV card is to incentivize residents to be vaccinated, not to control the spread of the virus.

Then further: “This is an important shift to keep aware of for your decision-making; the province has shifted from actions that provide a COVID-safe environment to actions that provide discretionary services to the vaccinated.

Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, added:

“The vaccine passport requires people to be vaccinated to do certain discretionary activities such as go to restaurants, movies, gyms, not because these places are high risk. We are not actually seeing covid transmission in these settings.

It really is to create an incentive to improve our vaccination coverage…. The vaccine passport is for non-essential opportunities, and it’s really to create an incentive to get higher vaccination rates.”

So even though cities and countries with these systems in place are doing no better than countries that don’t, that isn’t the point.

The point, as I’ve said all along, is to punish those who decline the vaccines.

Bold emphasis added.

November 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Yemen on the Brink of Disaster, Poverty, and Extinction

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 03.11.2021

UNICEF Spokesperson James Elder has just returned from Yemen with some tragic news about children living in what the United Nations calls the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

Speaking at a press briefing in Geneva, he said: “The Yemen conflict has just hit another shameful milestone: 10,000 children have been killed or maimed since Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign started in March 2015. That’s the equivalent of four children every day.” Elder told reporters that the estimates provided by the international UN agency were likely an understatement of the actual number of children killed and injured, which is rarely recorded by anyone. “These are of course the cases the UN was able to verify. Many more child deaths and injuries go unrecorded, to all but those children’s families.”

International experts have identified four significant dangers that have brought the country to the brink of humanitarian collapse. First of all, it is a brutal and protracted military conflict, and the blame for unleashing it lies entirely with the US and Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the colossal economic devastation that struck all regions of the country resulted from the military conflict. Also, there is a lack of infrastructure and social services, i.e., health, nutrition, water and sanitation, social protection, and education. Finally, the UN is critically underfunded.

It may be recalled that the war with Yemen began in March 2015, when Saudi Arabia brazenly and cynically launched a bombing campaign to restore the former regime, which obeyed orders from Riyadh, essentially maintaining Yemen’s status as a parallel and subordinate state to the Saudis. This had been the case before the popular revolution in the country, which triggered powerful Saudi airstrikes. The United States sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to the Kingdom during this war, in addition to intelligence and logistical support for Saudi military aircraft. Evidence shows that the UK is the second-largest supplier of arms to Riyadh, which is being actively used in an undeclared war, mostly against civilians. Other Western countries, including “democratic” France and Canada, have also profited enormously from this war, supplying the Saudis with mountains of offensive weapons.

These are the words and deeds of the so-called democratic West. Calling for democracy and freedom in their words, Western countries in reality supply arms and military equipment at every opportunity, thus fomenting military conflicts in which hundreds of thousands of people die in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya. It makes one wonder where are the so-called international organizations which allegedly aim to prevent conflict and prosecute those who incite and encourage these bloody wars?

The United States, the skilled cheaters of double standards in politics and human rights, has once again manifested itself concerning Yemen. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has loudly reiterated that resolving the conflict in Yemen remains an alleged top priority of US foreign policy. These comments were made during a telephone conversation with the newly appointed United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg. And this was said at a time when the Pentagon was sending a new shipment of aerial bombs to Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis are actively using in their war against, as Riyadh says, “the fraternal Yemeni people.”

So far, only human rights groups have accused these countries of complicity in Saudi Arabia’s war crimes in Yemen. One investigation found that the bomb dropped from a Saudi warplane in August 2018, which hit a school bus and killed more than 40 children, came from the United States. But it was just one bomb, while Yemeni officials say most Saudi airstrikes have targeted residential areas, and all Saudi bombs and missiles are purchased abroad from “democratic” countries.

The head of the UN Children’s Agency also presented journalists with these grim figures on the suffering of Yemeni children, from malnutrition to education and sanitation. For example, he said: “Let me share a few more numbers: Four out of every five children need humanitarian assistance; that’s more than 11 million children, and 400,000 children suffer from severe acute malnutrition More than two million children are out of school. Another four million are at risk of dropping out. Two-thirds of teachers, more than 170,000, have not received a regular salary for more than four years. 1.7 million children are currently internally displaced because of violence. As the violence has intensified, especially in the Marib area, more and more families have fled their homes. A staggering 15 million people (more than half of them, about 8.5 million, are children) do not have access to safe water, sanitation or hygiene. With the current level of funding and without an end to the fighting, UNICEF will not be able to help all these children.” And he went on to predict a grim prognosis: “There is no other way to help them without a lot of international support, which will result in a large number of Yemeni children dying.”

