[Editor’s Note: Due to legal restrictions I’m unable to post any urls at this time. My apologies to readers. I can verify though that the article is legit.]
by Nexus New Feed
Japan drops vax rollout, goes to Ivermectin, ENDS COVID almost overnight
The ongoing COVID-19 nonsense here in the United States exists solely and exclusively because our governments have failed to use the correct treatment. They used so-called “vaccines” when Japan has just proven, in less than ONE MONTH, that Ivermectin can wipe out the disease.
Sweden’s Public Health Agency on Wednesday recommended a temporary halt to the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine among young adults, citing concerns over rare side effects to the heart. It said the pause should initially be in force until December 1, explaining that it had received evidence of an increased risk of side effects such as inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) and inflammation of the pericardium (pericarditis). Finland, Denmark and Norway have also moved away from the COVID vaccines.
Finland last Thursday joined Sweden, Denmark and Norway in recommending against use of Moderna Inc.’s Covid-19 vaccine in younger age groups, citing risks of rare cardiovascular side effects they said warranted the precautionary steps.
Finland’s Institute for Health and Welfare said last Thursday it would pause use of the Moderna vaccine among men under the age of 30, following a similar step last Wednesday by Swedish regulators. Denmark last Wednesday said it wouldn’t offer the Moderna vaccine to under-18s as a precautionary measure.
Norway on Wednesday advised that all under-18s shouldn’t be given the Moderna vaccine, even if they had already received one dose, and recommended that men under 30 consider getting the vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech instead. Norwegian officials cited U.S., Canadian and Nordic data, saying the absolute risks remain low and calling the advice “a precautionary measure.”
The European Medicines Agency said Thursday that new preliminary data from the Nordic countries supports a warning the agency adopted in July that inflammatory heart conditions called myocarditis and pericarditis can occur in very rare cases following vaccination with Covid-19 shots made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.
By far, however, the absolute superstar among foreign nations dealing with COVID is Japan. Japan has PULLED the vaccines and substituted Ivermectin – and in one month, wiped COVID out in that country!
* Safe? Japan pulls Moderna vax, ends nationwide vax drive after “magnetic” “metals” found to contaminate jabs.
* Three lots of Moderna jabs recalled in Japan over stainless steel contamination.
* Several Japanese cities report white stuff floating in jab vials.
* Japan minister of health tells docs to recommend IVM.
* Japan now a MAJOR SUCCESS STORY after it BEATS COVID rapidly.
KELOWNA. October 23, 2021. “For 20 months, you’ve been scammed” star speaker Tanya Gaw told 300 cheering participants today at Kelowna’s participation in the Worldwide Freedom Rally. “The most important word today is ‘NO’. Sec. 52.1 of the Charter says that any law that is inconsistent with the Charter is of no force or effect” — referring particularly to forced vaccination mandated.
She gave an update on the ongoing persecution of Rolly’s Restaurant, a popular eatery in Hope, B.C. for 25 years. Co-owners Muriel Young and Marlene Abling were given 12 hours notice of an October 8 court hearing because they chose not to check patrons’ vaccine status. You must now be fully vaxxed to eat at a restaurant in British Columbia. They asked for an adjournment to retain counsel. In its stampede to judgement, the Court turned them down. Tanya Gaw offered to act as a representative. This request, too, was turned down, The Court denounced Rolly’s as “a menace to the community” and ordered it closed. It’s business and liquor licences have been taken away.
Tanya Gaw said that those issuing compulsory masking of vaxxing orders must be held personally responsible. Her group Action4Canada approaches businesses and boards of education and informs them of their liabilities. She says: “Employers are interfering with the bodily integrity of their employees when they force them to get the COVID vaccine. “They must be held personally responsible.,” she added.
The tactic is beginning to pay off. Some nervous school trustees are now hesitating about imposing masking or vaxxing on their staff and students.
Some months ago, B.C. Ferry fanatics wouldn’t let a mother and child return home because they were not masked. “They are now showing more respect to their customers,” she said.
Canadians must find the courage to say “no”, she argued. “Governments didn’t take away our rights; we gave them away. And, according to Public Health Canada, vaccines cannot be mandated in Canada. You have rights to life, liberty and security. Know your rights,” she advised.
Tanya Gaw also made a special appeal to men.”Although I’m a feminist, I love men. Men, tap into your warrior spirit, stand up and lead!”
C.L.E.A.R. leader Dave Lindsay, organizer of the weekly END THE LOCKDOWN rally in Kelowna since April 2020, early on observed that almost two thirds of the attendees were women. “Where are the men?” he asked.
In his remarks to the rally, Mr. Lindsay warned; “People are always trying to take your freedoms away. Standing up for those freedoms is the best legacy you can leave your children.” The stepped up media attacks on the Kelowna protests show “Bonnie Henry is worried and, thus, is so opposed to us.”The truthers are having an effect.
A doctor told Mr. Lindsay confidentially that only about 40 per cent of the people in Kelowna are fully vaccinated, far fewer than official claims.
“It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required while an independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest includes thromboembolism, multi-system inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).” Tess Lawrie,Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
Question– Have the mRNA vaccines been tested on animals?
Answer– Yes, they have.
Question– Were the animal trials successful?
Answer– Yes and no.
Yes, the experiments on mice showed that a low dose of the vaccine induces a robust antibody response to the infection.
But, no, the antibodies were not able to attack the spike protein from a different strain of the virus.
Question– I’m not sure what that means? Do you mean that the vaccine DOES provide some limited protection from the original (Wuhan) virus, but does not necessarily provide protection from the variants?
Answer– That’s right, but it’s a bit more complicated than that because– as the virus changes — the antibodies that helped to fight the original virus can actually enhance the “infectivity” of the variant. In other words, vaccine-generated antibodies can switch-sides and increase the severity of the illness. Simply put, they can make you sicker or kill you. Scientists have known this for a long time. Check out this clip from a 2005 research paper:
“A jab against one strain might worsen infection with others….
In the.. study, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.. injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a human patient infected in early 2003. They then collected the antibodies the animals produced.
In lab experiments, they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike protein from a different strain of SARS, isolated from a patient infected in late 2003….The team next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to have originally jumped into humans. In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells.…
The results show that the virus changes over time, so that a strain that crops up in one outbreak might be quite different from that in a later outbreak. “This virus is not standing still and we need to take this into account,” Nabel says.
This raises the prospect that a vaccine against one strain of SARS virus could prove ineffective against others. Worse, a jab against one strain might even aggravate an infection with SARS virus from civets or another species. “It’s obviously a concern,” Nabel says.. This would not be the first case where exposure to one strain of a virus can worsen infection with another.” (“Caution raised over SARS vaccine”, Nature)
Question– I’m still confused. Can you summarize what they’re saying?
Answer– Sure. They’re saying that scientists have known for nearly two decades that vaccines narrowly aimed at just one protein are bound to fail. They’re saying that the spike protein is highly-adaptable and capable of changing its shape to survive. They’re saying that vaccines aimed at the spike protein will inevitably produce variants that evade vaccine-generated antibodies. They’re saying that by narrowing the vaccine’s focus to the spike protein alone, the drug companies have ensured that previously helpful antibodies will do an about-face, allow the virus to enter healthy cells, replicate at will, and cause sickness or death. They are saying that the current crop of vaccines is in fact perpetuating the pandemic. And–since the science has been clear for the last 16 years– we can add one more observation to the list, that is, that the current approach to mass vaccination is neither haphazard, slapdash or random. It is intentional. The vaccination campaign managers are deliberately ignoring the science in order to sustain a permanent state of crisis. Science is being manipulated to achieve a political objective.
Question– I think you’re exaggerating, but I’d like to get back to the animal trials instead of arguing politics. As you probably know, the reports in the media do not square with your analysis, in fact, all of the articles in the MSM say the animal trials were a rousing success. Here’s a short blurb that I found today that confirms what I’ve been saying:
“…vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways….” (Covid-19, NIH.gov)
Question– Are you suggesting the authors are lying?
Answer– No, they are not lying. They’re just not telling you the whole truth, and you need to know the whole truth so you can make an informed decision. The vaccines DO provide some (temporary) protection. We don’t dispute that. They also trigger a strong immune response. We don’t dispute that either. But what difference does it make? Let me explain: Let’s say, you have a really bad head cold so you take a new medication that you think will relieve the pain. And–sure enough– an hour after taking the pills– Presto — your congestion and headache are completely gone. That’s fantastic, right? Wrong, because what you fail to realize is that the medication is laced with slow-acting strychnine that kills you three days later. Do you still think it was a good idea to take the medication?
Of course, not. And the same rule applies to these vaccines which do, in fact, boost your antibodies and provide some fleeting “immunity”. But they can also kill you. Don’t you think that should be factored in to your decision? Keep in mind, people have died 3, 4, 5 weeks after inoculation without any prior warning. Many of them might have even been bursting with antibodies, but they’re still dead. Can you see the problem?
Question– Okay, but there’s still this matter about the animal trials. The media says that the drug companies performed the animal trials and they were successful. Do you disagree with that?
Answer– They were not successful and the “fact checkers” that were hired to discredit vaccine critics like me, have deliberately mischaracterized what happened in the trials. For example, here’s a typical “fact checker” article titled “COVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths” by Reuters. Here’s an excerpt:
“Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, all conducted animal trials and had no significant safety concerns to report.”
Sounds reassuring, right? But then they say:
“Due to time constraints and the urgency to find a vaccine for COVID-19, Moderna and Pfizer did receive approval to run animal testing and early trials on humans at the same time, as opposed to fully completing animal trials before moving on to human trials. This, however, does not mean animal trials were skipped or that the safety of the vaccines were compromised.”
Let me see if I got this straight: The drug companies were in such a hurry that they conducted their minimalist animal trials at the same time as their human trials (which is unprecedented) and then rushed the results to the FDA so they could be rubber stamped and waved through under the Emergency Use Authority?
Is that how it went down?
Yes, it is.
But if they were rushed through in a couple months, then the “fact checkers” are tacitly admitting that there is no long-term safety data. And there IS no long-term safety data, nor is there any attempt to disprove the research from the earlier trials where the ferrets, mice and other animals died following injection of mRNA vaccines. They don’t deny it, they just ignore it as if sweeping it under the rug will make it all go away. Here’s a clip from the research paper that Reuters refers to in its article:
“We demonstrate that the candidate vaccines… respectively—induce strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice and macaques….Both (vaccines) protected 2–4-year-old macaques from challenge with infectious SARS-CoV-2, and there was reduced detection of viral RNA in immunized macaques as compared to those that received saline.” (Note–We’ve already acknowledged that the vaccines do produce a strong immune response. Here’s more:)
“Neutralizing GMTs declined by day 56 (35 days after dose 2), consistent with the contraction phase; however, they remained well above the GMT of the human sera panel. The duration of the study was not long enough to assess the rate of decline during the plateau phase of the antibody response.” (“BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2”, Nature)
Can you see what’s going on? The trial was only 56 days-long, in fact, none of the animal trials exceeded 56 days. Think about that for a minute. The reason the animals died in prior trials is because they were exposed to a mutated version of the (wild) virus that eventually killed them. That’s how ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) works. It doesn’t happen overnight and it doesn’t happen in 56 days. It takes much longer than that for a mutated version of the virus to emerge and reinfect the host. The drug companies know that. They’re not stupid. So the fact that the animals mounted a strong immune response is completely irrelevant. We KNOW they mounted a strong immune response. We also know they died some months later when a different strain of the virus emerged. Bottom line: The production of antibodies does not mean a drug is safe.
The obvious purpose of the trials was to get the vaccines over the finish-line before anyone figured out what was going on. It’s the same reason why the drug companies “unblinded” their human trials after the vaccines got the green light from the FDA. Shortly after the trials were concluded, the people in the placebo arm were allowed to get vaccinated.
Why would they do that? Why would they vaccinate the people who willingly allowed themselves to be guinea pigs for the sake of public health, only to vaccinate them shortly after, thus, eliminating any chance of finding out what the long-term safety issues might be? It makes no sense, does it?
Take a look at this short clip from the British Medical Journal whose scientists are equally bewildered:
“The (drug) companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned about a “disastrous” loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial’s placebo arm are unblinded…
Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.
Consumer representative Sheldon Toubman, a lawyer and FDA advisory panel member, said that Pfizer and BioNTech had not proved that their vaccine prevents severe covid-19. “The FDA says all we can do is suggest protection from severe covid disease; we need to know that it does that,” he said.
He countered claims, based on experience with other vaccines, six weeks of follow-up was long enough to detect safety signals. Six weeks may not be long enough for this entirely new type of “untested” [mRNA] vaccine, Toubman said.
Goodman wants all companies to be held to the same standard and says they should not be allowed to make up their own rules about unblinding. He told The BMJ that, while he was “very optimistic” about the vaccines, “blowing up the trials” by allowing unblinding “will set a de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come.” And that, he said, “is dangerous.”
(“Covid-19: Should vaccine trials be unblinded?” The British Medical Journal)
Do you like his choice of words: “blowing up the trials”? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?
Yes, it is.
And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow up the trials? I can see only two possibilities:
They think their vaccine is so terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.
They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the evidence of vaccine-linked injury.
Which is it?
You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the answer.
Question– Okay, so let’s cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?
No, they are not safe. The way we decide whether a drug is safe or not is by putting it through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the data is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn’t happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact, all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of “urgency”. But many believe that the “urgency” was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never have been approved on their own merits. All you have to do is look through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you’ll see this is the most lethal medical intervention of all time and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they’re “safe and effective”. It’s nonsense and the drug companies know it’s nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these “poison-death shots.”
Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these “gene based” vaccines?
Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that protrude into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate blood platelets which trigger blood clotting followed shortly after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this way, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body’s critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the immune system less able to fend off future infection.
Now if you think you can have a long-and-happy life without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you’re bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-track to the graveyard, then you’ll probably understand that injecting these “poison-death shots” is a particularly bad idea.
By the way, it’s a real stretch to call these hybrid injections, “vaccines”. They have about as much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nothing. The “vaccine” moniker was chosen in order to shore-up public confidence, that’s all. It’s part of a marketing strategy. There is no real similarity.
The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and use it for their own purposes. That’s why they called it a “vaccine” instead of “gene therapy” which more accurately describes ‘what it does.’ But–like we said– it’s just a marketing strategy.
Have you ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their own-individual vaccines just weeks apart from each other? That’s a pretty good trick, don’t you think; especially since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How do you think they managed that? Here’s an excerpt from an article which provides a little background on the topic:
“The virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on Jan. 7. Less than a week later — on Jan. 13 — researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it, and, as the company wrote in government documents, “we mobilized toward clinical manufacture.” By Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass., to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Md., for a planned clinical trial to test its safety.” (“Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals”, Stat)
Got that? “The virus broke out in Wuhan…on Jan. 7, and less than a week later Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???
Really? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?
Yep, the very same company. Here’s more:
“And by Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??”
Wow! Another Covid miracle! You almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their “wonder drugs” at record-breaking speed.
Keep in mind, there’s a very high probability that the virus was man-made, (In other words, it’s a bioweapon.) and the people who have been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory approval.
So I’ll ask you again: Doesn’t that all sound a bit suspicious?
Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here?
After all, aren’t the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the giant private equity firms that oversee the entire operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?
It sure looks like it.
And, don’t the tectonic social changes we’ve seen in the last year have more to do with a broader scorched-earth campaign launched by the “parasite class” against the rest of humanity than they do with a fairly-mild virus that kills mainly old and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?
Right, again. In fact, many have noticed the cracks in the pandemic artifice from the very beginning, just as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is just the mask behind which parasites continue to conduct their global restructuring project.
In short, it’s all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.
Answer– You’ve asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were done at the same time. Why is that? (Note--Pharmacokinetics; “the branch of pharmacology concerned with the movement of drugs within the body.”)
Question– I didn’t know there were any. Did the media report on them?
Answer– No, they didn’t. They completely ignored them, even though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the body, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions about its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics have done extensive research on the studies and written a report titled “The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”. Here’s a few excerpts that help to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:
“As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals… this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public….
What do Pfizer’s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?
Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation.
Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta andlactating breast glands
Penetration of some organs might be higher with the real vaccine than with this luciferase model…The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation means that we must expect the spike protein to be expressed within the circulation, particularly by endothelial cells. ( Endothelial- The thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels) We have seen before that this will lead to activation of blood clotting through direct activation of platelets and also, probably more importantly, through immune attack on the endothelial cells….
Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:
blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis
grave harm to female fertility
grave harm to breastfed infants
cumulative toxicity after multiple injections
With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the reports to the various adverse event registries. Those registries also contain a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids… this would result in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent attention of the public and of the health authorities.
Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results. …
Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue.
“Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes against humanity.”
(“The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”, The Doctors for Covid Ethics)
Don’t you think people are entitled to know what the government wants to inject into their bodies? Don’t you think they have a right to know how it will effect their immune systems, their vital organs and their overall health? Don’t you think they have the right to decide for themselves which drugs they will take and which they will refuse to take?
Forcing someone to take a drug he does not want, is not just wrong. It’s unAmerican. Which is why people should reject vaccine mandates as a matter of principle. They are an attack on personal liberty, the foundation of our constitutional system. It’s a principle worth dying for.
As for the mass vaccination campaign, it is the most maniacally-genocidal project ever concocted by man. There’s simply no way to calculate the amount of suffering and death we are about to face for trusting people whose policies were obviously shaped by their undiluted hatred of humanity.
As German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said:
“In the end, we’re going to see mass illness and deaths among people who normally would have had wonderful lives ahead of them.”
Editor’s Note: With the federal election of September 20, 2021 now a part of Canadian history and the country resuming its former chaotic state of dissension TheCariboo Sentinelcontacted the Peoples Party of Canada candidate for the Cariboo-Prince George riding, Jeremy Gustafson and ask him if he might provide its readers with a short interview. Jeremy told The Cariboo Sentinel that he would be happy to do so. As Editor and Publisher I wish to thank Jeremy for taking the time out of his busy schedule (he’s back home in Horsefly getting his winter supply of firewood together) to respond to a few questions.
E-Interview with PPC candidate Jeremy Gustafson
Well Jeremy from all indications your first federal campaign here in Cariboo-Prince George for the Peoples Party of Canada proved to be quite a success given that you had only recently moved up to the central interior from the coast. I’m sure that the thousands of PPC supporters living in the riding who worked and voted for you would enjoy hearing about how the whole drama unfolded and how you perceived it.
As flattering as 4160 votes were, credit must go to the PPC and our platform since my campaign was mainly spent just trying to catch up. I just moved up from the coast July 1, didn’t know a single person, and more importantly, no one knew me, and the local EDA had just been deregistered by Elections Canada. Not to mention my new property was buried in goat dung and stinging nettle and the previous owners sold all the firewood. It took a month but I found a Financial Agent and with me as CEO reformed the EDA.
Then the election was called, and I discovered living 40 km from a cell signal and 3.5 hours drive from Prince George posed even more challenges.
Next challenge was getting 100 nomination signatures by Aug 30 in times of COVID. I had one volunteer working on her own but it was slow going. I don’t like Facebook and wasn’t happy about having to make a Page but to give credit where credit is due, my Facebook Page made my campaign. Through my Page I heard about a Medical Tyranny protest in Prince George the next day, so I sped to Williams Lake, bought a colour printer, whipped up a quick leaflet, and spent the night printing and folding. Next day on my way to the Medical Tyranny protest in Prince George I passed through another one in Quesnel, so I pulled over and got my first signatures there. By the end of the weekend I had them all.
Next challenge was coming up with lawn signs without bankrupting myself since I had no donations and didn’t even have a campaign bank account open yet to be able to accept donations. The solution was 560 stickers to recycle my 2019 lawn signs, which, because I live in the middle of nowhere, I applied by myself, for 12 hours. After a week, the Facebook Page was getting more exposure and I came up with volunteers to act as sign depots in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George and Vanderhoof.
By week 3, I was swamped, too many emails, Facebook messages, and interviews to keep up with. I had people that wanted to volunteer but no one wanted to be a campaign manager or volunteer coordinator so I had nothing for them. One woman was persistent though and she took over as campaign manager. If my Facebook Page made my campaign, my campaign manager stopped it from exploding. The last 2 weeks were mainly debates and meet and greets. I never knocked on a single door. Overall, a completely positive experience and I met hundreds of kind and generous people.
Now that all the numbers are likely in could you tell readers about how the overall response to the PPC turned out across the country and what this might mean for the party?
Terrific results for the Party. I know there was massive disappointment we didn’t get a seat but frankly that was an unrealistic goal for a 3 year old Party. A supporter in Quesnel told me her granny refused to believe we’re a real party because we weren’t in the TV debate and that’s a big problem for us, we’re still unknown to many Canadians. Now with over 800,000 votes we can’t be so easily ignored and hidden in the “Other” category in the polls. And there’s now funding that federal parties get with 5% of the vote, that we didn’t qualify for last time. Although the final count has us down to 4.9% of the vote now we’ll see how that plays out.
Given that the federal election results ended up with the country being more or less in the same situation as it was prior to September 20, 2021 how do you see the roll of the PPC in the coming months and years ahead? Will the party continue to grow?
The PPC will continue to grow. We had a few bandwagon jumpers after the 2019 election but we became stronger for it. And now we’ve tripled our vote share. Plus now that we’re the only major party (i.e. enough candidates for a majority) that wants to preserve our personal freedoms we’re attracting more votes from all across the political spectrum. I intend to run again and want to build more support and recognition for the party in the meantime. First though I have to spend the next month at least getting ready for winter.
The elections results would indicate that there are a growing number of Canadians who are fed up with all the status quo parties and are looking for one that will represent their concerns, especially when it comes to the direction that all the other parties are headed in with respect to the lockdowns and vaccine passport restrictions that are and will affect Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms. Having attending forums throughout the Cariboo-Prince George riding and listened to all the other candidates present their solutions to this global crisis how do you see this important issue unfolding given the fact that the Liberal, NDP and Conservative Party of Canada are still in positions of power?
I was in 4 debates this campaign, 2 were live and 2 were on Zoom. Not only were zero questions asked about the suspension of our rights and freedoms for lockdowns, vaccine passports, and mandatory vaccinations, I’m now remembering there was only one question about COVID at all, “Name one thing right and one thing wrong the Liberals did with their COVID response.” So it appears outside of my bubble of hospital protests and freedom rallies nobody wants to talk about the loss of our freedoms. And in light of having just read the The New Kulaks article in The Cariboo Sentinel I think things are going to get a lot worse, as more vaccinated people keep getting infected.
What final words can you say to all those in the riding of Cariboo-Prince George who voted for the PPC and may now be feeling a bit hopeless given the overall results of the election?
For PPC voters feeling hopeless, politics is a long game. Your vote isn’t to elect anybody right now, your vote is to grow the PPC. It’s the grunt work, there’s no immediate reward but it’s the only way forward. Why weren’t we in the debates? Not enough votes. Why don’t we get the same funding the Major Parties get? Not enough votes. In our second election in the three years we’ve existed we parlayed 270K votes to 840K votes and we are on the map for the next election now. That’s because of your vote.
Thank you Jeremy for sharing your thoughts and ideas. We look forward to keeping tabs on the PPC in the times ahead and wish you God speed in your continuing efforts to build up the membership and keep the party unified.
The “experts” that our governments and the media have been insisting that we blindly trust for almost two years are now telling us that due to the Delta and other variants herd immunity to the bat flu is either unattainable or requires a much higher percentage of the population to have been immunized than was the case with the original strain of the virus. They are also telling us that the fourth wave of the bat flu, the one we are said to be experiencing at the present, is driven by the Delta variant and that those who, for one reason or another, have exercised their right to reject the vaccine either in full or in part – for those who have had one shot but opted out of a second, or in some jurisdictions have had two but have opted out of a third, for whatever the reason, including having had a bad reaction to the first shot or two, are categorized under the broad “unvaccinated” umbrella by those who think that it is our ethical duty to take as many shots as the government’s health mandarins say we should take – are responsible for this wave, which they have dubbed a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.
This, however, is a case of the guilty pointing the finger at the innocent.
Think about what they are now claiming. If herd immunity was attainable with the original virus if 70-80% of the population were immunized but with the Greek letter variants it requires 90% or higher if it is attainable at all, then the blame for the current situation, however dire it actually is – and it is probably not even remotely close to being as dire as is being claimed because the media, the medical establishment, and the governments have grossly exaggerated the threat of this disease from the moment the World Health Organization declared a pandemic – belongs entirely to those who insisted upon the “flatten the curve” strategy. Flattening the curve, which required massive government overreach and the dangerous suspension of everyone’s most basic human, civil, and constitutional rights and freedoms, prolonged the life of the original virus, giving it the opportunity to produce these new, reportedly more contagious, mutations. It was the public health orders themselves – not people resisting the orders and standing up for their and others’ rights and freedoms – that gave us the variants. It would have been far better to have taken measures to protect only the portion of the population that was most at risk, while letting the virus freely circulate through the rest of the population to whom it posed minimal risk, so that herd immunity could have been achieved the natural way and at the lower threshold while it was still available. Natural immunity, as even the “experts” now acknowledge, is superior to what the vaccines offer if this can be called immunity at all seeing as it conspicuously lacks the prophylactic aspect that traditionally defined the immunity granted by vaccines for other diseases. When you took the smallpox or the polio vaccine, you did so in order that you would not get smallpox or polio. When you take the bat flu vaccine, purportedly, it reduces the severity of the bat flu so that you are far less likely to be hospitalized or to die from it. When we consider that for those outside of the most-at-risk categories, the likelihood of being hospitalized due to the bat flu is already quite low and the likelihood of dying from it is lower yet, being a fraction of a percentage point, the so-called “immunity” the vaccines impart is not very impressive, making the heavy-handed insistence that everyone must take the jab all the more irrational.
For all the hype about the supposed “novelty” of the bat flu virus, it is now quite apparent that its waves come and go in a very familiar pattern. The first wave, which started in China late in 2019, hit the rest of the world early in 2020 during the winter of 2019-2020 and ebbed as we went into spring. With the onset of fall in 2020 the second wave began and the third wave took place in the winter of 2020-2021. It once again waned as we entered spring of 2021, and the current fourth wave is taking place as summer of 2021 moves into fall of 2021. Each wave of the bat flu, in other words, has occurred in the times of the year when the common cold and the seasonal flu ordinarily circulate, just as the lulls correspond with those of the cold and flu, the big one being in the summer. How many more waves do we have to have in which this pattern repeats itself before we acknowledge that this is the nature of the bat flu, that it comes and goes in the same way and the same times as the cold and flu, compared to which it may very well be worse in the sense that the symptoms, if you get hit by a hard case of it, are much nastier, but to which it is far closer than to Ebola, the Black Death, or the apocalyptic superflu from Stephen King’s The Stand?
The politicians, the public health mandarins and their army of “experts”, and the mass media fear pornographers do not want us to acknowledge this because the moment we do the twin lies they have been bombarding us with will lose all their hold upon us and become completely and totally unbelievable. The first of these lies is when they take credit for the natural waning of each wave of the virus by attributing it to their harsh, unjust, and unconstitutional public health orders involving the suspension of all of our most basic freedoms and rights. The second of these lies is when they blame the onset of the next wave of the virus at the time of year colds and flus always spread on the actions of the public or some segment of the public.
It is the second of these lies with which we are concerned here.
Last fall, as the second wave was beginning, our governments blamed the wave on those who were disobeying public health orders by getting together socially with people from outside their households, not wearing masks, and/or especially exercising their constitutional right to protest against government actions that negatively impact them, in this case, obviously, the public health measures. There was an alternative form of finger-pointing on the part of some progressives in the media, who put the blame on the governments themselves for “re-opening too early”. This form of “dissent” was tolerated respectfully by the governments, a marked contrast with how they responded to those who protested that they could not possibly have re-opened too early because they should never have locked down to begin with since lockdowns are an unacceptable way of dealing with a pandemic being incredibly destructive and inherently tyrannical. Although there was much more truth to what the latter dissenters were saying it was these, rather than the former group, that the governments demonized and blamed for the rising numbers of infections. The governments and other lockdown supporters attempted to justify this finger-pointing by saying that the lockdown protestors, whom they insisted upon calling “anti-mask protestors” so as to make their grievances seem petty by focusing on what was widely considered to be the least burdensome of the pandemic measures, were endangering the public by gathering to protest outdoors. That their arguments were worthless is demonstrated by how they had made no such objections to the much larger racist hate rallies held by anti-white hate groups masquerading under banal euphemisms earlier in the year and, indeed, openly encouraged and supported these even though they had a tendency to degenerate into lawless, anarchical, rioting and looting that was absent from the genuinely peaceful protests of the lockdown opponents.
With the deployment of the rapidly developed vaccines that are still a couple of years away from the completion of their clinical trials under emergency authorization government public health policy has shifted towards getting as many people vaccinated as possible, with a goal of universal vaccination. At the same time, the finger-pointing has shifted towards the unvaccinated or, to be more precise, those who have not received however many shots the public health experts in their jurisdiction deem to be necessary at any given moment. This blaming of the unvaccinated is both a deflection from the grossly unethical means being taken to coerce people to surrender their freedom of choice and right to informed consent with regards to receiving these vaccines and is itself part of those means.
Perhaps “shifted” is not the best word to describe this change in the finger-pointing. While the less-than-fully-vaccinated are being blamed as a whole for the Delta wave the blaming is particularly acrimonious for those who both have not been sufficiently vaccinated to satisfy the government and who have been protesting the public health abuses of our constitutional rights and freedoms the latest of which is the establishment of a system of segregation based upon vaccine choice in which society and the economy are fully or almost fully re-opened to those who comply with the order to “show your papers” while everyone else is put back in lockdown. The CBC and the privately owned media, both progressive and mainstream “conservative” have gone out of their way to vilify such people, as have the provincial premiers and their public health mandarins whose vaccine passport system is obviously punitive in nature. The biggest vilifier of all has been the Prime Minister. In his campaign leading up to the recent Dominion election he was unable to speak about the “anti-vaxxers” – a term, which until quite recently, indeed, until the very eve of this pandemic, designated supporters of holistic medicine who object to all vaccination on principle and who were usually to be found among the kind of tree-hugging, hippy-dippy, types who support the Green Party, NDP, or the Prime Minister’s own party – without sounding like he was speaking about the [Censored. Ed.] to an audience at Nuremberg in the late 1930s.
What we are seeing here is not a new phenomenon. When the ancient Greek city-states were faced with a crisis beyond human ability to control – such as a plague – they would choose someone, generally of the lowest possible social standing such as a criminal, slave or a cripple, and, after ritually elevating him to the highest social standing, would either execute him, if he was a criminal, or beat him and drive him out of their society, in either case as a symbolic sacrifice to avert disaster and save the community. This person was called the φαρμακός, a word that also meant “sorcerer”, “poisoner” or “magician”, although there is no obvious connection between this meaning and the usage we have been discussing and lexicographers often treat them as being homonyms. In some city-states this came to be practices as a ritual on a set day every year whether there was a looming disaster or not. In Athens, for example, the two ugliest men in the city were chosen for this treatment on the first day of Thargelia, the annual festival of Apollo and Artemis. Parallels to this can be found in almost every ancient culture as can the related practice of offering animal sacrifices. Indeed, the practice is generally called scapegoating, from the word used in the English Bible to refer to the literal goat over which the High Priest would confess the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement each year, symbolically transferring the guilt to the goat, which would then be taken out into the wilderness and sent to Azazel, a word of disputed meaning generally taken to refer either to a place in the desert, an evil spirit who dwelled there, or both.
Anthropologists have, of course, long discussed the origins and significance of this phenomenon. While going into this at great length is far beyond the scope of this essay, a well-known summation of the discussion can be found in Violence and the Sacred (1977) by French-American scholar René Girard as can the author’s own theory on the subject. Later in his Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1987), Girard, a practicing Roman Catholic, returned to his theory and discussed how it related to Christian theology and to contemporary expressions of violence. He put forward an interpretation of the Atonement that could in one aspect be understood as the opposite of the traditional orthodox interpretation. While there have been numerous competing theories as to how the Atonement works, in traditional Christian orthodoxy the relationship between the Atonement and the Old Testament sacrificial system was understood to be this: the former was the final Sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and the latter were God ordained types of Christ’s final Sacrifice. By contrast, Girard argued that sacrifices were not something instituted by God but arose out of man’s violent nature. When division arose in primitive communities, peace was restored through the scapegoat mechanism, whereby both sides joined in placing the blame on a designated victim who was then executed or banished, and built their renewed unity upon the myth of the victim’s guilt and punishment. The sacrificial system was the ritual institutionalization of this practice. As societies became more civilized the institution was made more humane by substituting animals for people. The Atonement, Girard, argued, was not the ultimate sacrifice but rather a sort of anti-sacrifice. It was not designed, he said, to satisfy the demands of God Who has no need for sacrificial victims, but to save mankind from his own violent nature as manifested in the scapegoat mechanism and sacrificial system. In the Atonement God provided bloodthirsty man with One Final Victim. That Victim offered to His immediate persecutors and by extension all of sinful mankind forgiveness and peace based not upon a myth about His guilt but upon the acknowledgement of the truth of His Innocence and the confession of man’s own guilt.
What is most relevant to this discussion, however, is not how Girard’s understanding of the Atonement contrasts with the more traditional orthodox view, but where both agree – that it brought an end to the efficacy of all other scapegoats and sacrifices. This does not mean that the practice ceased but that it no longer works. One implication of this pertains to the choice that the Gospel offers mankind. If man rejects the peace and forgiveness based upon the truth of the Innocent Victim offered in the Gospel, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” [Censored. Ed.], and so his violence, which the scapegoat mechanism/sacrificial system can no longer satisfy, increases. This means that in a post-Christian society the sacrificial and scapegoating aspect of human violence would reassert itself with a vengeance.
Interestingly, Girard interpreted the New Testament Apocalyptic passages, both those of the actual book of Revelation and those found in the words of Jesus in the Gospels, that speak of disasters, calamities and destruction to fall upon mankind in the Last Days, as describing precisely this, the self-inflicted wounds of a mankind that has turned its back on the peace of the Gospel rather than the wrath of God (see the extended discussion of this in the second chapter entitled “A Non-Sacrificial Reading of the Gospel Text” of Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World). Certainly the twentieth century, in which the transformation of Christendom into secular, post-Christian, “Western Civilization” that was the main project of the liberalism of the Modern Age came to its completion, saw a particularly ugly resurgence of scapegoating on the part of secular, totalitarian regimes.
I alluded earlier to one such example. Another example can be found in the early history of the Soviet Union and this is for many reasons a closer analogy to what we are seeing today. When the Bolsheviks, a terrorist organization of mostly non-(ethnic)-Russians who hated the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Tsar, and the Russian people, most likely in that order, exploited the vacuum created earlier in 1917 when republicans forced the abdication of Russia’s legitimate monarch in order to seize power for themselves and form the totalitarian terror state known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they created their own scapegoat.
Kulak, which is the Russian word for “fist”, was a derogatory term applied with the sense of “tight-fisted”, i.e., miserly, grasping, and mean to peasant farmers who had become slightly better off than other members of their own class, owning more than eight acres of land and being able to hire other peasants as workers. Clearly this was a loosely defined, largely artificial, category, enabling the Bolsheviks to hurl it as a term of abuse against pretty much any peasant they wanted. The scapegoating of the kulaks began early in the Bolshevik Revolution when the Bolsheviks sought to unify the other peasants in support of their regime by demonizing and vilifying those of whom they were already envious and confiscating their land. After Stalin became the Soviet dictator in 1924 he devised a series of five-year plans aimed at the rapid industrialization and centralization of what had up to then been a largely feudal-agrarian economy. In the first of these, from 1928 to 1932, Stalin announced his intention to liquidate the kulaks and while this worded in such a way as to suggest that it was their identity as a class rather than the actual people who made up the class that was to be eliminated, that class identity, as we have seen, was already largely a fiction imposed upon them by the Bolsheviks and the actions taken by Stalin – the completion of the confiscation of kulak property, the outright murder of many of them and the placing of the rest in labour camps either in their own home districts or in desolate places like Siberia, clearly targeted the kulaks as people rather than as a class. The history of Stalin’s liquidation of the kulaks as well as that of the Holodomor, the man-made famine he engineered against the Ukrainians, is well told and documented by Robert Conquest in his The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (1986).
“Anti-vaxxer”, like “kulak” is mostly a derogatory term used to demonize people. The term itself ought to be less arbitrary than kulak. Assigning someone to a class of greedy, parasitical, oppressors simply because he is fortunate enough to own a few more acres of land than his neighbour is quite arbitrary and obviously unjust. Identifying someone as being opposed to vaccines on the basis of his own stated opposition to such is not arbitrary at all, although dehumanizing someone on this basis is just as unjust. In practice, however, the “anti-vaxxer” label is used just as arbitrarily. Look at all who have been turned into third-class citizens, denied access to all public spaces and businesses except those arbitrarily deemed “essential” by the public health officials, and whose livelihoods have been placed in jeopardy by the new vaccine mandates and passports. While those who have not taken the bat flu shots because they reject all vaccines on principle are obviously included so are those who have had every vaccine from the mumps to smallpox to hepatitis that their physician recommended but have balked at taking these new vaccines, the first of their kind, before the clinical trials are completed. So are people who took the first shot, had a very bad reaction to it, and decided that the risk of an even worse reaction to the second shot was too great in their instance. So are people who came down with the disease, whose bodies’ natural immune system fought it off, who thereby gained an immunity that recent studies as well as common sense tell us is superior to that imparted by a vaccine that artificially produces a protein that is distinctive to the virus, and who for that reason decided that they didn’t need the vaccine. There are countless legitimate reasons why people might not want to receive these inoculations and it is morally wrong – indeed, evil, would be a better word than wrong here – to bully such people into surrendering their bodily autonomy and their right to informed consent and to punish them for making what, however much people caught in the grip of the public health panic may wish to deny it, is a valid choice. It is even more evil to demonize, vilify, and scapegoat them for standing up for their rights. Ironically, those currently being demonized as “anti-vaxxers” by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers include all who have been protesting against the vaccine passports and mandates, a number which presumably includes many who have had both of their shots and therefore are not even “unvaccinated” much less “anti-vaxxers” in any meaningful sense of the word, but who take a principled moral stand against governments mistreating people the way they have with these lockdowns, mask mandates, and now vaccine passports and mandates.
The Bolshevik scapegoating of the kulaks, and the as-we-speak scapegoating of the “anti-vaxxers” by all involved in the new world-wide medical-pharmaceutical tyranny, all demonstrate the truth of the implication discussed above of the Atonement’s abolition of the efficacy of sacrifices and the scapegoat mechanism, whether this is understood in the traditional orthodox way, as this writer is inclined to understand it, or in accordance with Girard’s interpretation. If people reject the peace and forgiveness offered in the Gospel and can no longer find it in the old sacrificial/scapegoat system the violence multiplies. In the ancient pre-Christian practices, the victims were singular or few in number (there were only two victims, for example, in the annual Thargelia in Athens). These modern examples of the scapegoating phenomenon involve huge numbers of victims. The sought objective – societal peace and unity – is still the same as in ancient times, but it is unattainable by this method since scapegoating millions of people at a time can only produce division and not peace and unity.
The peace, forgiveness, and unity offered in the Gospel is still available, of course, although the enactors of the new medical tyranny seem determined to keep as many people as possible from hearing that offer. They have universally declared the churches where the Gospel is preached in Word and Sacrament to be “non-essential” ordering them to close at the first sniffle of the bat flu and leaving them closed longer after everything else re-opened, although the number of churches that willingly went along with this and even took to enthusiastically enforcing the medical tyranny themselves raises the question of whether anyone would have heard the Gospel in them had they remained open. Which brings us back to what was briefly observed earlier about Girard’s interpretation of Apocalyptic passages as depicting the devastating destruction of human violence which the scapegoat mechanism can no longer contain when man has rejected the Gospel. Perhaps it ought not to surprise us that throughout this public health panic the medical tyrants have behaved as if the Book of Revelation’s depiction of the beast who demands that all the world worship him rather than God and requires that they show their allegiance to him by taking his mark on their right hand or forehead and prevents them from buying and selling without such a display of allegiance had been written as a script for them to act out at this time.
“If it were possible for any nation to fathom another people’s bitter experience through a book, how much easier its future fate would become and how many calamities and mistakes it could avoid. But it is very difficult. There always is this fallacious belief: ‘It would not be the same here; here such things are impossible.’
Alas, all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Tomorrow, September 20th, 2021, Canadians will go to the polls to vote, in what very well may be the most important federal election in the history of our nation. At no other time in Canada’s relatively short existence has the country stood in such dire danger of being plunged into an abyss of chaos and destruction due to a global phenomenon wrought by international forces inimical to individual freedom, democracy and the actual survival of the human race as we’ve always conceived it to be.
This global crisis, manufactured with knowing and full intent by the conspiring machinations of a small cabal of psychopathic multi-billionaires prior to the turn of the 21st century and then finally let loose upon the human community at large in 2020 with full complicity of the bulk of national governments plus the mainstream media (which the cabal owns and/or controls), has, over the past year and a half, spread throughout the global body politic like some aberrant, deadly cancer turning normally decent people and politicians into headstrong, arrogant, narcissistic, conscienceless control freaks who appear to have suddenly sold (or lost) their souls to the Devil himself in their collective efforts to do the bidding of these vicious, blood-thirsty vampires who see nothing immoral or unusual in murdering millions, if not billions of innocent human beings around the world.
The sudden subservience to the suspect international criminal cartel by so many otherwise sensible people who have suddenly pulled out their prayer mats and are now bowing down in utter obeisance to their new masters is as strange a phenomenon to behold as the genocidal program itself. The whole sordid thing, viewed from a distance, leads one to think of it as a form of mass hypnosis that bears a striking resemblance to occult arts such as sorcery. Then again it could all boil down to the final outcome of the past 75 years of television indoctrination which so much of the world has been subjected to.
Whatever it is that has thrown the world into the greatest calamity it has ever faced one thing is perfectly clear; this covert operation by the world’s wealthiest group must be stopped as soon as possible if Canada and the rest of the democracies around the world are to survive. And so when we look at all the political parties who are vying for control of the helm of Canada’s ship of state tomorrow we should bear in mind the importance of electing representatives who are cognizant of these factors; people who you can trust will take on the task of taking back our country from the present swamp rats who’ve infested the nation with fear, blackmail and toxic chemical programs all designed to create a form of Bolshevik communist control that, if not removed, will ultimately result in the same casualties that Russia incurred during the era of Soviet rule from 1917 to 1989.
I encourage all Canadians to contact their premiers. Please feel free to copy and paste this letter, in part or whole, or send your own letter as soon as humanly possible. Let your voice be heard! It’s time we stood in solidarity for our children and their futures.
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.
“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.
I am writing this letter today, as I feel it is my duty and obligation to do so. I felt it was important to share with you how many Canadians are feeling. Our peace and safety are in dire threat and it is time for we the people to have our voices heard and actually be acknowledged by your government responding with positive and workable solutions that we can all be in agreement with.
The provincial NDP seems to have forgotten that we are all created equal in the eyes of God. We have been given the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which cannot be taken away by any man or institution without just cause. This cause must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my opinion, as well as the opinion of millions of Canadians, the government has been guilty of instigating medical tyranny. This has created an atmosphere of incredible fear and division like never before. These mandates that you are supporting, have destroyed families, friendships and businesses to such an extent that some may never be repaired. These actions have callously and irresponsibly led people to their deaths or to be maimed for life. It is beyond reckless to push an entire population towards a detrimentally, dangerous and untested, unproven inoculation. By not allowing the important voices of opposing doctors and scientists to be heard you continue to cover up, censor and disparage vital information regarding these deaths and injuries.
True, informed consent means it is your duty to make sure the public is fully aware of what these so-called cures actually contain. We want a complete breakdown of the ingredients by an independent third-party lab. The public has been recently informed that these contain graphene oxide, a deadly poison. This could potentially result in millions of deaths or severe injuries. It’s bad enough that millions of Canadians have already been injected with this, but even worse, and totally unforgiveable, you are now getting ready to order people to inject their children with this venom. Explain to me, Mr. Horgan, how you or anyone else for that matter, could ever, in good conscious justify this for any reason whatsoever. I am totally disgusted by the lack of ethics and morals throughout this whole process, and even more so, when it comes to the children.
How dare you treat us and our innocent children as nothing more than cattle to be culled. Please tell me that we are more than just another day and another dollar for you. I really hope that is not how you feel and that this has all been just one giant mistake because we are much, much more than that. We are loving, intelligent and powerful beings created in the image of God. We are certainly not going to stand by and willfully be poisoned. You can try to brainwash us with your non-stop media programming but I’ve done my homework and I am not at all comfortable with what I have learned. I don’t just get my information off Facebook memes. I’ve listened to both sides like any responsible patient would. I listen to doctors and scientists all over the globe. They are my second opinion. There are thousands of them. Are you really going to tell me that they are all willing to risk their careers and reputations over this if there wasn’t any real danger? For what? What would be their motive? Please tell me, because I really want to understand. There continues to be more and more of us every day who find themselves in the exact same position; who are ready to stand and demand that you cease and desist these horrendous crimes against humanity and leave our children alone. Unless you can prove otherwise, this is exactly what it is looking like at the moment.
I want you to know that we do not fear you or your government and we will not comply to these ridiculous mandates. They lead to nothing more than the destruction of our health and way of life. The mask fiasco regarding the bad batches that came from China already prove that. For goodness sake you ordered those carcinogenic face diapers to be put on our children! Who is being held accountable for that? Any google search will find you that information. In fact, I believe the top result was “Health Canada issued an advisory in April asking all distributors selling masks with graphene or biomass graphene to recall their products over potential inhalation risks.” What the hell?? Graphene??? I’m sure lawsuits are coming. Speaking of lawsuits, we also demand that substantial monetary compensation and liability for harm be awarded to those whom you have coerced into taking this cocktail of poison. This is not to come from taxpayer’s money but rather from the pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers who have made, or stand to make, trillions from this poisonous medicine. I’m not sure even what to call it. I know many professionals have referred to it as a bioweapon. Considering the lies and deceit that were involved in the making of this concoction their protection from liability means absolutely nothing. In addition to compensation, we order you to gather a team of responsible, courageous doctors, virologists and scientists who cannot be bribed, manipulated or compromised, and immediately start working on a way to reverse the damage you have caused through these injections.
If you were not aware of the ingredients and the potential harm that this injection could cause you should step down. In any case, you should at least admit that you have been criminally negligent towards we the people, your employers. This should have already been rectified. If you are to mandate an entire population to take an untested, so-called cure, without researching it from top to bottom then you do not deserve to be in the position of Premier of B.C. The same applies to any other politician or health official recklessly pushing this narrative. If you honestly believe that you were right in these mandates then we want a debate with top doctors and scientists on both sides to come forward with the proof they have for or against this argument. We the people, will choose the doctors and scientists who are to be involved in this debate. You must also have proof that the Coronavirus was without a doubt isolated. After all, it is your reason for mandating these jabs in the first place. All of this is to be aired live on national TV. Considering that this is something that is affecting all of us in such a negative way I am sure that we all would deem this as an obvious and necessary step to take. If you refuse to agree to this sensible solution that only begs the question why?
We are not asking, but insisting, that you honour our right to choose what may, and what may not be, injected or delivered in any way, shape or form into our bodies. The Nuremberg Code was put into place for a reason and we require you start acknowledging it. Our individual liberties and rights are not up for debate. All restrictions are to be dropped immediately so we the people can get back to repairing the damage you have caused to our personal lives as well as to our communities. We are sovereign men and women and we will remain so. This government has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why it is imperative that we hold onto our individual freedoms and never again become complacent, or blindly trust those in power.
With the federal election happening tomorrow we will see whether or not these vital concerns that I have expressed to you and your government will be dealt with more fully on a national level. We will be closely watching this election. Of that you can be sure. We insist on an investigation and full disclosure of global interference and foreign policies that directly affect our country. We do not consent to the global reset. We will not comply with tyranny in any shape or form. We will not hand our country or our properties over to any government or tyrannical globalists whose main objective appears to be greed and corruption of power.
As a Canadian, it is your duty to remember and honour the words to our national anthem, “Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee, God, keep our land glorious and free.” Be on the right side of history because in the end, good always wins. It’s time our premiers do their jobs or stand down and let someone else take over who has the guts to do the task properly and in a way that befits our beautiful freecountry and its people. We did not send our sons and daughters to sacrifice their lives just so an incompetent, seemingly corrupt government could hand it over to the highest bidders. This country belongs to the people and to the blood of our soldiers. It is not for sale and it will remain that way. You, of all people Premier Horgan, ought to be in the forefront by standing up for the people and righting the wrongs that have been done to our beloved Canada and its people.
Sincerely standing up with love for the rights of myself, my family, my children, my grandchildren, community and with compassionate concern for all my fellow Canadians,
Editor’s Note: This video is likely the most frank and informative source of information on the Covid-19 Deception anywhere today and deserves to be viewed by anyone who still believes that the “vaccine” is the answer to all the related problems surrounding the scamdemic. Australia is the example now before us as to what all nations can expect if we don’t unite and put a stop to this 100% Satanic agenda to kill off as many innocent human beings as possible via this diabolic toxic chemical injection into the lifestream of the planet. Please share the url to this video and do your best to let as many people know about it as possible.
Editor’s Note: This is an extremely important letter for everyone concerned about the Covid-19 narrative that the people of British Columbia are being literally subjected to under duress by the NDP government of our province. The vast majority of health care workers across BC and Canada are bound by confidentiality and non disclosure agreements and are at risk of not only termination but legal ramifications and huge financial penalties for failing to abide by the terms and conditions. It makes for a very difficult position for them to be in, no matter how much they would like to speak out. They simply cannot risk the consequences so bear this in mind and stand behind them. PLEASE TRY TO SHARE IT WITH AS MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES as you can.
Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry,
Adrian Dix, and Premier John Horgan
We are a group of extremely concerned health professionals in the Okanagan Valley, B.C. We have some critical questions regarding COVID-19, specifically about the current reporting of case numbers, statistics, and testing, and the restrictions imposed by your health orders. While discussion of adjunctive and alternative safe and effective treatments is being stifled, the policies of mandatory experimental vaccines and vaccine passports are being forced upon our province, our country, and many other countries worldwide.
Addressing Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan: We—as healthcare practitioners and citizens—expect and deserve answers that address these concerns directly. Proclaiming that vaccine therapies are “safe and effective” is misleading and sloganistic. The reports of vaccine injuries are increasing every day, yet are being ignored. We are witnessing an increase in Covid illness occurring in fully vaccinated individuals and, irrationally, that is being followed by a promise of mandated boosters.1 The lack of answers and the vague information being provided over the past 18+ months do not instill confidence in British Columbians.
This lack of transparency has resulted in unprecedented divisiveness amongst citizens, families and friends. There are individuals who are angry that some concerned citizens are not complying.
Today a one-sided, politically-driven narrative, which is being fuelled by politicians and the media, is causing divisiveness. When only one side of the story is made available to the public, it is easy to understand how individuals can become disgruntled toward other citizens who are fighting to maintain their freedom and bodily autonomy. A political agenda is clearly being pushed here, and the refusal to address questions and concerns of healthcare practitioners and citizens of B.C. speaks volumes. We hope all of B.C. and Canada will carefully consider the information included in this document and join us in demanding clear, direct and truthful answers.
You must recognize and acknowledge the problems our country faces with our media and with our supposed leaders. We are on a dangerous trajectory and we must STOP —NOW! The media’s control of information and the censorship of knowledgeable and experienced physicians, scientists, and lawyers are preventing access to the two sides of the story. The introduction of “Fact checkers”—who are wholly owned by Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Media — being paid to censor anyone who does not support the government narrative. The tools of intimidation, coercion, and bribery are being used to divide our society, and all of this is happening right in front of us. Obviously, this type of behaviour is not a reflection of good people with good ideas; to the contrary, it is criminal activity.
Groups of doctors are forming international networks to investigate public health measures and to raise questions and concerns.3 We call on all Canadians to join the rapidly growing movement of ordinary citizens who are standing up against tyranny and violation of our human rights and freedoms!
Please answer the 12 questions below directly, clearly and truthfully, with references to the data from the scientific research on which you are basing your decisions and policies:
1.) DEATH PERSPECTIVE – There are currently ZERO deaths from COVID-19 for ages 12-19 in B.C., and 12 deaths in ALL children aged 0-19 in ALL of Canada
Why are you aggressively pressuring 12 through 19-year-old children to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine when NO DEATHS have occurred in this age group due to COVID-19 in B.C. to date, according to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control? 4
In general, we have observed extremely low mortality in B.C. and across Canada from COVID-19. As identified in the preceding link, only two COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in the past 18 months in the 0 to 11 age range in BC.
No deaths have occurred in the age range of 12 through 19. In these childhood deaths, the influence of co-morbidities was not revealed.
On the BCCDC website4, in the Situation Report listed below in the footnotes, these statistics can be viewed on page 9.
With only 2 deaths occurring in the 1 million children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 that reside in B.C., why are we even considering mandating vaccinations, masks, isolation, and restrictions at school?
B.C. has a population of 5.17M people. As of August 21, 2021, there have been a total of 1,804 deaths due to—or related to—COVID-19. These deaths occurred over the span of 18+ months dealing with COVID-19 in our province. Further calculation demonstrates that this represents a 0.023% COVID-19 yearly mortality rate for our entire B.C. population. Does an annual 0.023% risk of death, heavily skewed towards the elderly with comorbidities, justify a mandatory vaccine policy and a vaccine passport?
Moreover, in the age range of 0 to 59, there have been 127 deaths related to or from COVID-19 in the entirety of B.C across an 18+ month duration. Why is this information not being openly shared? Does this data not represent a very different reality than we are being led to believe in the media and in your press conferences?
The total number of people that the Government of Canada says died WITH COVID-19 (not necessarily FROM Covid- 19) since the beginning of the pandemic, is 26,873 as of September 3, 2021. You can view these numbers directly on the Government of Canada InfoBase website5, using the link in the footnote (find Figure 7, and change the drop down to “deceased”). There you will find the breakdown of the 26,873 of total COVID-19 deaths by age group in Canada.
To see these numbers here, we show both the BC and CANADA total deaths, said to be WITH Covid-19, broken down by age, and the percentage of those deaths by age, over the past 18+ months:
Age 0-19 = 2 (0%) BC
Age 20-29 = 0 (0%) BC
Age 30-39 = 2 (0%) BC
Age 40-49 = 16 (0.8%) BC
Age50-59 = 30 (0.16%) BC
1,033 (3.8%) Canada
Age 60-69 = 77 (0.4%) BC
2,620 (9.7%) Canada
Age 70-79 = 178 (9.8%) BC
Age 80+= 1,117 (62%) BC
17,160 (63.9%) Canada
Total Deaths = 1,804(100%) BC
26,872 (100%) Canada
Total Population = 5,145,851 BC
It should surprise all Canadians that there has been a total of 12 children between the ages of 0 and 19 across theentire nation that have died WITH (not necessarily FROM) COVID-19 in 18+ months. Co-morbidities have not been made public. With this data, it is reasonable to ask why the government seeks to vaccinate all children to “protect” them? It is obvious that they do not need protection.
If we compare this to the number of 0-19 year olds in Canada who typically die from influenza (the flu) each year, the public health pressure on children to get vaccinated becomes even more troubling. The only breakdown shown for pediatrics (assuming age 0-16) in Canada showed that 10 children died of the flu in 2018 over a 12 month period.6 Data for deaths of children from the flu between the ages of 0 and 19 was not shown, which makes it difficult to precisely compare, but the figures are still telling. According to the Government of Canada, ten children 0-16 years old died from the flu in 12 months versus 12 children who died with COVID-19 over the last 18+ months (proportionately
8 children per 12 months). This means that COVID-19 is less dangerous than the flu for this age group. Why then is the Government pressuring children to get vaccinated?
Given 84.3% of all people who are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 70 and over, and 94% of all people who are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 60 and over, how do you justify applying public health restrictions on the rest of the population?
2.) PCR TESTING –Invalid test used to create fear based on 90%+false positives
Why are we still using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 cases in B.C.?
The World Health Organization (WHO) originally stated that PCR tests were the “gold standard” for COVID-19 testing, recommending it as the universal test (as of March 21, 2020 laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19 interim guidance). Now the WHO admits what scientists have been saying since the beginning of the pandemic, that the PCR test is not an accurate diagnostic tool, and is in fact recommending a completely different testing protocol7. Also, the U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has said that it will ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw its emergency use authorization (EUA) of the PCR test as of December 31, 20218.
The entire pandemic and associated restrictions are based upon the number of “cases”; however, the number of “cases” is based upon a positive PCR test result. These PCR tests are falsely inflating the “case” numbers of people who are sick with COVID-19. This creates fear and misleading statistics.
It is important to note that the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated many times that “PCR tests cannot be used to detect viruses”9. It is now admitted that the PCR cannot tell the difference between a common cold, the flu, or any virus or variant. Also, the PCR cannot differentiate between live and dead matter meaning whether something is infectious or not.
Additionally, former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Dr. Michael Yeadon announced “…this is nothing but fear-mongering based on junk science and fraud.”10 He too claims that “almost all” of the tests being conducted for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are “false positives”, a phenomenon that has been observed in Florida and around the world. Yet, we still continue to use PCR tests to manufacture fear and compliance.
Since speaking out, Dr. Yeadon has been censored and smeared in order to prevent the distribution of, and to discredit, the critical information he is sharing. He has risked his reputation, career, and his life to share this information. Dr.
Yeadon has joined forces with a group of 160 doctors, who are in agreement with issues of regarding the COVID-19 narrative. 11 Why would these highly credentialed professionals willingly put themselves in this position, where there is so much to lose, and nothing to gain, other than trying to save people from harm?
Dr. Yeadon’s credentials are impressive and include: BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Co- founder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom).
It is prohibited under the GeneticNon-Discrimination Act of Canada12 to require someone to take a genetic test such as the PCR test as a condition of their employment or as condition of providing goods or services to that individual. It is also prohibited for any person to collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of an individual without the individual’s written consent. Anyone involved in contravening this law is liable to a fine of up to 5 years in jail and up to a $1,000,000 fine.
We note that all of your health orders contravene this law and that you are encouraging employers and business owners to do the same. Why aren’t you advising the public of the legal responsibility and consequences under the GNDA?
3.) CASES – An overused term and count that means nothing in the actual diagnosis of disease
What actually constitutes a legitimate COVID-19 case?
You state a case is confirmed based on a positive PCR test; however, as per Question #2, we know these tests are shown to be inaccurate (90% false positives). Moreover, cycling of PCR tests (often in excess of 35+ amplifications) is being used incorrectly for the detection of this virus. With the knowledge of these inflated false positives, we absolutely should not be counting these as “cases”.13
4.) SPREAD – Vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 just as much — or more — than unvaccinated individuals
What science or information are you relying upon when you say in your health orders that unvaccinated individuals are at higher risk than vaccinated persons of being infected with and transmitting COVID-19, or that the presence of an unvaccinated staff member constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act?
Several studies as well as CDC data demonstrate evidence that vaccinated persons have high potential to spread the COVID-19 Delta variant 14. It has been well documented that vaccinated people can—and do—spread the virus.15
A recently published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer lasting and stronger protection against the delta variant than the current vaccines do.16 Vaccinated individuals were found to be 27 times more likely to experience a symptomatic COVID-19 infection than those with natural immunity from COVID-19.17 Why are we discriminating against unvaccinated people, when the spread is clearly happening also amongst vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, those that have had a natural COVID-19 infection have been proven to have longer-term and more robust protection compared to those with the vaccine.18
5.) VARIANTS – Vaccines are causing the variants, and the vaccinated are more affected by variant strains than those with naturally conferred immunity
What source are you looking at when you declare that the variant(s) are being caused by unvaccinated individuals?
Dr. Byram W. Bridle (Professor of Viral Immunology at University of Guelph) explains that similarly to antibiotic resistance, COVID-19 variants are caused by not fully killing the virus, allowing for mutation.19 Therefore, only individuals who are vaccinated can be creating the variants. As with any variant, as the CDC and WHO also state, mutations lead to a weaker and more transmittable viral strain. That is why the Delta will not have the same potential for causing deaths as the original COVID-19 strain. As evidenced by Dr. Bridle, the continual application of COVID- 19 vaccinations, and furthermore boosters, will exacerbate the development of more variants. Finally, there is no current evidence that suggests that unvaccinated individuals are causing a rise in cases. 20
6.)VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS – Exposing the true effectiveness rate of vaccines and approval concerns
Why is the inflated Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of 94.0% utilized in reporting of vaccine effectiveness instead of the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) of less than 1.0%? What information are you relying upon when you say vaccines prevent or reduce the risk of infection with covid-19?
Promoting the RRR instead of the ARR misleads the general population, exacerbating the non-factual concept that these vaccines prevent getting and spreading COVID-19. The National Library of Medicine website linked below states “… the absence of the ARR in COVID-19 trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.”21 Saying that vaccinations are 94.0-95.0% effective is very misleading,22 as people often assume this means they have a 94.0% chance that they will not become sick from COVID-19. This is not true.
To explain how RRR and ARR works in layman’s terms requires much detail. Simplifying this information, RRR signifies the risk of a health event occurring in a group of vaccinated individuals versus a group of unvaccinated individuals. This number is incorrectly interpreted to represent that 94 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be protected from COVID-19. Although this number is compelling, this is an incorrect statement regarding what that 94% means. This number does not tell you what your chances are of becoming sick if you get vaccinated.
The more valuable and accurate value that needs to be used is that of the ARR. The ARR represents the ACTUAL likelihood of disease risk between the placebo (non-vaccinated individuals) and treatment (vaccinated individuals) groups.
The ARR data directly from Pfizer and Moderna was calculated as 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. In contrast, the RRR calculated as 95.0% and 94.0% for Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. See the Abstract in this NIH document that presents the vaccine RRR/ARR data direct from Pfizer and Moderna.23
If individuals knew that the current vaccinations only confer a 0.7% to 1.1% reduction in chances of getting ill with COVID-19, would they have still have taken the vaccine given its risks?
It is imperative to clarify that the COVID-19 vaccines do NOT prevent COVID-19, nor do they stop the transmission of COVID-19. The vaccines have only been designed to reduce severity of symptoms in the individual who receives the vaccine. As previously discussed, the virus is still transmissible by both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Breakthrough cases are occurring regularly in fully vaccinated individuals at an increasing rate, which is pushing the requirement for booster vaccinations. The push by Government to require booster vaccinations at this early stage only serves to confirm that the original vaccine program being pushed is failing.24
7.) VACCINE SAFETY/INJURY STATS – Missing full details of the magnitude of Vaccine injuries and deaths
Where is the transparency for the current statistics and details regarding counts of B.C. vaccine-related injuries and deaths?
Adverse reaction statistics and data is imperative to ensure that British Columbians can exercise their constitutional right to free and voluntary informed consent. This information should be presented daily, alongside the Covid-19 “case” numbers, so people can decide whether they want to freely accept the experimental vaccinations.
The Government of Canada Vaccine Injury website states as of September 3, 2021 that 14,101 adverse reactions have been reported. Of those 14,101 reports of adverse reactions there are currently 3,768 reported as serious. “Serious” adverse reactions include death; however, death counts are not separately recorded on this database. 25 Why is there this lack of transparency?
Specifically, on Sept 3rd, a report quietly released by Public Health Ontario reported 106 youth, under the age of 25, were hospitalized with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination. 26
These vaccine injuries and deaths are not just in Canada, but all over the world:(EU Vaccine injury:1.9 Million, Vaccine deaths: 20,595)27 (US Vaccine injury reported in VAERS: 650,075, Vaccine deaths: 13,911)28
yet the true numbers are not being disclosed accurately—if at all. Investigations show that very few vaccine injuries and deaths are actually approved and reported to government reporting agencies.29 An article from Harvard states “manufacturers of vaccines must comply with the more expansive requirements of §600.80 of the C.F.R. Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, many adverse reactions to vaccines may not be reported.” 30
Lastly, the Harvard Pilgrim Study31 states “Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.”
Dr. Patrick Phillips, an emergency room physician in Ontario stated that the forms are not easy to fill out, and that they are very cumbersome. Dr. Phillips also had a few reports returned to him marked as ‘invalid’.32 It is critical to properly compare the risk of COVID-19 to the risk of vaccine injury knowing they are not fully disclosed. This is even more important when we see the pharmacies including more warnings on the Vaccines.33
A true clinical trial of this vaccine would include transparency where health officers would clearly provide vaccine injury details and fully track these occurrences without hesitation. Without this information and data, proper free and full informed consent cannot occur. The above included links are just some of the reporting systems, but the numbers are still very high and show much more injury than should be acceptable to any PHO or Government.
8.) PASSPORTS – Will NOT be temporary and soon the 2 shots will NOT be sufficient to obtain a valid passport
You have recently stated that vaccine passports will be temporary, expiring at the end of January 2022. However, with 1 billion dollars being offered as an incentive by the Government of Canada34 for provinces who implement this system, it is hard to imagine this system will be scrapped by January 31, 2022, after only 5 months of use. It is difficult to rely on your statement given what you said on May 25, 2021on television (see 2:52 into the video):
…there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by use of things like vaccine passports for services, for public access here in British Columbia, and that’s my advice and I’ve got support from the Premier and I have talked about this Minister Dix and others.” 35
Prime Minister Trudeau made a similar commitment to Canadians on January 14, 2021 (see 3:30 into the same video).
Current studies (footnoted earlier) show that vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 as well. This begs the question, if all people spread the virus why are we segregating people?
While it is understandable that fully vaccinated individuals are looking forward to getting their passport so life “can go back to normal” or so they “can travel”, they should be made aware that once a booster is mandated, their passport will no longer be considered valid until they are post 7 days after receiving a booster. Countries around that world that are implementing booster programs are already indicating that boosters will be needed to maintain a valid and up-to-date vaccine passport. 36 The booster system will ensure that this vicious cycle never ends and one will need regular boosters of the vaccine to keep their passport valid.
9.) TREATMENTS – There are better inpatient and at home treatments that can reduce illness severity and death
Why are we not using approved and well-researched antivirals like FDA approved Ivermectin? 26 Why are we providing no out-patient treatment for at home use when other doctors in many countries are successfully doing so?
Doctors are avoiding or being prohibited from prescribing pharmaceuticals that are known to help with COVID-19 symptoms that are safe, such as Ivermectin. The negative spin being put on Ivermectin by mainstream media, that it is only used in horses, is not true. These statements being made about Ivermectin are malicious and false as it has been safely and effectively used for years in humans.37 In 2015 William C. Campbell, emeritus research fellow at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey and Satoshi Omura, professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, jointly received one half of the Nobel Prize for their work with Ivermectin that was discovered in 1975 and approved for safe use in humans in 1987. In delivering his Nobel Prize lecture on December 7, 2015, Dr. Campbell confirmed the safety and effectiveness of using Ivermectin in humans, and noted that part of the ground breaking research was done in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank, and others.38 It was noted that because of its excellent safety profile and broad spectrum of activity, Ivermectin was catalogued by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and is regarded by many as a “magic bullet” for global health. 39
On February 9, 2021, the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, announced that Ivermectin seemed to be effective at stopping Covid 19 and publicly recommended that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat Covid 19.40
It is interesting to note that only since the covid-19 pandemic began has the WHO changed its stance on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. While the WHO still admits that Ivermectin is on its essential medicines list (and therefore safe), the WHO now simply says that the evidence to support using Ivermectin as an effective treatment for Covid 19 is inconclusive, and that the guideline development group that they convened did not look at the use of Ivermectin to prevent Covid 19. One can only speculate as to why this group was not asked to look at that essential question. The WHO only says that this question was outside the scope of the current guidelines.41 It would seem that these much more expensive, experimental vaccines that were rushed to market under an emergency use authorization only, without proper testing and scrutiny, would be at least as inconclusive as the safe, tried and tested Ivermectin.
Additionally, Hydroxychloroquine is an approved and well-known treatment. Medical professionals have been coerced and forced to prescribe less efficacious, and even harmful, drugs. Deaths associated with adverse drug events (i.e. related to the use of Remdesivir42) should be considered as a separate count from COVID-19 deaths, as those deaths could have been avoided if these effective pharmaceuticals were implemented in a timely manner.
Simple home remedies such as zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, N-acetylcysteine, and quercetin are also well known and effective at helping COVID-19 patients to recover43. Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko has led the way with these treatments. In contrast, many doctors are still sending patients with COVID-19 home without any of these treatment options.
Why have you not promoted other effective treatment apart from the experimental vaccines, or even healthy lifestyle choices and vitamin D, since it is clear that obesity, high blood pressure and inactivity were largely responsible for COVID-19 related deaths? The opposite has happened with your policies of lockdowns, closures of parks, gyms, and sports programs, and the creation of fear and anxiety through constant media messaging. These all lower the function of the immune system and increase blood pressure, which are undesirable outcomes.
10.) DEFINITION AND COUNTS OF THE VACCINATED VS. UNVACCINATED
Why have you made the definition of vaccinated and unvaccinated in your public health orders so misleading and contrary to common understanding? Why do use different definitions of what it means to be “vaccinated” in your different health orders that are still in effect?
In your August 20, 2021 provincial health order, which has already gone missing from the B.C. government website, you define “vaccinated” as any individual who is 14 days post receipt of the full series of a WHO approved vaccine, or combination of approved WHO vaccines. This means that anyone who is sick or hospitalized with COVID-19 within 13 days of their 2nd shot is considered “unvaccinated”. This is just like people who have had one shot, and are counted in the statistics that you put forth. These definitions are very misleading and help promote the false narrative that the unvaccinated are driving the upward trend of “cases”.
You alluded to the fact that boosters are likely to be required in B.C., at least for certain populations. As we are witnessing the rollout in other countries, we predict that the plan will be to require everyone to have a booster, or several boosters, eventually. Once 2 shots are no longer what is recommended as a full series of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the WHO, then no British Columbian will be considered “vaccinated” until a booster vaccine is taken.
Also, it has been noted that the WHO does not approve of mixing and matching vaccines. This is contrary to your definition of “vaccinated” in your current health order wherein you do approve of this practice. The WHO says this should not be done unless supportive evidence is available. What evidence are you relying upon to tell British Columbians that mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines is acceptable or safe? The WHO recommends that if someone has mixed and matched 2 different vaccines, no additional doses of either vaccine should be administered to that person.44 Why are you ignoring this advice? What science are you relying upon?
Finally, Dr. Bonnie Henry, you quietly issued an additional health order on August 31, 2021 45, replacing the August 20, 2021 health order. The new order issued on August 31, 2021 removed some terms and added others which included changing the definition of “vaccinated” from 14 days post a full series of vaccination approved by the WHO, down to 7 days post-vaccination of an approved full series of WHO approved vaccines. Your September 2, 2021 Residential Care Staff Covid-19 Preventative Measures health order46 uses the same 7 day period. What science are you relying on to justify this change, as you have previously stated that it requires 14 days for the vaccines to work?
11.) TESTING ONLY UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS — August 20,2021, August 31,2021 and September2,2021 HealthOrders
In your public health order dated August 20, 2021—and now August 31, 2021 and September 2, 2021 —you are only requiring unvaccinated individuals to undergo rapid antigen testing and PCR testing. In light of the evidence and scientific research showing that vaccinated individuals are significantly more likely to contract the Delta variant than unvaccinated individuals. You also say in your September 2, 2021 health order that you will not allow any staff member to be hired after October 11, 2021 unless they meet your definition of “vaccinated”. What science are you relying on to justify this policy of testing and discriminating against unvaccinated citizens?
You continue to state that you are following the science, however, you have yet to provide ANY reference to the science you are following despite being asked for this information numerous times over the last 18+ months. We demand that you be transparent and honest with the public you serve by posting the scientific studies and data you are relying upon to support your policies and health orders on the BC government website alongside your public health orders so we can review this information.
12.) MASKS – under OATH Dr. Bonnie Henry admitted that there is scant evidence that masks are effective at preventing spread of the influenza virus but felt that can be an effective coercive tool when staff refuse to accept a vaccine
Where is the evidence that your mask mandates in your health orders actually work? You define “face coverings” in your September 2, 2021 health order48 as including a medical mask, or a non-medical mask, or a tightly woven fabric but does not include a clear plastic face shield. Where is the evidence that a non-medical mask, or a piece of tightly woven fabric, is an effective means of preventing the spread of a virus?
Dr. Henry’s testimony under oath in 2015 49 in an arbitration hearing in Ontario as an expert witness for the Sault Area Hospital (SAH) and the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) against the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) is informative. The issue in that arbitration was that the hospital required healthcare workers to wear surgical/procedure masks each year throughout the 5 to 6 month flu season if they had not received the vaccination for influenza. The Nurses Union alleged that the policy was an unreasonable exercise of management rights and a breach of employee privacy rights. At the time that Dr. Henry advocated in favour of the policy, she was the Deputy Provincial Health Officer for British Columbia.
Dr. Henry’s testimony in that arbitration hearing is eerily similar to the narrative she has been telling British Columbians about the Covid 19 virus. Dr. Henry was a strong proponent that there was asymptomatic spread, that unvaccinated nurses and healthcare workers should wear masks, and supported mandating forcing employees to wear masks as a consequence of choosing not to get the vaccine.
On cross-examination Dr. Henry reluctantly admitted (at paragraph 161 of the arbitration decision) that there was not a lot of evidence to support the suggestion that asymptomatic shedding actually leads to effective transmission of the virus.
At paragraph 178 of the arbitration decision, the arbitrator notes that Dr. Henry concluded after admitting that “I am not a huge fan of the masking piece”, that “there is not a lot of evidence to support mask use…”
At Paragraph 219 Dr. Henry’s evidence is summarized in part as follows:
“It is a challenging issue and we have wrestled with it. I am not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do-to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk. I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure.”
In the arbitration, the Nurses Union submitted that Dr. Henry was instrumental in the introduction of the “vaccinate or mask” policy in British Columbia (paragraph 256) and therefore Dr. Henry’s objectivity was suspect. The arbitrator preferred the evidence of other experts over Dr. Henry and her colleagues’ evidence.
The arbitrator noted that Dr. Henry defended the vaccine or mask policies as a way of preventing transmission from unvaccinated healthcare workers to their patients before symptom onset, or in cases of asymptomatic infection (paragraph 287). However, the arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 294) that while Dr. Henry stated there was “some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic and some evidence of transmission” but “there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces” two other experts who testified on behalf of the hospital, one of whom Dr. Henry acknowledged her expertise, both admitted that the evidence of asymptomatic spread was “scant”.
The arbitrator held (at paragraph 297), while “bearing in mind the concessions made about the quality of the evidence by Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry”, that the following opinion of another expert was more accurate:
“Although asymptomatic individuals may shed influenza virus, studies have not determined if such people effectively transmit influenza… Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals play an important role in transmission.”
The arbitrator held that the patient safety purpose and effect of masking was not established on the evidence and that the “vaccine or mask” requirement was reduced to a “coercive tool”, a situation that would be troubling if made out. The arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 326) Dr. Henry’s recognition that the wearing of a mask could be reasonably regarded as a “consequence” for failure to consent to vaccination.
The arbitrator concluded (paragraph 327) that the vaccine or mask policy did not provide a legitimate accommodative purpose for healthcare workers who conscientiously object to immunization, but rather more closely resembled an unacceptable Hobson’s choice (free choice). The arbitrator did not accept the argument that requiring unvaccinated staff to wear a mask may encourage truly voluntary immunization, nor did the arbitrator accept that the continuance of the minority employee group who choose to mask disproves the effectively coercive aspect of a vaccine or mask policy. The arbitrator noted that one of the nurses told her managers that “I felt I was being publicly put on display for choosing not to get the flu shot. I told her I felt I was being bullied into it and harassed.”
The arbitrator concluded that the vaccine or mask policy was unreasonable and contravened KVP principles. Similar findings were made by another arbitrator in 2018 involving the St. Michael’s Hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association v. The Ontario Nurses Association.5051
The vaccine or mask policy in issue in the Ontario Nurses arbitrations is very similar to what is going on in British Columbia with covid-19. Just as the arbitrator found that a masking policy amounted to a coercive tool that was troubling, your policies requiring rapid antigen testing, PCR testing, and masking as a condition of employment, is nothing more than a coercive tool to pressure people to accept the experimental vaccine. As the arbitrator held in 2015, a policy with this purpose is “troubling”.
You stated numerous times in your television briefings in 2020 that masks were not effective at preventing the spread of the Covid 19 virus. 52 Now you claim that masks do work and that you never said they did not. There is a glaring discrepancy between the statements that you made under oath in 2015, and in your television briefings in 2020, compared to what you are saying now in your current health orders in 2021.
Please refer to the additional published studies confirming masks are not effective.5354 Also, Dr. Byram Bridle’s video also demonstrates that wearing 5 masks do not stop droplets from escaping and certainly do not prevent the Covid-19 virus from passing through a non-medical mask or tightly woven clothing.55
Requiring people to wear masks harms the user by reducing availability of oxygen, increasing bacterial growth within the fabric of the masks, leads to social issues for individuals that cannot mask for medical reasons, creates waste of materials and money, and contributes to further pollution and negative environmental impact.
Please provide the evidence you are relying upon that prove masks work.
Call To Action:
Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, the citizens of this province call on you to answer to these questions, directly and truthfully. British Columbians will no longer tolerate the trampling of our rights, segregation, and division amongst neighbors and families. We respect different perspectives and opinions; however, everyone deserves to see the scientific evidence you are relying upon to justify your public health orders. All British Columbians thank you in advance for your much-anticipated response.
To our fellow British Columbians, you are our friends and family, and we need you to carefully consider the information above and be open to what is being said. We urge you to join us in fighting for the restoration of our freedoms and putting an end to the restrictions that have no basis in science and are designed only to promote fear and division and to give the government control over our lives.
Now is the time to take a stand, before it is too late.
Please share this with all your friends, family, media and everyone you can think of.
Voices Of Silenced Okanagan Health Professionals
A concerned group of health professionals who choose to remain anonymous due to threats of discipline and termination, by our own various professional governing bodies, for all who dare to question the B.C. government narrative on COVID-19 policies.
A six-pack of Federal Candidates vying for BC’s Cariboo-Prince George Riding gathered in Quesnel’s Legion Hall on the evening of Wednesday, September 8th to stake their claim for the people’s vote in Canada’s upcoming September 20th, 2021 election. It was the strangest all-candidates forum that this reporter has ever covered and it can easily be attributed to the fact that the former world of politics has now been so dramatically transformed by the massive, mind-bending global phenomenon called “Covid-19” that any semblance of the old ways of campaigning have now taken on a surreal appearance that leaves the audience with a lingering sense of being caught up in some sci-fi world akin to Robert Heinlein’s novel, Stranger in a Strange Land.
There was an element of the Titanic to the event wherein the candidates’ chairs took on the appearance of the deck chairs on the ill-fated ship that eventually came to symbolize any human effort fated to fail because the basis for it had been pre-empted by some savage force too shocking and dreadful for the human mind to accept as reality. For the majority of the candidates present on stage, plus the Green Party candidate who appeared via video link, this obvious state of affairs appeared to be missing. It was business as usual.
With all the hullabaloo surrounding masks and forced experimental “vaccines” and lockdowns I was pleasantly surprised to find that upon entering the Legion Hall I wasn’t given the 3rd Degree. I had arrived early because I’d heard on Facebook that the Peoples Party of Canada candidate, Jeremy Gustafson, was coming to town a couple of hours earlier to meet up with friends and supporters and I figured it might be an opportunity to touch base with him before the forum commenced. Upon entering the hall I was greeted by two ladies who were busy setting up chairs and preparing for the event. They were pleasant and friendly and when I told them I was a reporter for the Cariboo Sentinel they appeared pleased and proceeded to set up a media table along the south side of the hall across from the candidates and provided it with bottled drinking water as well.
After some typical delays setting up the electronics and mikes and video for livestreaming the event via Facebook and connecting with George Henderson at MyCaribooNow radio a formal welcome was given to all the candidates by Tim Lofstrom, President of the Quesnel & District Chamber of Commerce who were hosting the event.
Following that a Moderator for the chamber, Ruby Derksen, explained to the candidates and the minuscule audience of approximately 20 people present, the protocols for the evening’s entertainment. Each candidate would be given 3 minutes for their introductory speech then all candidates would be given a number of questions (all the same) for them to reply to. Once everyone had completed the question period the event would then culminating with another 3-minute summing up for the candidates.
Years of political activism and publishing in the Alternative News Media gives one a background gestalt from which to judge candidates and after listening to the speeches and responses to the questions from the Moderator it was clear that two candidates stood out from the rest and they did so merely by displaying their earnest concerns about the devastating effect that the Covid-19 plandemic was having on the nation as a whole; how it, more than any other factor, was responsible for Canada now being on a collision-course with economic ruin for small businesses while at the same time dividing and destroying families and using force to prohibit churches from gathering to worship the Creator.
The manner in which the chairs were lined up meant that the candidate for the People’s Party of Canada – Jeremy Gustafson – was the first to speak. Next to him was the current incumbent representative for Cariboo-Prince George, MP Todd Doherty and then the NDP candidate Audrey Mckinnon. On Audrey’s left was Henry Thiessen representing the Christian Heritage Party of Canada followed by Garth Frizzell of the Liberal Party of Canada. The final candidate was Leigh Hunsinger-Chang for the Green Party of BC.
The first of the two stand-out candidates in order of the seating arrangement was Jeremy Gustafson for the Peoples Party of Canada.
The second candidate, whose views on the critical issues were in most part in accord with the PPC candidate, was Henry Thiessen of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP). I should also add that the CHP has been for years now the only federal party that has made freedom of speech a major plank in its platform.
In a sense the above unmentioned factors must have played a part in the choice of questions being posed to the candidates but, as so often happens in today’s society – one saturated with decades of subliminal indoctrination in the gross art of political correctness – the crux of the issue, the mandated Lockdowns and the pending Vaccine Passports weren’t brought to the forefront but lay in the background while side-issues such as mothers’ mental health and child development, the opioid crisis, government assistance for residents and businesses affected by wildfires and the recent msm red-herring Residential School uproar coupled with alleged “missing children” were all laid out on the table for each candidate to address. The COVID-19 ‘epidemic’, better known as the “plandemic” or the “scamdemic” in the Alternative & Social Media, only surfaced in a peripheral manner when candidates were asked what strategies and approach their party planned to implement in order to help small businesses. It’s akin to a federal government election taking place during the period of WW2 in Canada and the candidates then running for election not being asked any questions regarding the war.
The incumbent MP for Cariboo-Prince George, Todd Doherty of the Conservative Party of Canada had the usual, status quo patent responses to all of the questions; ones that he’s been repeating on a regular basis over his past 6 years of tenure as representative for ‘the people’. In his opening remarks during the 3-minute introductory speech Doherty waxed eloquent by stating, “I’m deeply passionate about the concerns of this region.” When I heard those words coming out of his mouth I immediately reflected upon the many Open Letters, LetterOne, LetterTwo, LetterThree, that I had sent to MP Doherty over the past 9 months asking him to address the many critical issues surrounding the government Lockdowns, the attacks upon Christian churches and the pending experimental ‘vaccine’ passports, along with all the other serious problems stemming from these brutal initiatives that fly in the face of our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms only to be met with dead silence on every occasion. So much for Mr. Doherty’s “deeply passionate” concerns for his constituents.
Seated (appropriately) on Doherty’s left was NDP candidate Audrey Mckinnon.
From what I could hear of Audrey’s comments (which was very little unfortunately due to the erratic nature of the sound system) and observe from her presentation she was well prepared to respond to the status quo questions that were on the evening’s menu and spoke with confidence and one might even say passion on certain issues. As she spoke I again reflected upon my own past years of personal involvement with the New Democratic Party which spanned my early life from birth until the early 1970’s when I became interested in the new kid on the block – the Green Party – and turned toward it and helped form the first local Green Party chapter in Quesnel back in the early 80’s. My family, going back two generations had been strong supporters of the CCF and then the federal NDP under the longstanding leadership of Tommy Douglas. Our household was basically democratic socialist since the 1930’s.
While I listened to Ms. Mckinnon responding to the questions my mind also turned to the present NDP government here in B.C. and to the current federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, all of whom are hell-bent on jabbing every single soul in the province and country with these untested, experimental injections of toxic substances that are now crippling and killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It’s bad enough that these lethal untested shots are killing the elderly and the immune compromised yet Dr. Bonnie Henry and Health Minister Dix and Premier Horgan are all for incrementally lowering the age at which the poisoned jabs are administered so that now children are also endangered by this mind-boggling, mass hysteria that’s overtaken both the federal and provincial levels of government across the nation. When Dr. Charles Hoffe, MD, a long standing, well respected family physician from Lytton, B.C. attempted to alert Dr. Henry to the fact that the Moderna jab was killing and disabling his first nation patients the NDP government immediately turned on the good doctor and cut back on his ability to work. Then, to exacerbate the whole thing suddenly Lytton is subjected to a ‘wild fire’ and Dr. Hoffe’s clinic goes up in smoke!
So when I hear the NDP’s Singh telling Canadians, “This is an unprecedented moment for our country. Canadians need a government that has their back….”
and, “We believe the government should immediately take a leadership role in a federal vaccination strategy to ensure all Canadians can [will?] be vaccinated.”
and, “Canada needs to have the capacity to produce vaccines for public health emergences…New Democrats will establish a crown corporation charged with domestic vaccine production so that Canadians are never again at the back of the line.”
plus, “The federal government must also step up and regulate natural health products….”
I shudder, while my immediate thought is yes, the NDP’s Singh wants control of Canada so he can stab the people in the back with these untested so-called ‘vaccines’ under the pretence of there being an actual “pandemic” and in the process kowtow to the same international, communist-created orgs like the U.N. and the WHO and megalomaniacs like Gates and Fauci who are most likely funnelling into Horgan’s back pocket unmentioned amounts of currency for supporting their Machiavellian agenda of global hegemony.
Having such reflections while NDP candidate Audrey Mckinnon was doing her best to put the NDP’s platform agenda into a more palatable presentation my heart went out to her while my thoughts turned to Tommy’s dream party and the realization of how it’s now turned into just one more nightmare for Canada’s electorate.
Sitting next to Audrey Mckimmon on her left was Liberal Party of Canada candidate Garth Frizzell. Now of all the candidates running for office here in Cariboo – Prince George I suspect that Garth Frizzell is likely the one who is facing the greatest challenge of them all. To my knowledge the Cariboo has never been that favourable toward federal Liberals and it’s only due to the fact that the Social Credit Party morphed into the provincial Liberal Party some years ago that we have any Liberal governments in the province.
While the candidates were milling about prior to the start of the forum it was Garth who came up to the media table and introduced himself and we engaged in conversation. He told me a bit about his past, how he’d come to Prince George about 20 years ago and has been actively involved in the community for the past 14 years as a member of Prince George city council. He told me that taking on the task of representing the federal Liberals would likely be challenging as it wasn’t like being a city councillor where your political leanings weren’t always hanging off your chest wherever you went and therefor it was much easier to work with the people and businesses and community groups. After our little chat I asked Garth if he minded if I took his photo and he was happy to do so as one can tell from this portrait.
When it came to the questions put to him his responses were, like all the other mainstream parties, status quo with, of course, the Liberal slant to them. A pleasant man and a good speaker like the NDP candidate Audrey Mckinnon, one is left to ponder why these younger folks would choose to represent the parties they do. Is it just a reflection of our system itself where the older established parties somehow are still able to attract the younger generations or is it the level of awareness of those who are now immersing themselves in the political process? Choice, one supposes, is the basic principle behind it all. If only that were the case for the people of Canada as well when it comes the mandates and Lockdowns and pending Vaccine Passports which take effect today.
The final candidate, Leigh Hunsinger-Chang for the Green Party of BC, was inaudible for many in the Legion Hall, including myself and so I cannot say how she responded to the questions put to her by the Moderator. Given how the Green Party of BC has colluded now for years with the BC NDP, one can only extrapolate and assume that her peachy replies to the queries didn’t fall too far from the NDP’s tree.
When it finally came to the summing up for each candidate the same two stand-outs addressed the elephant in the living room of Canada. Henry Thiessen made it clear that until we deal with the fundamental issues surrounding the present Covid fear-crisis that little will result from the election. The only one which I was able to capture in full was that of Jeremy Gustafson of the People’s Party of Canada. He was gracious enough to furnish me with his notes and this is what he had to say to the people:
“I’d like to thank the Chamber of Commerce for inviting me as many of my fellow PPC candidates have been excluded from debates. And I’d like to thank my fellow candidates for running. I’m surprised no one is concerned about the loss of our freedoms. You’re all terrified of catching COVID from me because I’m unvaccinated but you’ve had the vaccine and so you should be protected. You were all banging pots and pans at 7:00 pm for the nurses. They were heroes, now they’re going to be fired for refusing the vaccine. I asked them why, they said it’s too new and untested. You know what climate change and COVID have in common? They’re models and models say this might happen or this could happen. Well, it also might not happen or could not happen. And by climate change I mean the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change not the natural process of climate change that’s been going on for billions of years. You don’t even know what people are talking about anymore because they keep changing the definitions of the words. Like herd immunity, when enough of the population gets sick and develops immunity. Remember 18 months ago, “Oh, we can’t do that”. Now herd immunity only comes from vaccines so it’s OK. The government’s job is to make tough decisions, I know COVID is real, that people have died, but not enough to justify the devastating effect of the lockdowns where women are being used as punching bags and suicide, drug addiction, depression are now rampant throughout our society. The PPC is the only party standing up for your freedoms. We will end mandatory vaccinations. We will end federal vaccine passports for travellers and will cut federal funding for provincial lockdowns. If they want to lockdown it’s on their dime. So vote for the PPC, the only party standing up for your freedoms.”
And so it went on the evening of September 8th, 2021.