We are now facing a regime that is losing, is aware that it is losing, and wants at all costs to survive even if it means damning everyone else. That is the picture that we get, in bold strokes. In practice, there may be considerable divisions and emergent factionalism within the pandemicist regime. By pandemicism I mean the intersection of catastrophism and authoritarianism. This article is written from within the Canadian and sometimes the Quebec contexts.
Three Factions: Fugitives, Perpetual Promoters, and Vandals
Fugitives: Typically led by provincial government leaders, some local politicians, the federal Conservative Party, and a small number of doctors, academics, and journalists who have broken away. At the provincial level these are politicians who have lifted all mandates and restrictions, even as the federal Liberals wanted them to be permanent, and augmented (national compulsory “vaccination,” for example). They have resisted reimposing any of the previous measures—yet they also state that what they have done is merely to “suspend” such measures.
An unflattering description, by those who have suffered their harms, would go like this: this faction consists of those who, like unwilling accomplices fleeing the scene of a crime, seek refuge in a web of alibis, disclaimers, disavowals, and caveats.
They may wish to recant, but do not want to admit guilt publicly—instead, they revoke, recall, and “relax the public health measures”. This faction seeks to avoid further damage to the economy, society, and health and welfare of citizens, by cutting losses and trying to withdraw under the pretext that success has either been achieved, or the costs are too high to continue. At least there is recognition in this group that the imposed restrictions did far more harm than good (as they should have known, since not even the WHO recommended such policies, and pre-existing preparedness plans in Canada were simply discarded—see Dr. Schabas here). This faction realizes that its members have served as an instrument for causing massive damage—politically, economically, and socially—and at most can only indirectly admit to that fact by now pursuing a different course. The fugitive faction would like to see us exit this trauma without any hard feelings, with little if any accountability, cheered by the promise that “we won’t do it again”. They would prefer to declare that “it is all subsiding” as we “learn to live with the virus”.
The existence of a faction of fugitives may also explain why suddenly there is more room in some media outlets for views that, until moments ago, were banished and censored as “misinformation” and “fake news”. We see such examples appearing in Newsweek(onmultipleoccasions), the Wall Street Journal(also here), the Toronto Sun (numeroustimesinfact—also here) and even the Globe & Mail(more than once), among others. While in Canada regime media speak of “anti-mandate” figures as if they were a rogue species of criminals, even a hard-line publication like The Economist can paint a grim picture of the harms of lockdowns for children. That these media publish the views of members of this faction is just a reaffirmation of the simple fact that it is easier for former insiders to be heard, than it is for outsiders who were never let in to begin with.
Fugitives, having developed doubts, misgivings, or even regrets, are joined by a large portion of the population that simply does not want to hear anything ever again about Covid, lockdowns, “masks,” “the pandemic,” and so on. Typically, these are people who have had two doses of the non-vaccines, and will not have a third—and will also resist having their children injected (more on this later).
In the Canadian context, in terms of size and influence, this is the largest of the factions. Its size and influence has grown particularly as 2022 has progressed. At the leadership level particularly, this faction contains those who have drifted away from the other two factions. Elements of this faction existed very early in 2020, before folding themselves into the pandemicist lockdown regime. Early expressions of doubt from political leaders, messages that contradicted the lockdown dogma that was imposed at lightning speed, and reopening policies that alarmed the media, were some of the indications of the existence of this prospective faction. A large percentage of the population that was coerced into getting “jabbed” forms the popular base of this faction. Otherwise, it is quite distinct from the resistance that has been fighting “vaccine” mandates, lockdowns, and other restrictions from the start—and who do not constitute a splinter of a regime to which they never belonged.
Internationally, the already existing global mass movement against mandates and restrictions is being joined by other disaffected quarters that have been harshly affected by economic transformation, ushered in by the same lockdown regimes, in what appears to be a rising global rebellion.
Perpetual Promoters: Unperturbed enthusiasts of eternal lockdowns, this middling class of stay-at-home professionals cherishes the pandemic as a lifestyle choice. This faction seeks straightforward continuity—maintain or reintroduce “measures,” encourage further “vaccination,” maintain or bring back “masking,” and so on. A Zoom-based social segment, this preachy faction consists of regime media and regime academia, whose specialties as advocates is to manipulate symbols and re-engineer values in order to normalize the state of exception. These exponents of the emergency lifestyle strive to maintain a permanent pandemic by sustaining a high level of propaganda and fear-mongering. They are constantly on alert. They are champions of “vigilance”. Behaving like overzealous hall monitors and pompous snitches, they are pious apostles of authoritarianism. In terms of its reality-denial capacity, it is the most psychotic of the factions—that is not an insult, but more of a clinical diagnosis.
This faction now invites ridicule from former believers (citizens qua parishioners), because this faction’s members fail to recognize the depth of indifference or anger that has sprouted in the society, especially post-Omicron, with the evident failure of the non-vaccines and the resulting rupture of the contract that believers were promised. Members of this faction also seem entirely numb to the consequences of their choices.
Unbridled enthusiasts of every wrong decision and the worst of choices, they continue cheerleading even when the game is over. They are idealists, true believers, who will cheerfully offer one booster after another until immune systems completely collapse, just in time for the complete collapse of the social system. This faction can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from the following, far more sinister cluster of interests, because to a significant extent it is, in functional terms, the “useful idiot” of what follows.
Initially extremely influential, and well remunerated from the Canadian federal government, this faction has seen its influence decline dramatically, especially in 2022.
Vandals: The third faction, that of the progressivist wreckers proclaiming a new order, is the one that is most worrying. This faction, consisting of champions of demolition, is the one that is capable of considering one final all-out assault that is so massive that it can only end in total destruction and provoke generalized violence in the form of civil unrest. This is the faction that seeks to crash the economy, by aggravating inflation, maximizing fuel shortages, damaging agricultural production, all under the pretext of “greening” the economy and ushering in a “transition” to “renewables” while fighting to preserve the phony “liberal world order” against the Russian bogeyman. Failed tools, like “vaccines” and sanctions, have been their favourites thus far, but they are capable of worse forms of collective punishment against recalcitrants. This third faction actively aims to escalate tensions and create further divisions in the society. This faction desires censorship to be institutionalized, legalized, and normalized. It wants pure dictatorship (in the name of “saving our democracy,” that is, the democracy that allows space only for them alone). The model some admire is China’s dictatorship, because that totalitarian system has served their interests very well. Key actors in this faction include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, Big Pharma, the World Health Organization, numerous Harvard graduates, NATO, the European Commission, the Atlantic Council, and so on. The third faction is also the one serviced by political functionaries such as Justin Trudeau, Mark Rutte, Emanuel Macron, and Joe Biden. Members of this faction may call themselves “liberals,” but they are in fact ex-liberals, illiberals, or post-liberals. They detest individual freedoms, civil liberties, and human rights. They embrace “social justice” only when it is cost-free, benefits (microscopic) minorities, and helps to create social divisions. (Note: according to the most recent census, Canada’s “trans” and “non-binary” population amounts to a whopping 0.003% of the total population—and even that is more than twice as large as the number of officially proclaimed “Covid deaths”.) They want a New World Order ruled by absolutist technocrats, unaccountable and non-elected “experts,” and they are willing to tempt the apocalypse to get to their destination.
If the experts, elites, and functionaries in power, who belong to this third faction, come to the realization that they cannot rule any longer, then they are going to make sure that there is nothing left to rule, or nothing left that is worth ruling. They are that suicidal and nihilistic. Bringing forth the full violence that is latent in progressivist ideology, they will opt for a scorched earth policy if they are not defeated first.
This third faction is the one that is least popular in the society, but it retains most of the levers of power—in particular, a monopoly over the means of violence, a tight grip on the country’s finances, and almost total sway over the courts and the media. It is by far the most dangerous faction and is located at the top of the regime’s pyramid of power.
The main difference between the second and third factions is that the latter is far more extreme, while the former is in denial about the extremism of the latter. The second faction is largely dependent on the third, but not vice versa.
What is common about all three factions is that they are dominated by actors who are neither willing nor capable of admitting mistakes. This is a problem, especially because they have been wrong on just about every major issue and significant problem for the past two decades, who can boast only of an uninterrupted litany of failures. In “The Insufferable Arrogance of the Constantly Wrong,” Clayton Fox listed just some of these epic failures of reason, analysis, or basic credibility among these discredited and defeated “experts” and technocrats.
What is to be hoped is that the first faction will break off completely, and form something like a mass movement comprising a cross-section of all classes, occupations, and regions of the country. Within the current regime of interlocking interests and partnerships between governments, the media, universities, the courts, the police and armed forces, and private corporations and foundations, the first faction is the one creating the most friction where the advancement of the plans of the other two are concerned. One hopes that friction will evolve into open resistance.
Outside of this arrangement of factions are those that resisted, criticized, and protested the lockdowns, “masking,” mandates, and the “vaccines” themselves. In Canada they numbered about 10% of the adult population (far less than many nations in Europe, and most in Africa and the Caribbean). However, their influence is growing. Much like the power structure they oppose, they consist of a complete cross-section of the national society: members of all ethnic groups and classes; representatives of every professional occupation; residents in every part of Canada; the complete range of educational achievement; supporters of every political party and ideology; and even politicians at all levels of government. Totally non-existent within the outsider group, however, is the presence of Big Banks, Big Tech, or Big Pharma.
The Stakes: Capital and Power
Much is at stake for the regime, beyond its reputation. The political economy of pandemicism is at stake—the ability to extract capital from the people, and accumulate it in the pockets of the super-rich and their corporations. “Vaccine uptake,” even after the repeated, demonstrated failures of the non-vaccines to achieve even the most minimal of the promised goals (while evidence of damage accumulates), remains a key goal. “Vaccine uptake” is about sustaining demand, that is, of sustaining the profit margins for commercial pharmaceutical interests. The maintenance of fear is thus essential to sustaining demand. In addition to extracting capital, there is the very basic question of power: the unrestrained ability to dominate the masses, without question, triumphing against resistance. The “vaccine” gravy train coming to its last stop threatens all of this, as do a number of other challenges: Ukraine, inflation, and the recession, and the immense unpopularity of those in power.
Like the “war on drugs,” then the “war on terror,” this horrific “war on the virus” (which is in fact a war on the people) is one more grand failure (except, perhaps, as an intentional crime). A regime can withstand only so many monumental failures, or commit so many crimes, before it can stand no more.
Regarding sustaining demand, there is now a gradation of forms of “vaccine resistance,” as reported in data from Public Health Canada:
15% of the population has had no dose;
The 82% of the population that took two doses, dropped to 49% of who took a third—even as the federal government declared those with two doses “not up to date” and removed the term “fully vaccinated” (following Fauci);
Less than 10% have had a fourth dose;
56% of children (5 to 11 years of age) have had one dose, which drops to 42% having the “primary series” (two doses).
As things stand now in Canada, 64% of the population is defined as “not up to date,” that is, not in compliance. In the US there is growing public criticism about the rush to “vaccinate” toddlers, including from esteemed persons who previously formed part of the mainstream second faction, the promoters, such as Dr. Paul Offit.
To an extent, the growing extremism of the second and third factions is apparently impelling the formation of the first faction listed at the outset, driving away even some stalwarts.
In an ongoing effort to “study up,” which includes reading and analyzing the scripts produced by regime media, what follows is just about a week’s worth of snapshots that illustrate some of the main points above. Before proceeding, I want to explore the “regime media” concept a little further.
Regime Media, Part 2
Regime media are a fusion of a police force and a public relations firm. Whether they are privately owned, yet receive government payouts, or they are publicly owned and prey to corporate advertisers, in Canada all of the media of domination (CBC, CTV, Global News, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, etc.) are aligned with and actively support the pandemicist regime and indulge its elitist virtue signalling about select, preferred minorities that are elevated for special recognition and rewards. Gesticulating toward celebrity-approved “social justice” issues, and fanning all of the latest moral panics that occupy the minds of the dependent urban middle class, regime media have thus been able to dull suspicions from the left. The self-identified left has largely fallen in line with regime media and extend the regime’s core messages through various “alternative” media—which are no alternatives at all (they are simply less resourced). It is not surprising then to find some of the most extreme advocacy for Zero Covid policies emanating from the left, much of which is also pro-China, the industrial engine of contemporary globalization and the first country to set the pattern for the lockdowns that followed around the world.
Regime media may call themselves “news media,” but there is next to no actual journalism involved in their work. In that spirit, students at contemporary Canadian schools of “journalism” are in fact being trained in the methods of policing restive subjects with “unacceptable views”. Embracing “advocacy,” they have degenerated into mere practitioners of propaganda whose ultimate aim is the reproduction of the ideas of the ruling faction of the regime.
Here they are followed by professors and students in a variety of disciplines which these days are busy churning out one predictable thesis after another that essentially involves policing : using the Internet to engage in surveillance of troublesome “fringe minorities” with “extremist views” that threaten to “incite hatred”—and they do this without any sense of irony. Their work is one-dimensional, simplistic, conspiratorial, and their “data” is cherry-picked. Rather than full and richly textured biographies, they produce caricatures dressed up in the theoretical jargon that is currently in fashion in their disciplines. Master compilers of shitlists, they squat for long days in social media on the lookout for anyone deviating from their preferred narrative, so they can then pounce and declare deviants to be violent extremists. Nobody is permitted to be “wrong” on the Internet. The aim of the students and professors is to make these “minorities” legible to the authorities, while reaffirming their own sense of superiority as specially endowed super-citizens with a natural right to manage inferior others, “for their own good”. Regime academia, like regime media, consists of a non-elected political class mesmerized by its belief in its own inherent goodness, and its right to rule. The writing of this class reads more like pseudo-legislation than scholarly analysis, and their “theories” are little more than ideological wishful thinking mixed in with complaints. They see the world as a collection of “problems” that require their management. An inanely partisan document produced by the UNESCO research chair in Quebec exemplifies many of these traits—see “Le mouvement conspirationniste au québec : leaders, discours et adhésion” (“The Conspiracy Movement in Quebec: Leaders, Discourse and Membership”). The art of these “scholars” consists of punching down while sucking up.
Regime media’s main functions are: surveillance, censorship, and prosecution. Stories are written with a tensely vigilant, accusatory tone, meant to put readers on guard, or on notice. Critical-minded questions, if they are even mentioned, are instantly dismissed out of hand or simply associated with mental illness or amorphous “extremism”. They do not try to keep their “finger on the pulse” of society—they instead aim to determine the pulse rate itself.
Regime media’s public scripts involve a regression to some of the most outmoded forms of propaganda seen since World War I. Their work involves a classically crude command structure: they tell people what to think, plain and simple. Then they tell people what to think about, and here the agenda-setting is particularly exclusive. One will never read stories of the “vaccine injured,” or see or hear interviews with anti-mandate protesters, dissident doctors, and so forth. Theirs is a regimist record, cleansed of all opposition and inconvenient facts. It reads almost like a colonial archive, only with greater gaps and silences.
What the regime media tell people to think is hatred, especially hatred for the non-compliant Other. Inciting hatred against marginalized categories of Canadians over the past two plus years has already been abundantly documented—this is not a theoretical statement, it is now merely an observation.
What the regime media tell people to think about is emergency and safety. Also well documented, any perusal of the pages of the print and Web regime media will quickly confirm this.
Inversion and projection are key tools of regime media: their work consists of broadcasting disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, false allegations, hyperbole, fear-mongering and character assassination, while producing “news stories” that are entirely and exclusively one-sided and indistinguishable from straightforward editorials.
In 2022, such regime media turned their attention to explicitly attacking freedom. Openly praising sheep, an article in the Globe & Mail advocated that humanity follow the example of sheep. In the same paper, another article cautioned that freedom “is not absolute,” and it does not mean we have the right to do anything we want—in other words, the author fully tilted against a complete straw man (absolutely none of the anti-mandate protesters ever advocated any such thing… they just wanted their jobs back). The CBC laboured to turn “freedom” into a dirty word that it conflated with the politics of “far-right” extremism. Canadians though they may be, they publicly worry about flying the Canadian flag, because it has been sullied by those fighting for freedom. Perennially perturbed by “nationalism,” they have no such qualms when painting their social media profiles with the Ukrainian flag, or claiming to support First Nations.
Perpetual Promoters: “Do Not Allow the People to Rest Even for a Moment”
Here I will continue my commentary on the work of the second faction, and simply illustrate it with snapshots taken over the course of a week (if that much). The significance of the week in question is that it featured the proclamation of a “seventh wave” in Quebec. This time—given the degree of popular contempt for restrictions that are proven failures, and mindful of a provincial election in October—the government of Quebec is acting like a member of the Fugitive faction. Members of the Perpetual Promoters’ faction are turning on the government, trying to school it back into authoritarian “measures”.
As an anthropologist, I have been trained to view the narratives of authorities with considerable skepticism, knowing that such narratives tend to push for a desired reality more than they accurately describe an actually existing reality, and that such narratives reflect the vested interests of powerful actors. Reality in the papers and reality on the ground are thus often very different. As an anthropologist with ethnographic experience, I tend to privilege reality on the ground—and on the ground, there is no “seventh wave”. People are carrying on as normal, meaning a pre-2020 normal. They seem to be enjoying their summer as best as they can, at least in the rural region where I live: swimming in lakes; boating; barbecuing; setting off fireworks every weekend; gathering with friends around backyard fires; neighbourhoods alive with the sounds of children playing; shopping and dining occurring without “masks” or any apparent concern for “social distancing,” and so on. Nobody is panicking. The Perpetual Promoters just hate that.
One example of a common injunction against any relaxation from anxiety, is an article like this one from the Montreal Gazette: “It’s too soon for Montrealers to bet on a COVID-free summer: experts”. No summer for the masses—the “experts” have sealed this: “Few masks, plentiful travel and a highly contagious sub-variant mean we need to remain cautious”. The fear-mongering was thus also intended to boost the social capital of “experts” while draining the people of any sense of hope: “As COVID-19 case counts fall and hospitalizations slowly drop, Quebecers are wondering if they’ll be able to enjoy another relatively COVID-free summer this year. The short answer is probably not…”. The experts warn, and lament: “only 52 per cent of Quebecers have gotten a third vaccination, leaving half the population vulnerable as the immunity from their vaccinations or infections wane”. They added: “And for sure get your third dose. This is not a virus that anyone wants to get”. The stress is on an imputed “vulnerability” which then becomes a sales pitch for Big Pharma’s experimental gene therapies which have done nothing to prevent spread. The experts also imagine a severe virus, one that nobody wants to get, but everyone got anyway (and without a massive die off). Be cautious, feel vulnerable—even knowing all of the damage done by sustained fear and anxiety for people’s mental health, in a desperate bid to remain relevant the perpetual promoters throw any real care for public health to the wind.
They are immune—so now it is time to scare them to death. This time courtesy of Global News, we have another lesson in how sophistry works. To be clear, absolutely nothing in the article proves that those infected by Omicron will likely get sick from a subsequent infection with an Omicron variant. The purpose of the article is simply to make people feel insecure, and then rush for the nearest shot of precious mRNA. The way the author of the article tries to smuggle through the fear messaging, is first by lumping together both those who were mRNA injected and got Covid, and those who kept their systems clear of the experimental gene therapies to begin with (with no increased incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis, which is not the case for the injected). By conflating the two groups, the author does not need to talk about immuneimprinting, and the fact that those with three doses now have significantly negative immunity. Across Canada, in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, government data show that those with three doses or more account for the majority of hospitalizations and deaths, despite numbering no more than 50% of the population. However, it is standard fare for regime media to generalize all risks, which justify one-size-fits-all (i.e., totalitarian) “solutions”.
What Global News does is to take the analogy of the glass half full to an extreme: “… one in every eight people who contract the virus do not develop antibodies in their blood from their illness”. “So forget going to some kind of ‘COVID party,’” said Dr. Catherine Hankins, a professor at McGill University in the Faculty of Medicine and co-chair of Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force: “Infection is not a viable strategy to achieve or maintain immunity”. Why forget the Covid party? Did the article not just state that 7/8 people develop immunity? Therefore, if we take their data at face value—with zero scrutiny or debate—that means that 87.5% of persons have immunity. That sounds like a pretty viable strategy. At this point one might only hear the din of preparations resuming for Covid parties (not that it would even be necessary to have these anymore).
The article also quietly conflates infection with actual sickness. So you might test positive again for Covid (assuming you even care to be tested). And so what? The Perpetual Promoters continue to instill shame in infection, as if infection were proof of some sin. Colleagues and students of mine have “admitted” to getting Covid: “I know!” one exclaimed apologetically.
Prof. Hankins, the party pooper at McGill, also added: “We do have one in eight people that don’t show any antibodies in their blood, so they’re not responding to the vaccine. And if they get infected, we’re not seeing evidence of it… So we don’t quite know what’s going on”. Indeed.
Later in the same articleGlobal News’ “experts” admit that one reason why there are lower levels of antibodies among the Omicron-infected, is because “it’s a milder infection”. However, as if forgetting themselves and losing the train of their own thought, moments later they repeat the mantra: “there is strong scientific evidence showing the vaccine does prevent severe illness and death”. But if Omicron itself does not cause severe illness and death—which they admitted—then how do they credit the non-vaccines with saving people?
The real purpose of the article is clearly revealed at the end. It uses fear as a sales pitch: “I think it’s important that people understand that if you’ve had it before, you are still a sitting duck… you don’t have the immunity that you had closer to when you got your vaccine… So it’s really important to get that booster”.
Yet another editorial appeared in The Montreal Gazette moaning about breathing barriers not being forced onto everyone’s faces, immediately. It has been only a couple of weeks since “mask” mandates have been lifted in Quebec, for all settings except medical ones. We are only half way through the summer, but regime media cannot wait until the fall—restrictions need to come right back now. Remember: no summer for you, the party is over. This is the second such editorial in a week. The editorial board is complaining that Quebec’s plans looks like “everyone for themselves”—and while they speak of “everyone,” what they are really doing is using “the immunocompromised” as rhetorical and political shields. Adept as hostage-takers (humanitarian abduction), regime media will hold any minority they can find at ransom, until everyone else is forced to bend.
To further add to a record of deception, deflection, and sophistry, the editorial board argues: “It is hard to imagine that the dropping of just about all masking requirements has not also contributed to the upswing in cases. Relatively few people seem to be wearing masks these days”. There is not even a pretense of “science” anymore; now it is just a matter of “imagining”. For some reason they are unable to recollect, even a few short weeks later, that 50% of Canadians got Omicron over the past few months, when we were still at the height of mandates and restrictions. “Masks” did nothing to “protect” people. Indeed, virtually nobody needed “protection”. Most visitors to the Gazette’s website now know that.
But the Montreal Gazette, with its increasing desperation on display, is starting to play its hand too visibly. From “science” we have gone to “imagination”. From “protecting health,” we have gone to the Gazette’s real target: that “segment of the population being courted by the Quebec Conservative Party, whose star seems to be rising”. Here they allude to Eric Duhaime, the popular leader of the Quebec Conservative Party, only you would not know how popular he has become thanks to the blackout in Anglophone Quebec media. His weekly meetings and call-in programs with tens of thousands of Quebecers during “the pandemic,” have helped to build a powerful grassroots anti-mandate, anti-emergency movement that, in Quebec, likely helped to shape the first faction mentioned at the outset of this article.
Regime academia, promoted by regime media. Regime academia is keen to gin up fear of the “seventh wave,” but is clearly anxious about not being able to exploit it. McGill’s Donald Vinh “says the province should reimplement public health measures. And refusing to do so because it may seem like taking a step backward after removing them, he added, is a ‘failing mentality that could get us in trouble’”. Dr. Nathalie Grandvaux outright proclaims a permanent pandemic, and urges everyone to follow her hysterical signalling: “The virus is constantly here, she said, and there’s no reason to believe the province will somehow be shielded from future variants, either”. “Speaking about waves is a bit like telling people there’s nothing to be concerned about between them,” Grandvaux said. “But that’s not the case — the virus is always there”.
“I think at this point, we all have to make it part of our life. I think we have to start moving on and moving forward, because the number of small businesses that closed and didn’t get to reopen, it can’t happen again because too many people will suffer.”
“I think that the media likes to play on people’s fears and make it worse. We just have to deal with it.”
“I think we should be talking more about what it means to live with a virus period, rather than this virus, because there are going to be many viruses and it’s going to happen again. I think the world is a little more prepared for a heavy-duty virus. I’m not particularly worried about it.”
“Maybe we should stop talking about waves and start talking about a new normal.”
“I think the customers feel super safe here. Those who don’t feel comfortable just don’t come. It feels like normal times again.”
“I think it’s just another virus we will have to live with, like the flu.”
As minimal and polite as such remarks are, they are the surface evidence that people have turned against the narrative of the failed elites and the discredited expert class. They have joined all the other fugitives. Pandemicism eventually has to meet resistance, and it can and will be defeated. And not even a reich proclaimed for a thousand years lasted more than 12. Tick-tock.
Pierre Poilievre, who will be running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada later this year, said at a meeting in Calgary that he would ban ministers from attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland sits on the WEF’s Supervisory Board. Shadow Minister of Natural Resources Michelle Rempel Garner can also be found on the organisation’s website. She denied in an article that Canada was run by the WEF.
Earlier, WEF chief Klaus Schwab had boasted however that more than half of the Canadian cabinet was made up of Young Global Leaders of the WEF.
Poilievre thus indicated that he wanted to take Canada in a completely different direction. He is planning to take on Trudeau in the next election and defeat him.
“I have made it clear that I will ban my ministers in my cabinet from attending the World Economic Forum if I become prime minister,” he said at an earlier meeting. “Work for Canada. If you want to go to Davos, to that conference, buy a single ticket. You cannot be part of our government and pursue a policy agenda that is not in line with the interests of our people.”
Poilievre is running in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election and is considered to be the frontrunner. He has supported those in the Canada convoy protest against vacccine mandates who were protesting peacefully and said the federal government had abused its power by invoking the Emergencies Act during the protest and proposed limiting its power and use to prevent it from being used similarly in the future.
Poilievre demonstrated his support for army reservist James Topp’s anti-mandate protest walk from Vancouver to their planned Canada Day freedom protest on Parliament Hill, by joining Topp, Paul Alexander, Tom Marazzo, a self-declared spokesperson for the Canada convoy protest and an ex-military officer, on June 30, 2022 in the final stage of Topp’s march to Ottawa.
After months of off-brand COVID stats, Ontario’s official reporting database has stopped showing cases and hospitalizations based on vaccine status.
Now, why would they do that?
Well, the reason given is to prevent false impressions that the vaccine isn’t working:
“This data set reported the total number of patients in hospital by vaccination status without taking into consideration the number of people in Ontario who are vaccinated overall. Comparing groups using count data (such as the number of patients) is appropriate when the groups being compared are about the same size (i.e. around mid-2021). However, now that approximately 87% of eligible Ontarians are fully vaccinated (compared to 3% partially vaccinated and 10% unvaccinated) This comparison is no longer appropriate and may be misleading.”
In other words, they’re hiding behind the “base rate fallacy,” which occurs when categories with different population sizes are compared. For example, if there are 10x as many Americans as Canadians, comparing deaths needs to be done per 100,000 people to show a rate rather than the base numbers, wherein American death totals will be higher because of their larger population alone.
However, this reason for pulling the data appears to be a cop-out and is misleading.
At The Counter Signal, we’ve reported that the rates themselves have become unfavourable and disproportional for the vaccinated categories.
In Ontario, by April 5, those who had not received two doses of the COVID vaccine have a COVID death rate of 0.02 per capita, as did the fully vaccinated. However, those who had received booster shots had a COVID death rate of 0.03 per capita.
Additionally, those with a booster dose were also more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than any other group. Those with booster doses had 22.35 cases per capita, fully vaccinated had 15.47 cases per capita, and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated had 12.75 cases per capita.
As for Canada more broadly, during the week of April 10-17, 222 fully vaccinated individuals died from COVID compared to only one unvaccinated person (among the eligible population). 99% of COVID deaths were in vaccinated persons that week, a higher percentage than the 85-90% of eligible Canadians who’d been fully vaccinated.
That’s beyond base rate fallacy.
Moreover, between May 8 to 22 in Canada, the vaccinated with at least one booster population accounted for 82 per cent of new COVID deaths — despite making up only 48.6 per cent of the population.
The following two weeks were similar.
Between May 22 and June 5, the unvaccinated population in Canada (at 5+ years old) made up 10.7% of the eligible population in Canada yet only accounted for 8% of COVID deaths.
It appears we’ve gone from trusting the science to hiding it.
Alberta MLA and former Agriculture Minister Devin Dreeshen is concerned that what’s happening to Dutch farmers is being done to Canadian farmers by PM Justin Trudeau.
“What’s happening to Dutch farmers, Trudeau is doing here to Canadians,” Dreeshen told The Counter Signal.
“There’s no magic to grow more food with less fertilizer. Trudeau keeps making things more expensive for people that grow our food, but then he acts shocked when people can’t afford to buy groceries. It’s him.”
To this point, recent data from Farm Credit Canada shows that nitrogen fertilizer prices have increased by 148% between the 2020-21 and 2022-23 fiscal years, rising from $550 per tonne to $1,365 per tonne.
This is partly due to the war in Ukraine and sanctions imposed on Russia, but also the Canadian government’s damaging policies.
In December 2020, the Trudeau government unveiled their new climate plan, with a focus on reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.
“Fertilizers play a major role in the agriculture sector’s success and have contributed to record harvests in the last decade. They have helped drive increases in Canadian crop yields, grain sales, and exports,” a news release from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reads.
“However, nitrous oxide emissions, particularly those associated with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use have also grown significantly. That is why the Government of Canada has set the national fertilizer emissions reduction target, which is part of the commitment to reduce total GHG emissions in Canada by 40-45% by 2030…”
This is a tacit admission that any attempt to lower admissions by reducing nitrogen fertilizer will consequently lower crop yields over the next decade.
And indeed, according to a report from Fertilizer Canada:
“Total Emission Reduction puts a cap on the total emissions allowable from fertilizer at 30% below 2020 levels. As the yield of Canadian crops is directly linked to proper fertilizer application this creates a ceiling on Canadian agricultural productivity well below 2020 levels.”
“… It is estimated that a 30% absolute emission reduction for an a farmer with 1000 acres of canola and 1000 acres of wheat, stands to have their profit reduced by approximately $38,000 – $40,500/ annually. In 2020, Western Canadian farmers planted approximately 20.8 million acres of canola. Using these values, cumulatively farm revenues from canola could be reduced by $396M – $441M on an annual basis. Wheat famers could experience a reduction of $400M.”
Moreover, Fertilizer Canada doesn’t believe that forcibly decreasing fertilizer use will even lower greenhouse gases but could lead to carbon leakage in other jurisdictions.
Nonetheless, Trudeau’s government is moving forward, with farmer’s groups speaking to Farmers Forum now wondering if he’s intentionally trying to cause a food shortage — which Trudeau previously told Canadians to prepare for.
The Ukrainian government is pressuring Canada not to return a gas turbine to Russia that could boost the supply of Russian fuel to Germany, Reuters and a Ukrainian news site have reported. Kiev argues the precedent would erode anti-Russia sanctions.
Previously, Russian gas monopoly Gazprom reduced the flow through the Nord Stream pipeline to 40% of capacity, claiming that Germany failed to return a Siemens gas turbine from maintenance in Canada. The crucial piece of equipment had become stuck due to Ottawa’s sanctions against Russia.
According to sources in the Ukrainian government cited on Thursday and on Friday by Reuters and the Ukrainian news website Evropeyskaya Pravda, Kiev was informed that Canada had decided to return the turbine. Officials in Ukraine argued that it was a bad move.
“If, God forbid, this decision is approved, we will undoubtedly appeal to our European colleagues that their approach must be reassessed,” a source in Ukraine’s Energy Ministry was quoted as saying by Reuters. “Because, if countries do not follow decisions they have agreed about sanctions, how can we talk about solidarity?”
Both outlets said Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko had lobbied Canada not to return the turbine, claiming that Russia could ramp up gas supplies to Germany. The Ukrainian newspaper said the minister had sent a two-page letter to his Canadian counterpart, Jonathan Wilkinson, on June 22, in which he explained that more Russian gas could be pumped through Ukraine.
Kiev is concerned that by bowing down to what it considers Russian energy blackmail, Canada would set a bad precedent for the Western sanctions regime.
Germany activated the second phase of its gas emergency plan after Russia reduced supplies through Nord Stream. Berlin reportedly asked Ottawa to return the turbine before 10 days of scheduled maintenance starts on the pipeline next week.
A Canadian university professor suspended for comments he made during a December 2021 conference about COVID-19 vaccines in an interview this week with The Defender called for “openness, critical thinking and to stop believing what we are being told is the truth.”
“We need to be allowed to question again,” said Patrick Provost, Ph.D., an infectious and immune diseases researcher who learned June 13 that Laval University in Quebec City was suspending him for eight weeks without pay.
Laval University also suspended Nicolas Derome, Ph.D., a professor in the university’s biology department, for concerns he raised in November 2021 about Quebec’s campaign to vaccinate 5— to 11-year-olds.
In his interview with The Defender, Provost also discussed an article he wrote questioning COVID-19 policies, published June 22 on the Québecor media platform, then retracted a day later.
For the article, Provost used Quebec’s publicly available data to raise questions about the province’s management of the pandemic. The province of Quebec is home to about 8.5 million people, the second-most populous province in Canada.
“I was so happy when I found out my article was going to be published,” Provost told The Defender, “I really thought it would be a game-changer in the public debate about COVID-19 [in Quebec]. That finally, based on official public data, we could start to discuss the situation.”
However, by the next day, June 23, Québecor had removed Provost’s article from all of its websites.
Sébastien Ménard, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Journal de Québec, one of Québecor’s publications, tweeted (in French):
“Although we encourage debating ideas, we have decided to remove this letter [by Dr. Provost] from our websites. After verification, some of the elements it contained were inaccurate or could mislead the public, which we cannot support.”
Commenting on the retraction, Provost said:
“I’m really worried about the direction we are heading, about our democracy. Why hide the truth? These numbers are real, this was just my analysis of them. Maybe it’s a disturbing truth.”
Libre Média prefaced the article with a note that it was publishing Provost’s article in full, “in accordance with its mission to protect freedom of the press.”
Criticism of COVID vaccines for young children led to suspension
Two days after Québecor removed his article, Provost went public with the news that Laval notified him on June 13 that the university was suspending him, effective June 14.
Provost filed a grievance through his union, the Union of Laval University Professors.
According to Provost, he sent an email to all his colleagues at Laval University last December, in which he urged them to engage in debates on COVID-19 vaccination and public health measures, because he felt public debate had been lacking.
In the email, he gave the example of a lecture he had given at a conference on Dec. 7, 2021, in which he criticized Quebec’s campaign to vaccinate 5- to 11-year-old children against COVID-19.
The conference was organized by Réinfo Covid Québec, a Quebec collective of caregivers, doctors and citizens “gathered around an idea: the need for a fair and proportionate health policy in Quebec and elsewhere in the world.”
“As a result of this, a professor from the faculty of medicine filed a complaint against me in January, outraged that I was raising questions,” Provost told The Defender. “In particular, that I said the risks of adverse effects [of Pfizer’s mRNA shot] outweighed the benefits for children.”
Provost said his suspension didn’t factor into Québecor’s decision this week to censor his article, as he had not made the news of his suspension public before the article was removed.
COVID mortality rate ‘greatly overestimated’ data show
In his article, Provost noted that the vaccine mandates for travel within Canada and for federal public servants had been suspended two days before, on June 20.
However, mandates could be reimposed, so Provost invited readers to consider a true portrait of the impact of COVID-19 in Quebec, based on the province’s own publicly available data.
As of June 19, when Provost accessed the cumulative data online, there were 15,462 deaths related to COVID-19 (Chart 2.1) out of a total of 1,077,256 confirmed cases of COVID-19 (Chart 1.1), for a calculated mortality rate of 1.44%.
Provost wrote:
“This mortality rate is greatly overestimated, mainly (i) by including, in the numerator, deaths with, and not because of, COVID-19, which were apparently as numerous, and (ii) by excluding, in the denominator, cases of asymptomatic or unreported infections, which were several times higher than the reported symptomatic infections.”
Provost then turned to official figures from the Institut de la statistique du Québec and the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ), and made these five observations based on the data:
There was no excess all-cause mortality since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, except for people age 70 and over during the first wave (April to June 2020) and in January 2022, shortly after the lockdowns and curfews were imposed, which was also when the third vaccine doses were offered.
More than 90% of people age 70 or older who died with or from COVID-19 had two or more pre-existing medical conditions (Table 2.2).
69.2% of the people who died were over the age of 80 (Figure 2.3), thus the average age of people who died with or from COVID-19 was beyond their life expectancy at birth.
The number of deaths (Table 2.1) compared to the number of cases (Table 1.1) is 0.07% in people with no pre-existing conditions, 6 times higher in people with one pre-existing medical condition (0.4%), and 98 times higher in people with two or more pre-existing conditions (6 .9%), according to data last updated on May 2.
Between 0 and 5 people under the age of 40 (with less than one pre-existing medical condition) have died in Quebec since the start of the pandemic (Table 2.2).
According to Provost, early on in the pandemic, the analysis of official government data showed two of the main risk factors for complications and death from COVID-19: “advanced age and the number of pre-existing medical conditions, in particular, obesity.”
“The threat of COVID-19 was very real,” wrote Provost, “but was it of the magnitude that we have been told?”
According to the public data available on the sites of INSPQ and of Quebec Data Partnership, from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, there were 20,616 hospitalizations due to COVID-19 out of a total of 986,607 hospitalizations — so approximately 2.1% of hospitalizations were a result of COVID-19 infections.
At the worst point in the crisis, COVID-19 hospitalizations peaked at 5.9% of the total.
Given the above data, Provost asked if the public health measures taken were justified. He raised a series of questions, including:
Did the data support imposing such severe and comprehensive health measures, rather than targeted ones that would protect those most at risk?
Did the data justify not considering the collateral effects of restrictive health measures?
Did the data justify preventing physicians from making individualized risk versus benefit assessments of a medical intervention (COVID-19 vaccination) with their patients?
Provost also asked if the data justified overriding the right of individuals to consent, in a free and informed manner, to an injection that is still experimental.
He questioned mass vaccination of the entire population for a disease that particularly affects the very old and sick, and of imposing vaccination on young people and workers.
Quebec used vaccine passports, and Provost asked if the data justified restricting the right to access public places and hindering the freedom of movement by train or plane of people who were not “adequately” vaccinated, “even though the shots do not prevent infection or transmission.”
With respect to governance, Provost said the government assumed power by self-proclaiming and perpetuating a state of health emergency and certain measures beyond the emergency period.
He noted that professionals and academics were muzzled if they were critical of health measures, through pressure from their professional organizations or their institutions, under penalty of losing their jobs.
He also pointed out that the polarized and polarizing media coverage sowed fear, anxiety and division, and that citizens were encouraged to discriminate against people who were not vaccinated against COVID-19.
As part of the remedy to what he viewed to be heavy-handed public health measures, Provost stressed the “importance of depoliticizing decisions that infringe on individual rights and freedoms by establishing, for example, by a Council of Scholars that is independent from the government, so that these decisions are based on science and are made more quickly.”
Provost closed his article by calling for a review of the management of the pandemic:
“An assessment of the management of this crisis, which has revealed the limits, even the flaws, of our system and our democratic life, is essential.
“We owe it to too many seniors whom we have failed to protect, as well as to those whose rights and freedoms have been violated for too long.”
Dozens of messages of support
Provost told the Defender that in the hours before his article was pulled, one idea was to have another professor write a rebuttal to his article.
But instead, Quebecor’s news sites simply deleted the article.
On Monday, Joel Monzée wrote an article in Libre Média about the censorship of Provost’s article and its implications for science. “Science is only science because it questions itself,” Monzée wrote.
Monzée said that with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic, “It is blithely claimed that there is a scientific consensus. However, this only exists because certain academic personalities seem to have enough influence over their colleagues to curb any questioning of the consensus, at least in public.”
Monzée asked, if there were inaccuracies in Provost’s article, then why not address them with a counter-analysis?
Provost is the supervisor of four Ph.D. students whose work has been affected by his suspension.
“Because of my suspension, I cannot go on the campus, enter the Research center or talk to them,” Provost said. “They are essentially left alone. They are collateral damage.”
Provost said that though the situation was difficult, in the past few days he had received dozens of messages of support, and also observed that a growing number of citizens “have a thirst for truth and openness.”
Provost told The Defender, “I would like to raise awareness about how our society is evolving, it’s not in a good direction. It is getting to the point where private interests will be directing our country, we will just be servants.”
I gave the following testimony to the legislature of New Brunswick, Canada, in August 2019 to explain why they were suddenly being asked to impose vaccine mandates. It is chock full of useful information about this subject that few people know. Enjoy.
… I am a veteran of the vaccine war in the US, and today I feel compelled to speak about what I saw in that war. Legislators were forced to change their votes to revoke vaccine exemptions and rescind the historic right to consent to medical procedures. The vaccine war is a dirty war, in which platitudes about protecting the most vulnerable are invoked by the same pharmaceutical companies that paid $2.7 billion in criminal penalties in the US between 2012 and 2015. The vaccine industry generates enormous profits (estimated 10-40%), benefits from a government-guaranteed market, and receives almost total liability protection. No other industry can rival these benefits. And this industry’s rapacious desire to grow and guarantee its Canadian market is the reason we are here today.
Let me add context to this discussion by noting that in 2014, the NY Times said it cost $2200 to fully vaccinate one child. At that price, it cost $163 billion dollars to fully vaccinate every US child.
May I apologize at the outset for using mostly US data? I provide Canadian and New Brunswick information when available.
On the other hand, the industry does not want to shoulder the considerable expense of developing, testing and licensing new vaccines–over 100 of which are in development–without a government guarantee that they will be purchased.
Vaccines are being developed for everything from acne to cancers.
Vaccine mandates guarantee a vaccine market, now and in the future. Mandates put in place today will enforce the uptake of vaccines on the currently required list, plus other vaccines yet to be added.
Industry Challenges
In 2019, the vaccine industry faces threatening legal challenges:
Facing these challenges, in 2019 the vaccine industry seized its opportunity from a prolonged US measles outbreak. A flawless PR campaign conducted for the industry helped ram through legislation for enforced vaccine mandates in the US, and now the industry is repeating the strategy in Canada.
Is New Brunswick, Canada prepared for a significant reduction in the number of children who attend public school?
2. You have been assured that “Vaccines are safe and effective.”
It has a reassuring ring, but conveys nothing. In fact, each vaccine is very different from every other. Generally, we know something (but not enough) about the benefit, but only a little about the harms of different vaccines. According to the Institute of Medicine, “The process of anticipating, detecting, and quantifying the risks of rare adverse events following immunization presents an enormous challenge.” Like drugs, each is appropriately used when the benefit outweighs the risk. Because vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent disease, they should be even safer than drugs.
The initial effectiveness of the different childhood vaccines ranges from about 40% to 93%. Immunity then wanes over time.
Here is a big problem at the heart of vaccine safety assessment: adverse event information is cloaked in secrecy, withheld from physicians and the public by public health agencies. Undesirable results are massaged or falsified until they appear acceptable. Because this is hard to believe, I will give you 3 important examples of CDC’s data manipulation.
1. Thomas Verstraeten was a young physician on a CDC fellowship who in 1999 studied the statistical relationship between cumulative amounts of thimerosal (mercury) infants received from vaccines and neurological illnesses. His results–including that children exposed to the highest levels of mercury from vaccines after birth had 7 times the level of autism as children not exposed–were so disturbing that CDC convened a private meeting of vaccine experts to discuss and manage them. No reporters or members of the public were permitted, but a copy of the meeting transcript was leaked. (I have provided you with an unpublished abstract obtained by FOIA showing some of Verstraeten’s data before it was massaged to remove the effect of mercury. His published 2003 paper says, “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal (mercury) containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” I also gave you a letter from physician Congressman Bill Weldon to Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC about this data manipulation. The issue is unresolved. Merck was later found to have misled the public about when it removed thimerosal from infant vaccines.
Despite strong evidence of scientific misconduct in these 3 CDC cases, the papers published in top medical journals with these manipulated data have never been retracted from the medical literature. Instead, they provide foundational support for the safety of the MMR vaccine and for the safety of mercury in vaccines. The fraudulent papers pollute the medical literature, making it impossible to discern the true adverse effects of vaccines.
It is very difficult to link an adverse reaction to a vaccination unless it occurs soon afterward. In general, late adverse reactions are only identified as caused by vaccines if they occur many times more often than expected.
The National Academy of Sciences was chartered by Congress in 1863 to provide expert advice to government. Congress requested the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine to conduct a series of vaccine safety studies to inform vaccine policy.
“While few health problems are clearly associated with vaccines and some putative associations can be rejected based on evidence, in the majority of cases evidence was inadequate to accept or to reject a causal relationship… Confidence in vaccine safety requires more than surveillance and reporting in real time. In light of the paucity of strong conclusions about possible vaccine side effects, continued and selective investment in epidemiologic and other investigations into the risks of immunization will be necessary… About the best one can do is to estimate, based on the evidence, the probability that the frequency of an adverse event is less than a specified, low level. This may be enough for the physician who weighs the public health and personal health benefit against a very low risk, but not enough to satisfy a wary parent.
Continued, candid, and open communication is also an essential ingredient to a successful vaccine safety regime. This means more than the experts explaining the benefits and risks to parents and families. It means listening carefully to the anxieties and doubts, staying true to the strength of evidence without exaggeration or misrepresentation, and reporting fully and fairly on scientifically sound investigations into possible adverse events.“
1300 cases of narcolepsy were caused by the 2009 swine flu Pandemrix vaccine. This particular side effect was able to be linked to the vaccine because millions of people were vaccinated simultaneously, the narcolepsy that developed was severe and required intense medical attention, the rate of narcolepsy was 10-16 times higher than expected, and vaccine oversight had been increased to evaluate new pandemic vaccines. Canadians received a virtually identical vaccine (Arepanrix) but it was manufactured in a different facility, and by chance alone the Canadian version did not cause narcolepsy.
3. Is New Brunswick undergoing a crisis of vaccine-preventable disease?
The answer is no. And if there was a crisis, Bill 39 would not wait to go into effect until 2021.
UPDATE: On August 15, 2019 CDC changed most of its Vaccine Information Statements (which must be provided to parents before vaccines are given, according to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) eliminating many of the warnings associated with each vaccine. The MMR Vaccine Information Statement no longer says, “Some People Should Not Get this Vaccine.” The purpose for the changes appears to be to restrict the indications for medical exemptions, and create a federal standard to be applied by states that pass legislation like California’s.
Although it is not usually acknowledged, vaccination is not a one-size-fits-all procedure. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Human antibody response to measles vaccine is highly variable in the population.”Females have more adverse reactions than males. Gender and race influence the response. As does heredity.
Families that have experienced a serious vaccine reaction are right to be concerned about additional vaccinations and the safety of sibling vaccination, for their family is probably at higher than average risk of a reaction. What goes unreported is that many unvaccinated children are themselves a vulnerable group, and should not be vaccinated. However, there are no existing standards for doctors to use to determine the risk of vaccination to most children. So medical exemptions have been improvised, and are generally hard to come by.
4. Herd Immunity is undermined by high rates of vaccine failures
The Quebec measles epidemic I mentioned demonstrates that even a vaccination rate over 95% didn’t prevent a large measles outbreak. Herd immunity rates are based on statistical modelling, and are only projections. The reason that 50% of measles cases occurred in vaccinated children is primary or secondary vaccine failure. Primary vaccine failure means the vaccine never produced immunity, while secondary failure means the immunity was lost over time.
For most vaccines, primary and secondary failures go unnoticed, because children are not being exposed to most of these infections. The infections children do get exposed to are pertussis and influenza, and then vaccine failure is obvious–because most cases of pertussis and many of influenza occur in fully vaccinated children.
5. Do unvaccinated children put immunocompromised children at risk?
The fact is that immunocompromised children are not dying from vaccine preventable diseases, and few are getting them, with the exceptions of influenza, pertussis and varicella–because vaccines for these 3 infections provide limited immunity.
Fewer than one American dies yearly from measles, mumps, rubella, polio, or diphtheria. On average, one Canadian dies from whooping cough (pertussis). Ten Canadian children die from influenza. One American child dies yearly from varicella (chickenpox).
You are looking at 11 child deaths per year in Canada. Would vaccinating every child fully against whooping cough, varicella and influenza prevent these deaths? Remember, most whooping cough and varicella patients are fully vaccinated. And while the immunity generated in young children from flu shots varies yearly, it is usually less than 50%.
Herd immunity cannot be achieved for whooping cough or influenza because neither vaccine is adequate. Pertussis vaccine immunity wanes so quickly that little protection is left after 3-4 years. Transmission to others can occur before you realize you have influenza or pertussis. Even if 100% of Canadians were vaccinated, these diseases would continue to circulate within the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population.
Varicella cannot be eradicated both because the vaccine is not optimal (85% efficacy), waning occurs, and because the virus stays in your body permanently after vaccination or infection. Most immunocompromised children who develop varicella infections do so from virus already resident in their bodies. The claim that vaccine exemptions put immunocompromised children at risk was invented by PR firms, with no evidence behind it. In fact, immunocompromised children are at more risk from the shedding of live viruses in vaccines by other children who were recently vaccinated.
6. Sufficient population immunity appears to exist
While vaccination rates reported in New Brunswick are low, non-medical exemption rates are also low: 2%. The likeliest explanation for lack of epidemics despite low recorded vaccination rates is inadequate recordkeeping.
In Maine, with similar demographics, vaccination rates for each of the required vaccines is about 95%. Exemption rates vary by vaccine. Only 1% of US children receive no vaccines. Up to 25% receive some, but not every available vaccine.
7. Should we be concerned about vaccine quality and origin?
Vaccines are biologics. According to the FDA, “Most biologics are complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.” Translation: vaccines contain unknown substances, unknown even to the FDA and Public Health Agency of Canada. This makes them challenging to regulate. The FDA relies on vaccine manufacturers to provide accurate data about each step in the manufacturing process. When a problem occurs during manufacturing, the FDA expects to be told and expects the manufacturer to recall affected lots of vaccine when necessary. I have provided you information on 5 vaccine recalls or other issues in Canada since 2012.
The FDA usually redacts information about the locations where vaccine ingredients are manufactured. I am under the impression that at present, US vaccine products are made in Europe and North America.
Large multinational pharmaceutical companies, such as Sanofi, which has vaccine manufacturing facilities in both India and China, are manufacturing vaccines in underdeveloped nations. China and India each have over 20 vaccine manufacturers. It is probably only a matter of time before vaccines manufactured in countries known for inadequate government monitoring of pharmaceuticals are being used in Canada and the US.
“In July, China experienced its “worst public health crisis in years” as stated by South China Morning Post. Chinese vaccine maker Changsheng Biotechnology was found to have fabricated production and inspection records and to have arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment during its production of freeze-dried human rabies vaccines. Furthermore, substandard diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccines produced by Changsheng Biotechnology were administered to 215,184 Chinese children; and 400,520 substandard DPT vaccines produced by Wuhan Institute of Biological Products were sold in Hebei and Chongqing. On July 25, China’s drug regulator launched an investigation into all vaccine producers across the country. Fifteen people from Changsheng Biotechnology, including the chairman, have been detained by Chinese authorities. This latest vaccine scandal follows on from a series of fake and substandard food and drugs issues in China. As a result, many parents have lost faith in the vaccine system.”
8. Influenza, and the Fluad vaccine
Influenza is a disease that affects from 3-20% of the population yearly. There were 6515 reported influenza deaths in the US in 2017, during the decade’s worst outbreak. CDC uses mathematical models to estimate influenza deaths, and the estimates include deaths from other heart and lung conditions, in people who had influenza. These estimates usually range from 30-50,000 deaths yearly, related to influenza. Ninety percent of influenza deaths occur in those over age 65. While most people over 65 receive annual flu vaccines in the US, this age group is less likely to develop immunity from the vaccine, compared to younger people. Overall, flu vaccine effectiveness averages about 40%, according to the CDC.
Each year, influenza vaccines are newly made to contain the dominant strains predicted for that season. Because of the need to make different products each year, and make them rapidly available for each flu season, they are not tested to the same extent as other vaccines. Clinical trials to test for safety are not required for yearly changes to flu vaccines. Effectiveness trials are impossible to do prior to mass use. Yearly flu vaccines are “grandfathered in,” although they are checked for manufacturing defects.
Possible reasons this occurred include the revolving door between vaccine manufacturers and regulators, the abbreviated safety testing of flu vaccines, and the liability protection given to manufacturers by governments. The episode provides a warning that regulators’ first priority may not always be the public’s welfare.
The response of elders to flu vaccines is particularly poor. Two strategies are being tried to enhance vaccine immunity in this age group. The first involves using higher concentrations of antigens in the vaccines. The second involves using novel adjuvants, which are substances that provide increased stimulation to the immune system. Potentially this can improve immunity, but it might increase inflammation and autoimmune illnesses.
The Fluad vaccine is the only influenza vaccine in Canada and the US to contain a novel, immune-boosting adjuvant. The adjuvant is called MF59 C1. Originally produced by an Italian company, the adjuvant-containing flu vaccine was licensed for elders only, in Italy, in 1997. It was not licensed in the US until 2015, for elders only, presumably because they were less likely to experience complications from the vaccine’s additional immune stimulation. I have been unable to find unbiased literature on the MF59 adjuvant or the Fluad vaccine, as all the research has been sponsored by its manufacturers (Sclavo, then Chiron, then Novartis, and now Sequirus).
Fluad was licensed for elders in Canada in 2011. The government of Ontario’s fact sheet on the vaccine makes clear that by 2016 it was still not known whether the excess immune stimulation it provides actually improved protection against the flu:
“How well does the Fluad® vaccine protect against influenza? Influenza vaccines may decrease hospitalizations and deaths among elderly individuals. According to the product monograph, Fluad® produces a higher immune response in elderly individuals when compared to other influenza vaccines without an adjuvant. The higher immune response may indicate that Fluad® works better than unadjuvanted vaccines, although this is not known for certain.”
Nor is it known how safe the adjuvanted vaccine is. It causes about 15% more local reactions than nonadjuvanted flu vaccines, but we don’t know if it causes more serious, or later onset, adverse reactions.
“Severe reactions are rare, but several of the reviewed studies were too small to detect clinically significant but rare adverse events. In particular, the safety information is limited for ATIV (adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines) in children with immunodeficiencies and other chronic illnesses… There are insufficient data to assess whether ATIV (adjuvanted flu vaccine) is more effective than UTIV (unadjuvanted flu vaccine) or LAIV (live attenuated flu vaccine) in practice or to make an informed risk-benefit analysis.”
The reviewers also noted that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) failed to license the vaccine for European children in 2012. The EMA report found a number of problems with the single pivotal clinical trial of Fluad in children. Furthermore, the EMA report states, “The current application, although related to a product developed more than 15 years ago and authorized for use in the elderly, includes only one study addressing clinical vaccine efficacy.” The report concludes, “The overall benefit-risk balance of Fluad Paediatric is negative.”
Despite a) the lack of evidence of benefit, b) limited and c) unreliable safety information, d) rejection in Europe, and e) no evidence of any other country using it for children, f) let alone use in infants–in 2015 the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) licensed Fluad pediatric for use in infants and babies aged 6 months to 2 years.
It seems that Canada’s youngest children have been selected to serve as the unwitting guinea pigs in a massive immune stimulation experiment of this novel-adjuvanted vaccine.
What was the PHAC thinking? Will Canadian children serve as experimental subjects, without their parents’ knowledge, for additional vaccines selected for them by their public health agency?
Public health officials use the mass media, medical professionals and the levers of government to encourage, exhort and cajole vaccinations. Their conduct with the Fluad pediatric vaccine has shown they must not be given the power to compel.
February of 2022 was a particularly dark month, both in Quebec and in Canada generally. In Quebec, we had the expansion of the use of “vaccine passports” to large, well-ventilated box stores; a curfew had been imposed in January (and was lifted after nearly three weeks); the demonization of the so-called “unvaccinated” reached a fever pitch, first in regime media, then in government pronouncements—a new tax on the “unvaccinated” was promised, and it was promised to be “significant”. Apparently the solution to the problem of Omicron defeating the non-vaccines, was to blame those who spared themselves the useless and potentially harmful injections. By the end of the month, the Canadian federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to crush a popular, peaceful protest—the Freedom Convoy. Bank accounts of hundreds of protesters and donors were frozen; protest leaders were arrested and jailed on trumped up charges, while other protesters were trampled by horses or arrested at gunpoint by policemen outfitted in a manner almost identical to soldiers; and protesters’ private property was seized and/or vandalized by the police. What the dictatorial Justin Trudeau called a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” was accurate only as a description of his own regime, according to multiple surveys (like this one, that one, the other one, and now this). Everyone in Quebec was subjected to a new round of restrictions: the closure of businesses and churches; schools going back online. As mandated by the federal side of the regime, the “unvaccinated” were not allowed to leave the country, and they were banned from travelling by air or rail within Canada—the only country in the world to do that. An Iron Curtain was slammed down on Canada, and parts of that curtain remain intact. And then we all got Covid thanks to Omicron—for everyone I knew at the university, students and myself included, whether injected or not, the sickness was a total non-event and certainly far less severe than the common cold or a seasonal flu, even for those with multiple comorbidities. Some students were forced to quarantine at home with sick family members, and still did not get sick. All of this upheaval was meant to shield us from catching this?
In this dark, miserable month of authoritarian aggression against Canadians’ human rights and civil liberties, universities remained absolutely silent, because they were absolutely complicit. It is to this point that the following is directed.
On February 2nd, 2022, Reinfo Covid Quebec (a very large organization of health professionals, scientists, professors and citizens, numbering more than 10,000 members), organized and hosted a press conference titled, “The Collateral Damage of Government Measures” (“Dommages collatéraux des mesures gouvernementales”). The entirety of the professors’ panel in which I participated can now only be seen on Rumble (and Part 1 can be seen here). The event was mostly in French.
Before I continue, let me thank everyone in Reinfo Covid Quebec for their amazing organizational skills, their dedication, their professionalism, their courage, their high spirits, and their warmth. I thank them also for creating a momentary liberated zone for us: in contravention of government regulations, we met without masks, sitting shoulder to shoulder, laughing and chatting in large groups, for an extended time—no anti-social distancing, no useless breathing obstructions, no fear. In the darkness of February, they offered a warm and welcoming light.
My presentation (the video below), was in English. What follows beneath the video is the longer version of the remarks I had prepared, which appears only in print.
When a Canadian university tells a professor in the natural sciences that, “this university does not recognize natural immunity,” then we have arrived at the lowest intellectual point in the history of our universities. Natural immunity is a basic biological fact. For it to be struck from recognition gives you just one indication of the assault on science and on academic knowledge committed in the name of a “public health emergency” that was used to justify irrational, capricious, arbitrary, harmful, and discriminatory impositions.
Self-censorship has prevailed in Canadian universities, encouraged by castigating the few who express doubts, and by university administrations that present unsubstantiated monologues that advocate for restrictions and for dubious pharmaceutical products. We are further hampered in Canada by an inadequate number of public intellectuals, while we instead have a surplus of public relations intellectuals with close ties to pharmaceutical companies and to corporate media.
This is a country which has now purged a wide range of scholars in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, because they expressed dissenting views and stood by the ethics governing their disciplines. Academic freedom is now, de facto, cancelled. Tenure is also, de facto, nullified. Faced with the first real test to their integrity and their ethics, the vast majority of Canadian scholars failed to stand up and speak out.
Rather than serve as a source of diverse perspectives and challenging questions, universities instead fell in line with encouraging mass panic. This conformity has not only damaged public discourse, by taking leave of our duties as the critical conscience of society, it has damaged universities themselves, and I think the damage is now irreparable. University presidents have repeatedly produced unquestioning endorsements of the so-called “vaccines,” masking, and social distancing. Universities have internalized the “vaccine passport” system. Professors have been enlisted to police their students by enforcing mask mandates. Faculty unions have loudly advocated for tougher restrictions, such as mandatory inoculation. This is an extremely dangerous precedent, where one’s place in a university can be cancelled at any time based on one’s health status. Just as dangerous is the Canadian university being conscripted by the state-corporate alliance.
What will remain as a simply inexcusable and unforgivable reality of this period, is that open scientific debate was blocked during what was called a “pandemic”. Asked to rise up to meet history, Canadian academics mostly preferred to stand down. Consequently, the university itself has fallen as victim of this emergency, with limited prospects for recovery.
The Rise of the Church of Covid
As an anthropologist, I have asked myself: what is happening here? And why is it happening? I think of religion and ritual, the making of community, and the art of secrecy.
The intense pressure to conform is, it seems, an attempt to cement a community of believers. Strict rules of belonging are imposed, and those who disagree are excluded. This community has invented new rituals to mark it as a community with borders, and to elevate certain knowledge beyond the realm of questioning. Rituals include ones such as “masking,” which as dubious as it is in preventing transmission and infection, is much more useful as a political symbol that is masked as a moral virtue. Masking also diminishes personal identity, which is one of the unstated intentions, while (anti-)social distancing means that this paradoxical community (united by separation) is one that coheres but not within itself—instead it coheres through adhesion to an abstract “common good” (which is neither common, nor good).
This community has invented its own rite of passage: a form of baptism, of purification in the name of salvation, with “the vaccine” worshipped as the saviour.
The high priests of this community—the administrators, the approved scientists—have made their knowledge special and magical by raising it above questioning. This is the role of censorship and even secrecy, in creating subjects and propositions that are taboo. Those who are not anointed and do not follow in the path of the saviour, are the damned.
The alleged common good—said to be imperilled by a dangerous, unclean “Other” who has not been ritually purified through “vaccination”—is a common good that expects tribute to be paid, and without reciprocity to members of the community whose rights have now become conditional privileges. In reality, it is not so much an objective community, as it is a method of extracting tribute, service, and submission—not so much a community as it is an exploitation scheme.
It is surprisingly self-reflective of Pfizer to call its new (not distributed) injectable, Comirnaty, in a play on the words for “community” and “mRNA,” for this is a community of devotion and service to mRNA technology. It is an imagined, even imaginary, community that flows from the point of the needle; in reality, actual living communities have been divided if not destroyed with the ritual mandates and restrictions that were ushered in to march the masses into the “vaccine” centres. Whether due to fear or mandates that left no choice, citizens were pressed into service for Pfizer and Moderna—and then they were patronizingly told that “we are all in this together” and condescendingly thanked for “stepping up and doing their duty”. Meanwhile, the massive flow of profits went in only one direction—for example, in the direction of building a massive new 417-foot-long mega-yacht for Jeff Bezos, for when he is not journeying into outer space.
Writing as a political economist, Professor Fabio Vighi provided a complementary explanation:
“Virus, Vaccine and Covid Pass are the Holy Trinity of social engineering. ‘Virus passports’ are meant to train the multitudes in the use of electronic wallets controlling access to public services and personal livelihood. The dispossessed and redundant masses, together with the non-compliant, are the first in line to be disciplined by digitalised poverty management systems directly overseen by monopoly capital. The plan is to tokenise human behaviour and place it on blockchain ledgers run by algorithms. And the spreading of global fear is the perfect ideological stick to herd us toward this outcome”.
In his new book (Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics. London: ERIS., 2021) the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben outlined some more parallels between Covid pandemicism and religious thought and practice. He argues that, “the transformation we are witnessing today operates through the introduction of a sanitation terror and a religion of health. What, in the tradition of bourgeois democracy, used to be the right to health became, seemingly without anyone noticing, a juridical-religious obligation that must be fulfilled at any cost” (p. 10). Reflecting further on the meanings of this highly leveraged if not outright invented crisis, Agamben points out how “science” has acquired the properties of religion:
“It is as if the religious need that the Church is no longer able to satisfy is groping for a new habitat—finding it in what has already become, in effect, the religion of our time: science. Like any other religion, this faith can produce fear and superstition, or it can be at least used to disseminate them. Never before have we witnessed such a spectacle of divergent and contradictory opinions and prescriptions, typical of religions in times of crisis. These opinions range from the minoritarian heretical position (one that is nonetheless represented by distinguished scientists) that denies the seriousness of the phenomenon, to the orthodox dominant discourse that affirms this same seriousness and yet differs within itself, often radically, on the strategies for facing it. And, as always happens in these cases, some experts (or so-called experts) manage to gain the approval of the monarch, who, as in the times of the religious disputes that divided Christianity, sides with one current or the other according to his own interests, before subsequently imposing his measures” (p. 20).
“The analogy with religion must be read to the letter,” Agamben asserts, adding: “Theologians declared that they could not clearly define God, but in his name they dictated rules of behaviour and burned heretics without hesitation; virologists admit that they do not know exactly what a virus is, but in its name they insist on deciding how human beings should live” (p. 33).
Prof. Douglas Farrow, a colleague at McGill University where he teaches theology and ethics, had much more to say on these issues in his article, “Enrolled in the Religion of Fear”.
In this New Church of the Eternal Pandemic, where states of emergency act as the crowning religious festivals on the annual calendar, universities train students in the methods of reproducing the authorized, orthodox theology. Dissidents, in some noteworthy cases, are publicly flogged to send a lesson to others, while boosting the morale of acolytes.
Update: Punishing Resistance to, and Critique of, the Non-Vaccines
Many dozens of professors across Canada have been suspended without pay, or terminated outright for refusing to disclose their private and personal medical status, in addition to those who have been suspended and/or terminated because they openly rejected the new non-vaccines.
Before continuing, a note of clarification may still be necessary for some. Why non-vaccines? First, because the CDC changed its definition of “vaccines” in August of 2021, to accommodate the new products being developed for the market, which did not meet the previous CDC definition of “vaccine”. Second, because these are called gene therapies in the pharmaceutical industry itself; by the FDA they are formallyreferred to as investigational new drugs; in the legal arena, they are classed as prototypes by Pfizer itself. Note also that “emergency use” investigational new drugs are defined by the FDA itself as “experimental”. We can thus call these products experimental gene therapies to be brief, all complaints notwithstanding.
Personally, I know several dozen of these suspended and fired academics, through my membership in Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics. That is where we have met, corresponded, and co-authored some Op-Eds. Separate from CA4CE, I have received correspondence from at least three dozen more professors across Canada, some of which later joined the CA4CE. I will have much more to say about professors’ non-compliance, and the results, in future follow-ups on this site.
For now, I want to direct your attention to the very latest instance of the New Church of Covid (an ex-university), punishing two professors for publicly criticizing the experimental gene therapies used against Covid, one of whom was injured by taking these products. I am speaking here of Professors Patrick Provost and Nicolas Derome at Laval University. Professor Provost, whom I know, was the more prominent of the two in the media, having authored a recent article critical of Quebec’s disproportionate response, using the Quebec Health Institute’s own data to show just how overblown have been the impacts of Covid. Indeed, a separate study which was not the subject of controversy, provided evidence of the fact that Quebec had 4,033 excess deaths between March 2020 and October 2021, but reported 11,470 Covid-19 fatalities—almost three times as much: “It’s the biggest gap recorded in Canada during the pandemic”. In reporting on the same study, it was admitted that, “Quebec doctors included COVID-19 as a cause of death in medical reports more liberally than doctors in other provinces did”. The alleged impacts of Covid were then used by the government to cause real psychological, physiological, economic, and social harms with lockdowns and various other restrictions and mandates. For having challenged the dominant narrative, Patrick’s article was not only removed from the Web by its publisher, he was suspended for eight weeks without pay by Laval University.
Fortunately—and this has been rare in Canada—the Laval University faculty union has vigorously taken up the cause of both professors. This is plainly a fight about academic freedom. The Quebec Federation of University Professors has also endorsed their fight. Amazingly, in a sharp departure from its complicit silence, if not support for quashing the academic freedom of dissenters, the Canadian Association of University Teachers finally felt compelled to speak out in support of those targeted by Laval.
What makes the matter even more interesting is that the very same Quebec government whose pandemicist narrative has reigned throughout the past two (plus) years, recently passed an Academic Freedom Law (Bill 32). Many individual faculty and their unions in Quebec protested this law when it was first introduced, and seemed to be running interference for politically “woke” university administrations. Even the FQPPU criticized how the law was drafted and promoted. Along with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, I instead supported Bill 32, and I did so in a lengthy email on the subject that I sent the Minister. The same Minister of Higher Education who shepherded the law, Danielle McCann, has been forced to come out and condemn Laval University. Minister McCann then cited the situation at Laval as evidence that Bill 32 was necessary, and on this point she is correct.
We thus have a situation where a law—originally intended to shield professors who used “the N-word” in an academic context and for academic purposes, thus designed to hobble the importation/imitation of US culture wars into Quebec—is instead put to its first test with academic free speech against a narrative pushed by the government itself. Professors Provost and Derome have a straightforward case for grievance, and one which would likely win in the courts if it came to that. Laval University has in the meantime disgraced itself, in prime time, and it has broken the law.
For my part, I was hoping that the message in my video above would not be validated so much further, so close to home, in such short order.
“I would like to raise awareness about how our society is evolving, it’s not in a good direction. It is getting to the point where private interests will be directing our country, we will just be servants”—Dr. Patrick Provost
I tear a strip off these cold cretins by going over their internal emails. You’ll see their faces and can decide for yourselves if they have a shred of humanity left. If you would like to send a gift of financial support, click here: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php
**Thank You and God bless each of you for being here!** I also talk about hero Dr. Charles Hoffe, whose story is a must-hear. References below:
The Trudeau government just announced they would be extending the ban on unvaccinated foreigners until September 30 (the start of flu season).
“Today, the Government of Canada announced it is extending current border measures for travellers entering Canada. Requirements for travellers arriving to Canada are expected to remain in effect until at least September 30, 2022,” a Public Health Agency of Canada news release reads.
It should be noted that while unvaccinated Canadians can (at least in the short term) board a plane to travel abroad, the ban on the unvaccinated remains on both sides of the Canada-US border, an apparent unspoken agreement by both countries to not budge on the unvaccinated travel ban until the other does.
Moreover, the latest announcement states that unvaccinated Canadians will still be forced to quarantine for 14 days upon their return to Canada.
Additionally, the government says that the ArriveCan app — which has led to delays so bad it has become an international embarrassment — will remain in place.
As for good news, mandatory random COVID tests at airports are now paused — but only for the vaccinated. This is Transport Minister Omar Alghabra’s half-hearted attempt to keep Canada’s airports “strong, efficient, and resilient” after being disgraced by former NHL player Ryan Whitney.
“In addition, the pause of mandatory random testing will continue at all airports until mid-July for travellers who qualify as fully vaccinated… Mandatory random testing continues at land border points of entry, with no changes. Travellers who do not qualify as fully vaccinated, unless exempt, will continue to test on Day 1 and Day 8 of their 14-day quarantine,” the news release reads.
The Liberals are intent on funneling ever more of our collective resources to bolster the US Empire, spending lavishly to “modernize” Canada’s chief bi-national military accord.
On Monday Defence Minister Anita Anand announced the government would spend $4.9 billion to upgrade the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The federal government said it will devote $40 billion to NORAD over 20 years, but it may be far more than that noted David Pugliese in a story headlined: “Cost to modernize NORAD set at $40 billion, but will final tally be higher?”
The media and government framed the announcement as strengthening Canada’s defences. According to the Globe and Mail report, “the Canadian government has pledged $4.9-billion over six years to help upgrade North America’s air defences, addressing the growing threat posed by hypersonic missiles and advanced cruise missile technology developed by Russia and China.”
But it’s absurd to present NORAD as a defensive arrangement. Its lead actor has 1,000 international bases and special forces deployed in 149 countries. Rather than protect Canada and the US, NORAD supports violent missions led by other US commands. In 1965 NORAD’s mandate was expanded to include surveillance and assessment sharing for US commands stationed worldwide (United States European Command, United States Pacific Command, United States Africa Command, etc.).
The Pentagon has put satellites into space to enable first strike ballistic missile defence (BMD). While Paul Martin’s Liberals claimed to oppose BMD, they granted “full cooperation by NORAD in missile-defence work”, explained Richard Sanders in a Press for Conversion report on the subject. In 2004 Ottawa formally permitted the US BMD system to use data from NORAD’s “Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment”.
It’s called “missile defence” because it’s designed to defend US missile sites after they launch offensive operations. US-installed missile defence systems in Romania and Korea, for instance, are designed primarily to stop opponents’ missiles following a US first strike.
US space-based missile defence interceptors able to eliminate Russia’s early warning satellites without warning puts that country on edge. This ratchets up the arms race and the likelihood of nuclear war.
NORAD has also drawn Canada into US belligerence in other ways. During the July 1958 US invasion of Lebanon NORAD was placed on “increased readiness” while US troops checked secular Arab nationalism after Iraqis toppled a Western-backed king (at the same time British troops invaded Jordan to prop up the monarchy there).
In a higher profile incident, Canadian NORAD personnel were put on high alert when the US illegally blockaded Cuba in October 1962. This transpired even though Prime Minister John Diefenbaker hesitated in supporting US actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
During the 1973 Ramadan/Yom Kippur/Arab–Israeli War NORAD was placed on heightened alert. Washington wanted to deter the USSR from intervening on Egypt’s behalf.
NORAD systems offered surveillance and communications support to the 1991 war on Iraq. It monitored the region and provided information to launch US Patriot surface-to-air missiles. NORAD ballistic missile warnings were also sent to Ottawa and Canadian units in Bahrain.
NORAD also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The same can be said for US bombing in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, etc.
Thousands of Canadian military personnel assist NORAD’s operations. One hundred and fifty Canadians are stationed at NORAD’s central collection and coordination facility near Colorado Springs, Colorado. Hundreds more work at regional NORAD outposts across the US and Canada and many pilots are devoted to the Command.
A Royal Canadian Airforce general is the vice commander of NORAD and runs the entire command when the US commander is absent. In discussing the two countries’ most significant bilateral military accord, Ann Griffiths explains,“NORAD brings the Canadian military more deeply within the US defense establishment than any other ally. The United States quite simply, would not entrust such responsibilities to the military of any other close ally, not even Britain.”
NORAD makes Canada a junior partner to US militarism and imperialism. If Canada was truly a force for good in the world, a peacekeeper and adherent of a rules based international order, Ottawa would withdraw from NORAD, rather than spend billions more strengthening it.
The City of Ottawa has announced several restrictions for Canada Day, including a motor vehicle control zone with police checkpoints to ban protesters’ vehicles.
“Getting around downtown on Canada Day will be more complicated than usual this year,” a City of Ottawa news release reads.
Unsurprisingly, the motor vehicle control zone only applies to roads leading to or surrounding Parliament Hill — an apparent attempt by City officials to prevent another Freedom Convoy incident, even if they don’t state so outright.
As per the news release, the motor vehicle control zone will be in place from June 29 to July 4 and will affect travel within the city in several ways.
Firstly, all vehicles belonging to people taking part in any form of demonstration, event, protest, or rally are outright banned from going near Parliament Hill, while local and business traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit will be permitted to move through the control zone freely.
Moreover, those who do not comply with the protester vehicle ban will face ticketing, and “barricades, heavy equipment, or police officers and vehicles will be at various access points surrounding the control zone, to filter lawful traffic onto those streets.”
It isn’t clear how a demonstrator’s vehicle will be distinguished from someone just looking to go to a shop, other than obvious freedom signs.
Signage will also be posted in the motor vehicle control zone that prohibits street parking and stopping.
Additionally, while authorities plan to lift the control zone on July 4, they say they have no problem extending the control zone “should conditions warrant it.”
As for July 1, the City says there will be additional restrictions:
“Some roads within the control zone will be closed to all traffic from 12:01 am on July 1 until 2 am on July 2. There are also some pedestrian and bicycle restrictions.”
Before this latest announcement, the Canadian Pressreported, “An Ottawa police officer says this Canada Day will be “unprecedented and unique” with a never-before-seen security posture as the main events take place off Parliament Hill, and protests are planned throughout the day.”
“Police are aware of the demonstrations and are “planning accordingly,” said the officer.”
We now know what those plans entail.
Canada Heritage also announced that they would not allow Canadians to participate in the annual Canada Day celebration at Parliament Hill due to construction after two years of cancelling it due to COVID.
They added that the Canada Day party, which usually sees thousands flock to Ottawa, is being moved to the LeBreton Flats approximately 1.5km Westwards.
As for the planned demonstrations, there are several protests against the remaining COVID mandates planned for Canada Day, which are expected to be attended by many Freedom Convoy protesters from February.
Staggering Health Consequences of Sugar on Health of Americans
By Dr. Gary Null | Global Research | February 3, 2014
In September 2013, a bombshell report from Credit Suisse’s Research Institute brought into sharp focus the staggering health consequences of sugar on the health of Americans. The group revealed that approximately “30%–40% of healthcare expenditures in the USA go to help address issues that are closely tied to the excess consumption of sugar.”[1]The figures suggest that our national addiction to sugar runs us an incredible $1 trillion in healthcare costs each year. The Credit Suisse report highlighted several health conditions including coronary heart diseases, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which numerous studies have linked to excessive sugar intake.[2]
Just a year earlier in 2012, a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta appearing on 60 Minutes featured the work of Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist from California who gained national attention after a lecture he gave titled “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” went viral in 2009. Lustig’s research has investigated the connection between sugar consumption and the poor health of the American people. He has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals identifying sugar as a major factor in the epidemic of degenerative disease that now afflicts our country. The data compiled by Lustig clearly show how excessive sugar consumption plays a key role in the development of many types of cancer, obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. His research has led him to conclude that 75% of all diseases in America today are brought on by the American lifestyle and are entirely preventable.[3]
Until the airing of this program, no one in the “official” world acknowledged anything wrong with sugar, here is a sampling of some the latest research available to them if they chose to look… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 