The impact of vaccine mandates to healthcare workers in Canada
By Eleftherios Gkioulekas | October 20, 2024
A recent paper by Professor Claudia Chaufan and colleagues reported the results of a cross-sectional survey of 468 Canadian healthcare workers examining the impact of COVID-19 vaccination decisions and the impacts of vaccine mandates. The sample used in the study is interesting because it consists predominantly of nurses and other supporting disciplines but very few medical doctors. The study provides only descriptive statistics; however, the reported results are astounding.
Here are some highlights: 75% of respondents that received the COVID-19 vaccine reported that the reason for taking the injectable product was employer vaccine mandates. Only 22% of vaccinated respondents reported no adverse events. Moderate adverse events were reported by 35.6% of respondents and severe adverse reactions were reported by 29.8% of respondents. Out of the 87 respondents that received the COVID-19 vaccine, 1 reported a life-threatening adverse reaction. Interestingly, only 4.3% of respondents were trained on how to report post-vaccination adverse events and only 4.5% of respondents reported that they were encouraged to report adverse events after vaccination.
From the entire sample of both vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers, 74.6% reported anxiety and/or depression and 18.3% reported experiencing suicidal thoughts due to employer vaccination requirements (agree and strongly agree responses). Although 40% reported willingness to return to their previous role if vaccine mandates were dropped, another 42.5% reported an intention to leave their occupation or the healthcare industry as a result of their experience with vaccine mandates (agree and strongly agree responses). 85% reported that employers did not offer alternatives to vaccination to satisfy their vaccine mandate, with only 1 out of 468 respondents reporting that their employer was willing to accept proof of natural immunity, even though 75% of respondents reported that they worked with COVID-19 patients prior to the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines. Only 9.5% reported being offered regular testing as an alternative to vaccination.
59% of respondents reported that they were not provided with any written information about the vaccines, necessary for informed consent, and only 2.4% of respondents were provided with the package insert from the vaccine manufacturer.
Finally, only 16.1% of vaccinated respondents reported being happy with their choice to get vaccinated, whereas 92.6% of unvaccinated respondents reported being happy with their decision to not get vaccinated (agree and strongly agree). Furthermore, 70.3% observed differential treatment of patients based on their vaccine status and only 4.1% report that they are confident that the current healthcare system will provide adequate and quality care while respecting personal preferences and values (agree and strongly agree).
For more details, you will have to read the paper.
Here’s the paper’s conclusion:
In 2021 the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) announced six evaluation criteria that jointly provide “a normative framework (…) to determine the merit or worth of an intervention”- a policy, a strategy, or an activity (42). The first criterion is “relevance”, i.e., to what extent a policy is responsive to beneficiaries, meaning those who “benefit directly or indirectly from the policy”. The second criterion is “coherence”, i.e., to what extent a policy is compatible with other policies in a given setting. The third is “effectiveness”, i.e., to what extent a policy has achieved or is expected to achieve its objectives. The fourth criterion is “efficiency”, to what extent a policy converts inputs into outputs in the “most cost-effective way possible, as compared to feasible alternatives in the context” and within a reasonable timeframe. The fifth criterion is “impact”, i.e., to what extent a policy “has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended”, effects. The sixth and last criterion is “sustainability”, i.e., whether benefits are likely to last (42).
If our findings indicate a trend in the health care sector in Ontario, Canada, they suggest that by these criteria the policy of mandated vaccination for HCWs in the province has failed in its purported goal of promoting safer healthcare environments and achieving better care. Concerning “relevance”, the intended beneficiaries, whether HCWs, patients, or communities at large, have been harmed by exacerbated staff shortages, intimidating work environments, and health professionals coerced into acting against their best clinical judgment. Concerning “coherence”, the policy has proven to be at odds with other policies within health settings, such as the imperative to maintain adequate staffing levels or to respect informed consent and bodily autonomy, not only for HCWs but for those patients who, for whatever reason, decline vaccination. As to “effectiveness”, there is no evidence that the policy has improved patient care-as suggested by our findings, it has likely worsened it.
Concerning “efficiency”, there is no evidence that the policy has been more cost-effective than comparable alternatives, such as relying on the superiority of naturally acquired immunity over artificial immunity (23,43-45), acquired by most HCWs during 2020 as they treated patients in critical need, and for this reason were celebrated as heroes by the media and the authorities (46,47). Notably, naturally acquired immunity, achieved through recovery from a prior infection, was not recognized by healthcare employers in Canada. In fact, there is no evidence that such (then unvaccinated) workers were deemed a threat to patient safety and disciplined for that reason. Concerning “impact”, our findings also suggest that the overall impact of the policy on the well-being of HCWs and the sustainability of health systems has also been negative. Finally, concerning “sustainability”, with close to half of our sample of highly trained and experienced HCWs intending to leave the health professions, we see no evidence for any net benefits, either current or future. We conclude that if, by the OECD criteria, the policy of mandated vaccination for HCWs has failed, this failure, along with the contested efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, their negative impact on HCWs’ wellbeing, staffing levels, and patient care, and the threat that mandates represent to longstanding bioethical principles such as informed consent and bodily autonomy (48,49), negates any basis-policy, scientific, or ethical-to continue with the practice.

References
C. Chaufan and N. Hemsing and R. Moncrieffe, “COVID-19 vaccination decisions and impacts of vaccine mandates: a cross sectional survey of healthcare workers in Ontario, Canada”, Journal of Public Health and Emergency (2024), Online First, https://jphe.amegroups.org/article/view/10313
‘Childish Temper Tantrums’ – Australian Councilor Fires Back at Pressure From Authorities
By Anatoly Donstov – Sputnik – 24.10.2024
Following his powerful interview with Sputnik, Adrian McRae, businessman and member of the Town of Port Hedland Council in Australia, has been urged to resign by Western Australia Premier Roger Cook in a desperate attempt to silence him.
“Earlier this week, before the Premier had heard I was in Russia, he suggested that the entire Town of Port Hedland Council should get back to “knitting” when we demanded him to show us evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines were safe… So, instead of acting like a true leader, … he attacks me personally and resorts to ad-hominem – the last refuge of a failed argument. I feel sorry for him actually. I don’t know what I’d do if I was in his shoes,” McRae told Sputnik, explaining Cook’s “contempt” towards him and “all West Australian Councilors.”
On Wednesday, the Premier called for the resignation of McRae, labeling him “an embarrassment” after his interview with Sputnik, ABC reported. In the interview, the businessman criticized Australian and Western media for biased coverage of Russia and challenged the narrative portraying Moscow as the enemy.
McRae warned that free speech is under threat in the West, while BRICS countries still offer hope for its protection. As an observer in the 2024 Russian presidential election, McRae praised the transparency of the process, drawing heavy criticism from Australian media.
“It’s simple. The Premier is using the boogeyman of Russia to attempt to ruin my character in hopes of people forgetting about the important questions my entire Council has asked him regarding the mRNA vaccine contamination. He is deflecting the subject to the best of his very limited ability and making an absolute fool of himself in the process,” McRae told Sputnik, explaining why Cook has gone to such lengths to smear him.
Despite the Premier’s desperate attempts to suppress the council member, McRae remains a strong voice against Western censorship and political corruption, with Sputnik delivering the uncensored truth that the West fears.
“Sadly for the Premier, I have truth and science on my side. He, on the other hand, has nothing but a dying prostitute media and a really poor scriptwriter. So no, I am not too concerned about the Premier and his childish temper tantrums,” McRae said confidently, undeterred by the threats from the Western Australia Premier.
Dark Money, Darker Motives: Why is Bill Gates Backing Kamala Harris Using Shady Super PAC?
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.10.2024
Tech billionaire, philanthropist and WEF cheerleader Bill Gates has given Kamala Harris’s campaign a $50 mln boost using dark money super PAC Future Forward. The donation was intended to remain secret, but was uncovered by NYT this week.
What’s Future Forward?
Set up in 2018 by former Obama campaign staffers and coming out of left field in the final weeks of the 2020 race to fund a massive pro-Biden media blitz, Future Forward is a super political action committee funded mostly by Big Tech and venture capital firms, including Meta, Google, disgraced crypto financier Sam Bankman-Fried, Bain Capital and Bridgewater Associates.
The super PAC has raised a whopping $700 mln for the 2024 election cycle, rolling out $75 mln in pro-Harris ads last week.
What’s Behind Gates’ Electoral ‘Generosity’?
2024 is at least the second election cycle where Gates has used a dark money vehicle to support the Democratic Party’s candidate. In 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed nearly $70 mln to the New Venture Fund, a nonprofit belonging to DC consultancy Arabella Advisors, which bankrolls the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a goliath of undisclosed donations for Democratic politicians and liberal causes which raised nearly $390 mln four years ago. Publicly, Gates and his now former wife also gave $500,000 to Biden’s inaugural committee.
Mr. Gates has been an active supporter of Democratic candidates since at least 2008, contributing financially to and praising the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Gates’ ties to the Clintons are deeply rooted, with the billionaire becoming a top donor to the Clinton Foundation, and forging partnerships with the organization for global projects since at least 2013.
In a telling interview in 2016 in which he explained his preference for Clinton, Gates said “there have been questions about vaccines in general where some of the candidates have shown that they’re not as up to date about vaccines in general, and that’s got to be a concern.”
“Science in general, whether it’s GMOs or vaccines, there’s a lot of people out there who don’t give science the benefit of the doubt. In terms of experience, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have more experience in global health,” Gates said at the time.
How has Gates profited off the Dems’ agenda?
With Harris’ presidential bid expected to broadly continue the Biden/Clinton line on foreign and domestic policy, it makes sense for Gates to throw his influence behind the VP, given the perceived threat of the Trump brand of red-pill MAGA Republicans and their anti-vax, anti-tech, and anti-interventionist leanings.
“This election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world,” Gates said this week after info about his $50 mln donation leaked out.
“I think it’s great to have somebody who’s younger, who can think about things like AI and how we shape that in the right way, and I certainly offer up my opinions to the politicians who are interested,” Gates said this summer after Biden dropped out and named Harris his successor.
The Gates Foundation’s fortunes got a big boost under Biden, with its endowment growing from $69 bln in 2020 to $75.2 bln in 2023.
Gates enjoyed a profits bonanza off mRNA coronavirus vaccines mandated by the Biden administration. In 2022, he sold off shares of BioNTech stocks he bought in 2019 as sales slowed. His foundation has also owned shares in Pfizer, CureVac and Vir Biotech going back to well before the pandemic.
The billionaire’s foundation supports the Global Virome Project – an ambitious initiative created in 2018 to predict pathogens that could trigger lethal pandemics, but accused of weaponizing viruses from a network of 150 biolabs worldwide.
Gates has also backed a broad array of World Economic Forum-affiliated initiatives, including projects to reduce emissions and create synthetic meat and dairy. In 2022, The Seattle Times revealed Gates’ secret lobbying to save Biden’s signature $2+ trln Build Back Better social and climate spending package.
Gates has also been a top backer of the Biden administration’s battle against media and online ‘misinformation’, with an explosive MintPress investigation from 2021 revealing that his foundation had bankrolled some $319 mln in media, including CNN, the BBC, Le Monde, the Financial Times, Der Spiegel and others to ensure favorable coverage of his agenda and that of his allies.
Prostate Cancer: Over-Testing and Over-Treatment
By Bruce W. Davidson | Brownstone Institute | October 17, 2024
The excessive medical response to the Covid pandemic made one thing abundantly clear: Medical consumers really ought to do their own research into the health issues that impact them. Furthermore, it is no longer enough simply to seek out a “second opinion” or even a “third opinion” from doctors. They may well all be misinformed or biased. Furthermore, this problem appears to predate the Covid phenomenon.
A striking example of that can be found in the recent history of prostate cancer testing and treatment, which, for personal reasons, has become a subject of interest to me. In many ways, it strongly resembles the Covid calamity, where misuse of the PCR test resulted in harming the supposedly Covid-infected with destructive treatments.
Two excellent books on the subject illuminate the issues involved in prostate cancer. One is Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers by Dr. Mark Scholz and Ralph Blum. Dr. Scholtz is executive director of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute in California. The other is The Great Prostate Hoax by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana. Richard Ablin is a pathologist who invented the PSA test but has become a vociferous critic of its widespread use as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer.
Mandatory yearly PSA testing at many institutions opened up a gold mine for urologists, who were able to perform lucrative biopsies and prostatectomies on patients who had PSA test numbers above a certain level. However, Ablin has insisted that “routine PSA screening does far more harm to men than good.” Moreover, he maintains that the medical people involved in prostate screening and treatment represent “a self-perpetuating industry that has maimed millions of American men.”
Even during approval hearings for the PSA test, the FDA was well aware of the problems and dangers. For one thing, the test has a 78% false positive rate. An elevated PSA level can be caused by various factors besides cancer, so it is not really a test for prostate cancer. Moreover, a PSA test score can spur frightened men into getting unnecessary biopsies and harmful surgical procedures.
One person who understood the potential dangers of the test well was the chairman of the FDA’s committee, Dr. Harold Markovitz, who decided whether to approve it. He declared, “I’m afraid of this test. If it is approved, it comes out with the imprimatur of the committee… as pointed out, you can’t wash your hands of guilt … all this does is threaten a whole lot of men with prostate biopsy… it’s dangerous.”
In the end, the committee did not give unqualified approval to the PSA test but only approved it “with conditions.” However, subsequently, the conditions were ignored.
Nevertheless, the PSA test became celebrated as the route to salvation from prostate cancer. The Postal Service even circulated a stamp promoting yearly PSA tests in 1999. Quite a few people became wealthy and well-known at the Hybritech company, thanks to the Tandem-R PSA test, their most lucrative product.
In those days, the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the medical device and drug approval process was already apparent. In an editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association (quoted in Albin and Piana’s book), Dr. Marcia Angell wrote, “The pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation of its products… there’s mounting evidence that they skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer.” She also authored the book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
A cancer diagnosis often causes great anxiety, but in actuality, prostate cancer develops very slowly compared to other cancers and does not often pose an imminent threat to life. A chart featured in Scholz and Blum’s book compares the average length of life of people whose cancer returns after surgery. In the case of colon cancer, they live on average two more years, but prostate cancer patients live another 18.5 years.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, prostate cancer patients do not die from it but rather from something else, whether they are treated for it or not. In a 2023 article about this issue titled “To Treat or Not to Treat,” the author reports the results of a 15-year study of prostate cancer patients in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only 3% of the men in the study died of prostate cancer, and getting radiation or surgery for it did not seem to offer much statistical benefit over “active surveillance.”
Dr. Scholz confirms this, writing that “studies indicate that these treatments [radiation and surgery] reduce mortality in men with Low and Intermediate-Risk disease by only 1% to 2% and by less than 10% in men with High-Risk disease.”
Nowadays prostate surgery is a dangerous treatment choice, but it is still widely recommended by doctors, especially in Japan. Sadly, it also seems to be unnecessary. One study cited in Ablin and Piana’s book concluded that “PSA mass screening resulted in a huge increase in the number of radical prostatectomies. There is little evidence for improved survival outcomes in the recent years…”
However, a number of urologists urge their patients not to wait to get prostate surgery, threatening them with imminent death if they do not. Ralph Blum, a prostate cancer patient, was told by one urologist, “Without surgery you’ll be dead in two years.” Many will recall that similar death threats were also a common feature of Covid mRNA-injection promotion.
Weighing against prostate surgery are various risks, including death and long-term impairment, since it is a very difficult procedure, even with newer robotic technology. According to Dr. Scholz, about 1 in 600 prostate surgeries result in the death of the patient. Much higher percentages suffer from incontinence (15% to 20%) and impotence after surgery. The psychological impact of these side effects is not a minor problem for many men.
In light of the significant risks and little proven benefit of treatment, Dr. Scholz censures “the urology world’s persistent overtreatment mindset.” Clearly, excessive PSA screening led to inflicting unnecessary suffering on many men. More recently, the Covid phenomenon has been an even more dramatic case of medical overkill.
Ablin and Piana’s book makes an observation that also sheds a harsh light on the Covid medical response: “Isn’t cutting edge innovation that brings new medical technology to the market a good thing for health-care consumers? The answer is yes, but only if new technologies entering the market have proven benefit over the ones they replace.”
That last point especially applies to Japan right now, where people are being urged to receive the next-generation mRNA innovation–the self-amplifying mRNA Covid vaccine. Thankfully, a number seem to be resisting this time.
Bruce Davidson is professor of humanities at Hokusei Gakuen University in Sapporo, Japan.
55 Undeclared Chemical Elements — Including Heavy Metals — Found in COVID Vaccines
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 15, 2024
A group of Argentine scientists identified 55 chemical elements — not listed on package inserts — in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, CanSino, Sinopharm and Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccines, according to a study published last week in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
The chemical elements include 11 heavy metals — such as chromium, arsenic, nickel, aluminum, cobalt and copper — which scientists consider systemic toxicants known to be carcinogenic and to induce organ damage, even at low exposure levels.
The samples also contained 11 of the 15 lanthanides, or rare earth elements, that are heavier, silvery metals often used in manufacturing. These chemical elements, which include lanthanum, cerium and gadolinium, are lesser known to the general public than heavy metals but have also been shown to be highly toxic.
“The detection of multiple undeclared toxic elements, including heavy metals and lanthanides, in COVID-19 vaccines raises a dual and multiplied concern for human health,” James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., a member of the journal’s editorial board who was not involved in the research, told The Defender. “Individually, these chemicals are known to cause neurological, cardiovascular and immunological damage.”
“Together, their synergistic toxicity could exacerbate these risks far beyond what regulators and manufacturers have disclosed or studied,” Lyons-Weiler added.
The research builds on a series of studies conducted since 2021 using different analytic techniques to analyze COVID-19 vaccine vials from major manufacturers. Previous studies also identified significant numbers of chemical elements not listed on vaccine labels.
Research efforts included a 2022 study by a German working group, including the late pathologist Arne Burkhardt, submitted to the German government; a 2021 study by scientists in England; a 2022 study by Canadian Dr. Daniel Nagase; and a 2023 Romanian study by Dr. Geanina Hagimă.
Across those global studies, by the end of 2023, researchers had identified 24 undeclared chemical elements in the COVID-19 vaccine formulas.
Marcela Sangorrín, Ph.D., co-author of the Argentine study, told The Defender these different international studies are important because there is “a significant gap in the quality control of biological products by the national regulatory authorities of each country.”
“This situation is even more urgent and concerning when we consider the rapid advancements observed in cutting-edge biotechnological developments, the complexity of which requires a more thorough legislative and regulatory framework to ensure the safety of individuals who choose to use these therapies,” Sangorrín said.
CDC makes vaccine excipient information ‘almost impossible to find’
For the Argentine study, researchers aimed to corroborate the previous findings of undeclared elements and to detect and measure any elements not identified in those studies.
They analyzed 13 vials from different lots of six brands of the COVID-19 vaccines at a lab at the National University of Córdoba. They used a highly sensitive analytic technique — inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry — which makes it possible to measure elements at trace levels in biological fluids.
The researchers analyzed at least two vials of each vaccine, except for CanSino, a viral vector vaccine made in China, for which they analyzed only one vial.
Their paper included a long list of COVID-19 vaccine components declared by the manufacturers. The components vary by vaccine maker. The researchers obtained the lists through public information requests.
With the exception of Sputnik V and Sinopharm, manufacturers don’t declare the quantities of the named excipients in their vaccines, which the researchers flagged as a “very serious omission at the regulatory level.”
Vaccines often include excipients — additives used as preservatives, adjuvants, stabilizers or for other purposes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), substances used in the manufacture of a vaccine but not listed in the contents of the final product should be listed somewhere in the package insert.
Listing excipients is important, researchers argue because excipients can include allergens and other “hidden dangers” for vaccine recipients.
OpenVAERS reports that the CDC has made publicly available vaccine excipient information “almost impossible to find.” OpenVAERS offers a comprehensive list of vaccine of excipients by type and by vaccine.
However, the OpenVAERS website also notes that independent tests of vaccine vials have found “contaminants that go well beyond those publicly disclosed by the manufacturers,” as identified in this study.
The researchers found the results of their chemical analysis varied by vaccine and also by vial tested. In some cases, the vials were subjected to repeated testing on different dates and produced slightly different results.
In one lot of the AstraZeneca vaccine, researchers identified 15 chemical elements, of which 14 were undeclared. In the other lot, they detected 21 elements of which 20 were undeclared. In the CanSino vial, they identified 22 elements, of which 20 were undeclared.
The three Pfizer vials contained 19, 16 and 21-23 undeclared elements respectively. The Moderna vials contained 21 and between 16-29 undeclared elements. The Sinopharm vials contained between 17-23 undeclared elements and the Sputnik V contained between 19-25 undetected elements.
82% of vaccines tested contained undeclared arsenic
Overall, researchers identified 55 different undeclared elements across the 17 samples analyzed.
All of the heavy metals detected are linked to toxic effects on human health, the researchers wrote. Although the metals occurred in different frequencies, many were present across multiple samples.
“There are undeclared chemical elements in common, such as boron, calcium, titanium, aluminum, arsenic, nickel, chromium, copper, gallium, strontium, niobium, molybdenum, barium and hafnium in all of the brands” of COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers wrote.
Others, such as chromium and arsenic, which increase the risk of serious cancers and skin diseases, were present as undeclared elements in 100% and 82% of the samples respectively. The researchers also found the lanthanide cerium, which can damage the liver and cause lung embolisms, in 76% of the samples.
These chemical elements are just a few examples of the 62 undeclared chemical elements identified by this study and previous studies combined, the researchers wrote.
They concluded that given the “diversity and notable presence in all brands, along with the peculiar characteristics of the elements found,” is unlikely the findings are due to contamination or accidental adulteration.
‘Utmost urgency’ that governments investigate these products
The researchers, who said the exploratory study was limited by the small sample size, called for a broader analysis of a larger number of samples. They suggested the broader analysis would confirm the trends they identified.
Sangorrín said this should be the work of government researchers.
“It is of utmost urgency that governments around the world conduct relevant investigations into these products, as is typically done in response to quality complaints identified through pharmacovigilance,” she said.
Those seeking justice, she added, must call on the World Health Organization, the pharmaceutical companies and governments to take urgent action, “in accordance with the severity of the situation, given the rise in global mortality rates, recorded adverse effects and the clear demonstration that these products were not developed with the intention of providing immunity.”
The authors underscored the high rates of serious adverse events, including deaths, associated globally with the COVID-19 vaccines. They suggested the adverse events and deaths, which are likely substantially undercounted, could be linked to the toxins they identified.
Lyons-Weiler also called for regulatory action to protect public health.
“Regulatory agencies must take immediate action to halt the use of these vaccines, thoroughly investigate how these toxins were missed, and ensure that the full spectrum of ingredients is transparently declared and the public duly and fully warned,” he said.
“The public’s health can no longer be gambled with in the face of such profound uncertainties.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Fired for Free Speech: Alison Morrow’s Battle Against Government Censorship
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | October 19, 2024
Alison Morrow (formally Westover), an accomplished journalist, found herself in the throes of a legal battle over her right to free speech. Represented by the Silent Majority Foundation, Morrow has filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its top officials, citing wrongful termination after she was dismissed for airing an interview on her YouTube channel. The channel, a personal project crafted during her tenure as an environmental reporter at KING 5 in Seattle, became the subject of controversy following her post featuring a highly censored doctor, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, and his views on COVID-19.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Morrow’s career at KING 5, which spanned from 2013 to 2019, was marked by significant accolades, including two Emmy awards. Recognized for her independent journalism, DNR was fully aware of her YouTube activities when they recruited her as a communications specialist. Initially, her independent media pursuits were supported by DNR, but the tide turned with her decision to feature Dr. Kheriaty. DNR’s leadership warned Morrow that her continued interviews could lead to termination, a threat she met with a staunch refusal to abandon her First Amendment protections.
Determined to uphold her freedoms of speech, press, and association, Morrow chose to defy DNR’s directive to adhere to approved narratives. This act of resistance ultimately led to her dismissal, prompting her to seek legal assistance from the Silent Majority Foundation, which took up her case to safeguard these fundamental rights.
“The 1st Amendment is one of the most sacred rights of Americans. It is what differentiates our country from most others, that we have the freedom to question our government. It is also central to a free press. I was willing to lose my job – and all that it provided for our family – in order to stand up against the encroaching erosion of this right that I was witnessing at the time, not just in my case but in thousands of others across the country during the pandemic,” Morrow stated. “There was no way to do science or journalism, in the culture of censorship that was driven by our government at the time. That meant millions of people made decisions without informed consent. Given my commitment to seeking truth wherever it leads, I was unwilling to acquiesce to a demand that I remain silent.”
New Zealand’s “Disinformation Project” Shuts Down Amid Accusations of Silencing Opposition
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 18, 2024
The Disinformation Project, launched in early 2020 in New Zealand as a “disinformation research” group, but slammed by critics as seeking to usher in ideological censorship, is no more.
The project is the product of the Covid era, initially focused on what was at the time considered “disinformation” but then branching out to things like vaccine skepticism in general, climate change – and, apparently, even local politics.
The group, which coordinated with the New Zealand government, described its activities as research and analyses of all manner of “extreme conspiratorial beliefs” as well as their compatriots’ “descent” into those.
Critics, however, point out that silencing the opposition, including by supporting “hate speech” laws, was among the activities of the now-shut-down endeavor that was led by Kate Hannah.
These critics accuse the Disinformation Project of moving from being a handy tool for the New Zealand government to spread its narratives promoting COVID-19 measures (some of the most restrictive in the world), to becoming a political weapon promoting a certain agenda.
Back in April, some commentators were concerned about where the Disinformation Project’s shift from the “abandoned pandemic” to political influencing might lead.
We now know that it has led to the group’s demise – but it is only one of the many similar efforts that appeared during the Covid era around the world.
A specific accusation against this one comes from New Zealand-based journalist Chris Lynch, who claims that Hannah, along with Sanjana Hattotuwa, attempted to effectively manipulate the 2023 election in the country by influencing the media via “secretive briefings.”
This didn’t succeed in this instance because they got “called out” – but over the past four years, the Disinformation Project has been accused of getting increasingly desperate to stay relevant, and finding ways to do that, with the policies it pushed accepted without critical examination by the legacy media.
Lynch is optimistic that the demise of this project and the rise of some that challenge the established media-political narratives means that New Zealand has turned the corner when it comes to censorship disguised as concern for democracy and the fight against “disinformation.”
However, it’s equally possible that where one such outfit exits the scene, another, under a different name and leadership but with the same purpose, might take its place.
They Think You Are Stupid, Volume 12
Everything you need to know about our ruling class’s opinion of you
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | October 14, 2024







German Government Cancels Review of Pandemic Response
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | October 13, 2024
If the last twenty-five years have taught us anything, it’s that people who work in the government are absolutely abysmal at quantifying and managing the risks of their own ambitious schemes. Already in 2020, Dr. McCullough and I intuitively sensed that the COVID-19 mass vaccination program was a major gamble that would probably end up blowing up in the faces of the people who so aggressively pushed it.
To be sure, it would only eventually blow up in their faces if they allowed the truth of the matter to come out. For at least two years now, we have been in the cover-up phase of this criminal misadventure—not only in the United States, but also in the UK, Europe, and Australia.
C.J. Hopkins—an insanely persecuted American ex-pat author in Berlin—just mentioned on his Substack an extraordinary commentary in the Berliner Zeitung.

Please check out (below) my translation of this excellent essay.
Traffic light coalition cancels Corona investigation: Who would have thought?
Back in September, Lauterbach said, “Anyone who doesn’t review things seems like they have something to hide.” Is anyone surprised by the cancellation of this review? A commentary.
Ruth Schneeberger
“We need this review. I have called for it myself on several occasions,” said Karl Lauterbach less than a month ago in the ARD Report from Berlin. “If we don’t do it,” continued the SPD health minister, “then the impression will simply arise that we have something to hide. Therefore, such a review is necessary and should take place.”
Lauterbach would certainly have liked to have had a reappraisal carried out.
Lauterbach’s own coalition government has now denied him this wish. Some say to protect him.
Lauterbach himself has not exactly been at the forefront of the reappraisal process. In March, on the ZDF morning magazine, he rejected an inquiry commission because this type of reappraisal was “politically charged” and “right-wing groups” would turn the issue into an “ideological battle.”
Then came the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols and the health minister changed his publicly stated opinion surprisingly quickly—not only with regard to their assessment, but also regarding purported “interference by foreign powers.”
At that point, he offered an assurance that he would have the protocols de-redacted as soon as possible—something that has not officially happened during his term of office to date. So now [we are told] he is in favor of a review of Corona policy.
However, the majority of his colleagues apparently do not want such a review. This week, the “traffic light” coalition agreed that there can be no political review of the pandemic in the current legislative period because they cannot agree on what form such a review would take.
This means that there will not be a review of the corona pandemic in this country before 2026, because there will be new elections in September 2025, and after that they will need to resuscitate the issue.
Review á la Citizens’ Council may therefore be discarded
Why is the government refusing to review the situation?
The SPD’s justification is that the FDP refused to hold a Citizens’ Council. Well, what a surprise. Citizens’ Councils have recently produced such groundbreaking results. In other words, this political issue is simply too hot for the SPD. The actors who voted in favor of the compulsory vaccination are still in office.
Lately it’s become fashionable to reinterpret one’s own role in the pandemic, but in politics, this is more difficult to do than in other domains. Politicians’ votes from this period are public record unless they were secret votes. During the big debate in the Bundestag in April 2022 about compulsory vaccination, the voting behavior of the parties was recorded and is still circulating on the internet.
This is yet another reason why it is still vividly remembered that the SPD and the Greens voted almost unanimously in favor of compulsory vaccination, while everyone else almost entirely voted against. And so, is anyone really surprised that the SPD—which is already having a hard time—is calling off the political review of the pandemic?
There is so much to review—including the vaccination campaign
The voting behavior on compulsory vaccination is also such a popular meme because it shows the extent to which politicians were prepared to put the supposed common good above the possible well-being of the individual. Compulsory vaccination remains an intervention in the body over which the individual can no longer decide.
The fact that vaccination—contrary to all assurances at the time—can go horribly wrong is evidenced by countless vaccine victims, whose fate Karl Lauterbach now says he is touched by. Nevertheless, this does not really prompt him and his colleagues to take action.
To this day, we do not know exactly how many vaccine injured there are, and how they can be helped. We do know, however, that around 20 times more suspected cases were reported to the Paul Ehrlich Institute for corona vaccinations than for other vaccines.
We made it through the pandemic alright in Germany—everything is okay, right? Wrong. The bad consequences are merely poorly concealed. Trust in government, politics and institutions has been permanently damaged; some no longer even trust their own doctors.
The next pandemic is supposedly just around the corner?
A thorough review would also be very important because there are warnings everywhere about new pandemics that are certain to come, sooner or later. The World Health Summit in Berlin will be hotly discussing this prospect over the next three days.
It is ridiculous that the coalition would cancel the review under these circumstances, and the decision could potentially cost them their jobs. Their decision is also negligent.
Slovakia Defies Global Covid Agenda: Moves to Ban mRNA Vaccines Amid Rising Dissent
By Amy Mek | Exposing the Darkness | October 9, 2024
Slovak government commissioner for pandemic research Peter Kotlar considers mRNA vaccines dangerous and calls for a ban. He also questions the COVID pandemic itself. In Slovakia, Health Minister Zuzana Dolinkova has resigned, and Kotlar’s report on the investigation into the COVID pandemic, which he presented a week ago, may have been the decisive factor in her decision.
Kotlar’s findings, supported by Prime Minister Robert Fico, reflect a growing concern about the safety of these experimental vaccines, particularly the mRNA formulations developed by Western companies such as Pfizer and Moderna. In his report, Kotlar goes beyond questioning the safety of the vaccines—he challenges the very foundation of the COVID pandemic, calling it a “fabricated operation” designed to manipulate and control the global population.
Prime Minister Fico, long a critic of the vaccines, has taken a firm stand in support of Kotlar’s call for a ban. “These experimental injections have caused significant harm to many, and it’s time we acknowledge the dangers they pose,” Fico stated. His government has already taken bold steps by cutting ties with the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID-related matters, signaling Slovakia’s departure from global consensus on pandemic management.
Fico’s leadership reflects a commitment to protecting the health and safety of Slovakians, even in the face of international criticism. While health officials and scientists across the world continue to praise mRNA technology, Fico’s administration prioritizes caution and skepticism, ensuring that Slovakia does not fall victim to corporate interests that have pushed these vaccines without fully understanding their long-term consequences.
As the Fico government pushes forward with its investigation into the financial dealings surrounding the procurement of vaccines, Slovakia stands out as a nation willing to challenge the dominant narrative and protect its citizens from dangerous medical experimentation.
Danielle Smith celebrates two years as Alberta Premier – my letter to Premier Smith about her failures
By Dr. William Makis MD | COVID Intel | October 6, 2024

Alberta Health Services & the Colleges have murdered 10,000s of vulnerable Albertans and not one person has been held accountable by your govt.
AHS murdered over 2500 Cancer patients in Edmonton at Cross Cancer Institute and continues to do so daily, like 41 year old Steven Wong who was murdered by AHS on July 19, 2024 and was denied Cancer Care (and so many others whom I can name to the Police).
AHS murdered over 5818 COVID-19 patients, almost all of which were preventable deaths, AHS is still using Remdesivir (which was recalled in the US) and lethal hospital protocols & continues to kill vulnerable Albertans in the hospitals. Doctors who killed COVID patients like Edmonton ICU doctor Dr.Darren Markland, continue to do so with impunity and with no accountability.
No one in the AHS COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group, led by AHS bureaucrats Lynora Saxinger, Braden Manns and your Public Health Chief Mark Joffe, which blocked all early treatments including Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, etc, that lead to 5818 COVID-19 deaths, was held accountable. Not one person was arrested or even criminally investigated. Not one person was fired. Dr.Saxinger continues to push mRNA jabs.
NDP MLA Dr.Luanne Metz murdered over 1600 COVID-19 patients by blocking Alberta’s largest Hydroxychloroquine Trial (on the basis of the Lancetgate fraudulent HCQ paper) and not only was she not held accountable, she laughs about it at the Alberta Legislature while calling for doctors who raise concerns about mRNA jabs to be CENSORED.
AHS & the Colleges have murdered over 10,000 Albertans who died as “excess deaths”, most of them being COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths. There are 4000-6000 unexplained deaths each year.
AHS continues to illegally block proper autopsies from being done (with staining for COVID-19 vaccine spike protein). Proper autopsies would have solved the mystery of the #1 cause of death in Alberta (COVID-19 Vaccines) which is killing 4000-6000 Albertans each year since 2021. You have taken no steps to address either the deaths or AHS’ cover up of these deaths.
AHS continues to push DNA contaminated COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines on children and pregnant women, despite the fact that you were informed 100s of children died from the mRNA injections and the jabs were never approved for use in pregnancy (we don’t know how many pregnant Alberta women have died after taking mRNA jabs, but AHS certainly does).
You had a chance to protect Alberta’s children from harms of contaminated mRNA injections after the “An Injection of Truth” Event on June 17, 2024 and chose to stay silent instead and not protect children.
In fact, the Alberta Minister of Health AdrianaLaGrange publicly lied about the event and came out in defense of pedophiles and child sex abusers (AHS Executives & College Presidents like Dr.Albert De Villiers & Dr.Fred Janke) who had been arrested by RCMP for sexually assaulting and trafficking children as young as 5 years old but were given their medical licenses back by the College during the pandemic. You didn’t fire Adriana LaGrange for this and she didn’t fire anyone on her staff for supporting sex crimes against children.
You haven’t restored a single doctor who was persecuted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta during the pandemic. Doctors like Dr.Roger Hodgkinson, Dr.Daniel Nagase, Dr.Gary Davidson and myself continue to be illegally persecuted by College leaders Dr.Scott McLeod and Dr.Michael Caffaro whom Adriana Lagrange does photo-ops with.
You haven’t restored a single nurse who was persecuted by AHS and the College of Nurses, 100s of whom reached out to me with horror stories of persecution that should land AHS CEOs Verna Yiu, Mauro Chies and Athana Mentzelopoulos in prison for life.
You haven’t restored a single healthcare worker, 1000s of whom had to leave the medical profession after being bullied & abused by their AHS Managers.
You haven’t restored INFORMED CONSENT which was illegally destroyed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta who threatened 11,000 Alberta doctors into not informing Albertans about the risks of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. You also didn’t hold College leaders Scott McLeod & Michael Caffaro responsible for this act of destruction of all medical ethics in Alberta. They continue to threaten doctors with impunity.
You haven’t dissolved the thoroughly corrupt and private Corporation that is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, even though you had run on the promise to do so. In fact, now you say at Town Halls we need to have a corrupt College to continue persecuting good doctors, because who else will police them? This is unforgivable.
You haven’t dissolved the top 2-3 layers of corrupt Alberta Health Services Leadership that is run by NDP millionaire bureaucrats including Dr.Jennifer Bestard, Dr.Sid Viner, Sean Chilton, Dr.Peter Jamieson, Karen Horon, Michael Lam, Ronda White, Andrea Beckwith-Ferraton, Kerry Bales, all of whom are AHS Executives hired by Rachel Notley’s Government during 2015-2019 and who became millionaires pushing paper and mismanaging $26 billion AHS yearly budget.
You installed a corrupt NDP/Notley AHS Executive – Dr.Mark Joffe – as the Public Health Chief of Alberta. This is the AHS Executive who said “don’t walk, run to get your booster shot” in Dec.2021, when AHS & Deena Hinshaw were aware that 1000s of Albertas were dying or had damaged immune systems after their first 2 COVID-19 Vaccines and Deena Hinshaw deleted crucial government data showing mRNA Vaccine injury.
You allowed AHS to bury 1000s of reports of COVID-19 Vaccine injuries that were reported by Alberta doctors but rejected & covered up by AHS bureaucrats. You have not pushed for those reports to be made public or for any transparency in vaccine injury reporting at AHS.
You installed former Alberta Liberal Party leader Raj Sherman as Chair of the Health Quality Council of Alberta, who had fully expressed support for COVID-19 Vaccines and AHS’ corrupt leadership.
You allowed Tyler Shandro to be installed on the Board of Covenant Health, even though he was Health Minister who stayed silent when AHS CEO Verna Yiu implemented an illegal COVID-19 Vaccine mandate on Alberta’s 105,000 healthcare workers
You didn’t investigate AHS CEO Verna Yiu DrYiu_Verna who signed a deal with the World Economic Forum in 2020 and implemented an illegal vaccine mandate on Alberta’s 105,000 healthcare workers in Aug-Oct.2021 while violating medical privacy of AHS employees as AHS spied on their medical records to see if they were vaccinated. She was paid $700,000 at AHS, is now Vice President at UAlberta and was never investigated for her crimes.
There are now criminal charges pending against AHS CEO Athana Mentzelopoulous, AHS Board Chair Lyle Oberg, AHS CEO Mauro Chies and AHS CEO Verna Yiu for threats & extortion being inflicted on my family.
Criminal charges are also pending against College leaders Scott McLeod, Michael Caffaro and their lawyer Craig Boyer who have been repeatedly threatening me and my family at our home.
There are many more reasons than the above why you should not be proud of your last 2 years as Alberta Premier and I will continue to expose this and much more to millions of Albertans, Canadians and those around the world who are watching very closely.
The 10,000s of Alberta victims will not be silenced and everyone has to be held accountable for the crimes committed against Alberta’s most vulnerable citizens.
You have much work to do, Premier Smith, and time is running out.
I can only look at your last 2 years as an abysmal failure to do the right things, on the level of failures of former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.