But does it matter to the gentlemen in western capitals who make huge profits from the blood of Yemeni children and the supply of arms, which allows them to eat sweet and sleep well? It’s none of their business. As they usually say in the United States, it’s just business, nothing personal.

Despite the efforts of UNICEF and other international organizations, the severity of the humanitarian situation in Yemen cannot be overemphasized. The economy is in a critical state. GDP has fallen 40% since 2015 when neighboring Arab Saudi Arabia decided to punish Yemenis for their “disobedience.” Vast numbers of people lost their jobs, causing family incomes to plummet. About a quarter of people, including many health workers, teachers, engineers, and sanitation workers, rely on civil servants’ salaries that are paid irregularly, if at all. And while the displacement and destruction of schools have resulted in classrooms that can hold up to 200 children, teachers are showing up. Yes, unpaid teachers come in and teach on their enthusiasm to educate the next generation.

In addition to the Saudi-imposed war, with the US behind it, many Yemenis are starving not because there is no food but because there is not enough money to buy it. “But such people have no choice, which means they are forced to sell everything from jewelry to pots just to feed their own children,” writes Egypt’s Al-Ahram. “But their children continue to starve, as families end up selling off all their possessions and cannot buy simple food for themselves or their children.”

Economists believe that UNICEF alone urgently needs more than $235 million to continue its life-saving work in Yemen until mid-2022. Failure to do so will force the agency to reduce or terminate life-saving assistance to vulnerable children. “Funding is critical,” notes Al-Ahram. “We can draw a clear line between donor support and lives saved,” it adds. And perhaps the newspaper’s most emotional comment was the following: “Yemen is the most brutal place in the world to be a child. And, incredibly, it’s getting worse.”

Last month, the United Nations warned that 16 million Yemenis, more than half the population, are facing starvation. Unless the international community steps up support, food aid could soon dry up. Doctors warn that a staggering 99% of Yemenis have not been vaccinated against Covid-19. The country is now battling a third deadly wave of infections in which large numbers of people, especially children and the elderly, will die due to a lack of vaccines. How the West treats the suffering of Yemenis, who are direct co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia’s shameful war, was directly commented on by Yemen’s Al-Sahwa : “We need the promised vaccines, but it is also shameful that by buying up all the vaccines for themselves, rich countries like the UK and Germany are blocking all decisions to get the medicine we need into our country.”

Many countries worldwide are well aware of the plight of the Yemeni people, especially the children and elderly, and deplore the fact that Saudi Arabia still seeks a military solution to the Yemeni crisis, stating that this approach will lead to nothing but death and destruction. They have repeatedly called on Riyadh to abandon a military solution and instead seek political ways to end the devastating war in Yemen. Speaking at a briefing for journalists, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said: “Unfortunately, the Saudi government is still looking for a military solution for Yemen, even though it knows and has understood after a long time that war has no other result than killing innocents and civilians, damaging the peoples of the region and security.” The sooner the Government of Saudi Arabia shows its commitment to political solutions and ends this destructive war, the better for the country and the region, as well as for the peace and security in the entire region.

November 5, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Media Kinda-Sorta Forgets to Mention Doctor’s $2 Million From Pfizer

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 02, 2021

A Canadian doctor pushing COVID-19 vaccine shots for children ages 5 years and up who’s been featured in numerous media reports received nearly $2 million in Pfizer funding for vaccine research.

Whether it was intentional or if the media kinda-sorta forgot to mention the conflict, or if they simply didn’t bother doing their own research before using Dr. Jim Kellner as a lead adviser on the COVID shot isn’t clear. But what is clear is that Pfizer has given the University of Calgary professor and pediatrician $1.9 million, with $787,004 of it still being allocated until 2022.

Kellner didn’t attempt to hide his conflict of interest; it’s easily found in his publicly posted curriculum vitae, with the current funding explicitly stated.

Yet, according to True North news, “Kellner’s name turns up over 41 times and appears in numerous videos and articles on the topic of vaccination without any indication of how much money he has received from the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer.”

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Canada: “Liberal” MPs support new internet censorship bill where “hurtful” content is targeted

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 30, 2021

“Liberal” MPs in Canada have expressed support for the government’s proposed internet censorship legislation. They went further to propose the appointment of a “Digital Safety Commissioner” who would be responsible for investigating complaints about “hurtful” content to be reported by users anonymously.

According to a report on Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Liberal MPs have endorsed Trudeau’s internet censorship plans, on condition that there will be “proper due process” for those accused of posting “hurtful content.”

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith insisted that the government should “ensure that there is public process or due process.”He added: “Fundamentally we need a public due process system to manage takedown by large companies.”

Internet censorship and online harassment are some of the top things the Trudeau administration is focusing on. The government started with Bill C-10, which focused on policing “user-generated content” on social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The bill did not pass before the end of the last parliamentary session because of opposition from conservatives.

Now Trudeau’s former Minister for Heritage Steven Guilbeault has proposed a new internet censorship bill. He said the new bill “is going to be controversial.”

“People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait until we table this legislation,” he added.

The new bill proposes social media companies to be held liable for “hurtful content” on their platforms. It also seeks to enable Canadians to anonymously complain about hurtful content to have it taken down.

However, the government is yet to define the term “hurtful.”

Under current laws, so-called “hate speech” is illegal.

Attacking the new bill, Conservative MP Michael Chong said: “I can say clearly that we don’t support censorship. We don’t support restrictions on freedom of the press.”

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Trucking Alliance warns of looming “disaster” if vaccine passports are introduced

The proposals would not only be an attack on civil liberties, it would cause further disruption to supply chains.

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | October 27, 2021

The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) has warned of substantial “supply chain disruptions” if the US enforces vaccine passports at the border.

A few weeks ago, the US Department of Homeland Security announced a vaccine mandate for all international travel including truck drivers that will take effect in January. The announcement has been heavily criticized by cross-border truckers. According to Transportation Network, one executive in the Canadian trucking industry warned that the mandate would lead to a “disaster.”

This week, the CTA warned that the mandate would increase supply chain disruptions. Trucks facilitate about 70% of the $650 billion trade between Canada and the US. About 40,000 US drivers and 120,000 Canadian drivers operate in the cross-border trade between the two countries.

The CTA said that about 20% of drivers will stop cross-border operations once the vaccine mandate is enforced.

“CTA conservatively estimates that 20 percent of Canadian truck drivers crossing the border (22,000), and 40 percent of U.S. truck drivers (16,000), would almost immediately exit the Canada-US trade system should the vaccination mandate take effect in January 2022,” the organization said.

It called on both the US and Canadian governments to “reexamine appropriate mandate timelines for cross-border truck drivers.”

The group also argued that more time is needed to create a “seamless mutual system of identification for drivers” to avoid delays when drivers are showing proof of vaccination.

However, the Biden administration appears to be disregarding the warnings of “dire consequences” from leading truck organizations by proceeding with the vaccine passport plans.

October 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

British Columbia’s chief doctor, says children of any age can provide their own consent

By Meryl Nass, MD | October 25, 2021

Here come jabs in schools without parental consent.

“Bonnie J. Fraser Henry OBC FRCPC is a Canadian physician who is the Provincial Health Officer for British Columbia, the first woman in this position. Henry is also a clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia. She was a family doctor and is a specialist in public health and preventive medicine.”

In fact, the politicians have worked on this for years, and enshrined it in legislation, she says.

Watch her talk about it.  https://www.librti.com/page/view-video?id=781

Looks like you can garner lots of awards when your heart is a stone, Bonnie.

And, like Presidential wannabe Governor Cuomo, she even had time to write a book about her leadership in the pandemic, titled Be Kind, Be Calm, Be Safe. Do these people know what they are, or are they high on their own supply?

Here someone collected her telling the truth about masks last year and flip-flopping later:

 

October 25, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment