As British Columbians were starting to get COVID-19 vaccinations in December 2020 and the first half of 2021, health officials were behind-the-scenes carefully tracking serious side-effects from the shots, according to documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the 42-page released contains few examples of severe reactions, those that were flagged sparked immediate responses from health leaders who were monitoring the millions of Canadians getting the new vaccinations.
A new study has found that moderate levels of physical activity in adults can protect against severe outcomes from COVID-19, such as hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and death.
The ‘small steps, strong shield’ study found that adults with high or moderate physical activity levels had better health outcomes after contracting the virus than those with little to no physical activity.
The research was an international collaboration led by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, with researchers at Western University. It looked at the health outcomes of over 65,000 patients from March 2020 to June 2021.
“What we found is that even if you’re active for only 60 minutes per week, that’s still enough to infer a protective benefit against severe outcomes of COVID-19,” said Dr. Jane Thornton, one of the study’s researchers at Western.
She also questioned why the federal Liberal government didn’t reach out directly to GiveSendGo with concerns about the site facilitating funding. Wilson said the information they were receiving about the situation was “hearsay” from media reports.
“I really believe that if Trudeau had just come out and spoken with the truckers when they got there, a lot this would have been avoided,” she added.
Wells said most of the donations made were under $100 and confirmed that roughly 60 per cent of the money originated from Canada, while about 40 per cent came from the United States.
He told MPs he saw the protest as being “largely peaceful” and felt there were efforts by what he called a “fringe percentage” of the group to ruin it.
Published 11th February 2015
The leader of that party does what he wants, when he wants, and no one dares question him. Would a Prime Minister Trudeau arbitrarily whip the vote and outlaw certain moral questions? Could Prime Minister Trudeau be trusted to make decisions for the good of the country, not just for his personal self-worth? Would Trudeau call in the police to enforce his vision? Let’s hope we never have the opportunity to ask those questions.
It’s becoming clearer as the days of Trudeau’s Liberals wear on: if elected Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau would turn Canada into a dictatorship.
This is the man who admitted he “admires China’s basic dictatorship.” It wasn’t just a sarcastic comment – he seriously said that he admires the dictatorship because they can get things done quickly.
On announcing the ‘state of emergency’, (state of emergency piled upon pre-existing state of emergency), Trudeau’s government immediately declared that banks are allowed to freeze personal and business accounts on the mere suspicion of involvement with the protest, without obtaining a court order. They cannot be sued for such actions. Police, intelligence agencies and banks are authorised to share ‘relevant information’. Banks are now required to report financial relationships of persons involved in the protests to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family have left their home in the national’s capital Ottawa for a secret location as up to 50,000 truckers gather to protest against the country’s vaccine mandate and Covid lockdowns.
Hundreds of truckers drove their giant rigs into the Canadian capital Ottawa on Saturday as part of a self-titled ‘Freedom Convoy’ which started as a protest against vaccine mandates required to cross the US border.
Days earlier, he had called the truckers headed for the city a ‘small fringe minority’ before the convoy of hundreds of vehicles grew up to 45 miles long as it made its way to the capital .
A common drug slashes your risk of hospitalisation after Covid by as much as a third.
An antidepressant costing just 29p was given to half in a new study, with the other participants getting a placebo.
The study took place in Brazil, in South America, and its research has now been published in the Lancet.
…Fluvoxamine is branded as Faverin in the UK, and was found to reduce the hospital risk by 32 per cent in Covid sufferers.
Edward Mills, a researcher at McMaster University, Canada, which co-led the study, said: “Fluvoxamine is, so far, the only treatment that if administered early, can prevent Covid-19 from becoming a life-threatening illness.
Why haven’t lockdowns worked? There are broadly two types of respiratory virus. There are those that spread person to person – like measles – in a continuous chain of transmission, uninterrupted by season and with every susceptible contact falling ill. Then there are those we do not understand so well, like influenza, which are much more complex. Instead of the simplistic close contact model, which assumes Covid spreads like measles, we should perhaps consider an alternative more sophisticated model based on influenza. The influenza virus model is unusual – it is predicated on the majority being exposed to a particular airborne virus but, oddly, only a minority appear to be susceptible to each year’s variant. To complicate matters further, influenza can also spread person to person.
Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.
Most blue surgical face masks used by many during the pandemic are not enough to avoid people from being infected with COVID-19, an alarming new study has found.
The Associated Press recently ran a story they said debunked the dissenting Covid concerns of pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson. In their article titled, “Pathologist falsely claims COVID-19 is a hoax, no worse than the flu,” they misrepresented several of Dr. Hodkinson’s statements. The also wrote specifically saying they were planning to debunk him, not understand what he meant. Dr Hodkinson is a medical specialist in pathology and graduate of Cambridge University, UK. He is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He was previously the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Alberta, and CEO of a large community based medical laboratory with a full menu of testing for infectious disease and virology. He is currently the Chairman of an American biotechnology company active in DNA sequencing.
It’s amazing how often Sweden still crops up in conversations. It didn’t impose tough lockdown, kept primary schools and core economic activities functioning, issued clear guidelines and relied on voluntary social distancing and personal hygiene practices to manage the crisis. For harsh lockdowns to be justified elsewhere, Sweden had to be discredited. Hence the harsh criticisms of Sweden’s approach last year by the New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, CBS News and others.
But with Sweden’s demonstrable success, goalposts have shifted. Every time it’s mentioned as a counter to Europe’s high Covid-toll lockdown countries, the response now is: ‘But their Nordic neighbours did much better. Look at Denmark’. Let’s ‘interrogate’ this argument.
Dr Hodkinson is the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, and has been the Company’s Medical Director for over 20 years. He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK, and then became a Royal College certified pathologist in Canada (FRCPC) following a residency in Vancouver, BC.Source: Western Medical Assessments
- Dr Hodkinson’s interview is at 2h49m.
Find out more about the Investigative Corona Committee Germany.
A shortened version of the video Session 56 has been uploaded to Bitchute by Coronavirus Plushie.
Dr. Michael Dykta, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Professor Arne Burkhardt, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Roger Hodkinson speak with Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on Germany’s Investigative Corona Committee Session 56.
- Dr McCullough’s is at around 1h35m.
- Dr Hodkinson’s interview is at 2h49m.
Find out more about the Investigative Corona Committee Germany.
The full video has been removed from YouTube. You can find a backup mirror below:
MG-OMD has given their propaganda operation the Orwellian sounding name of OmniGOV. They say they are very proud of it and recognise their responsibility as the “the single cross-HM Government agency partner.”
OmniGov were behind the snappy slogans used to change our behaviour throughout the pandemic. Phrases like “flatten the curve”, “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives” and “rule of six” all rely on a psychological mechanism called the rule of three. The £119 million Omnicom contract to modify our behaviour was in discussion long before the WHO made their pandemic declaration.
In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.
The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.
William Walter Kay BA JD
- Credentials: BA JD
Canada’s Covid-19 Resistance – What Dr. Hinshaw’s Affidavit foretells
A foundational myth of Canada’s Covid protest movement has it that at some climatic point in this horror-show the judiciary will rush in to vanquish our medical tormentors. A recent ruling by Justice Kirker of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench pours pails of ice-water onto this fever-born fantasy.
On December 7 the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) et al filed an Originating Application in pursuit of declarations vitiating Alberta’s Covid-related Public Health Orders on the grounds that these Orders violate Charter-protected rights and freedoms.
Acknowledging that this proceeding will take time to adjudicate, JCCF filed a Notice of Application, on December 10, seeking immediate suspension of the impugned Health Orders pending the outcome of the overall case. The hearing on this interim relief, pitched as a bid to “Save Christmas,” was held via video on December 21.
JCCF’s team submitted an impressive portfolio of affidavits, memoranda and precedents. Counsel for the Alberta Government responded with a 7-page Affidavit signed by their Chief Medical Officer of Heath, the catatonic Dr. Deena Hinshaw. After a snap hearing Judge Kirker dispatched JCCF’s lawyers with shoeprints on their trouser bottoms.
Hinshaw’s Affidavit might have been cobbled together in an afternoon of copying and pasting from the Health Ministry’s website. Supporting documentation consists of 5 simple graphs.
Interestingly, as far as hospitalizations go, Hinshaw’s Affidavit presents a rather flaccid argument for a lockdown. She claims Alberta’s 2018-2019 flu season wrought 2,310 hospitalization stays including 341 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. In 2019-20 there were 2,339 flu hospitalizations including 262 ICU admissions. Covid-19, from March 5 to December 16 2020, (a period longer than a flu season) generated 2,862 hospitalizations and 506 ICU admissions. This hardly warrants martial law.
The death count, however, tells another tale. Hinshaw claims Covid has already killed 790 Albertans while the seasonal flu killed only 659 Albertans in the past 10 years combined. This eye-popping stat no doubt arises from treating a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 as grounds for deeming Covid-19 to be the primary cause of death for any subsequent fatality, regardless of co-morbidities.
The gaping lacunae in Hinshaw’s Affidavit is the provincial aggregate death tally. If there were excess deaths in 2020 Hinshaw would have brandished this. Lack of discussion on this subject beckons a negative inference.
JCCF will surely grind out a truer depiction of the body count; but they labour in vain. A date hasn’t even been set for hearing the originating application; and its outcome is predictable.
According to Canada’s Constitution a government may limit any right or freedom provided it does so in a lawful manner consistent with democratic principles. Apparently, a Health Ministry press release suffices to discharge such obligations.
An appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (should they deign to hear it) will take years. By then Covid will linger only in the glittering treasures of Big Pharma shareholders.
Wherefrom the notion that judges would ride to our rescue? All senior judicial appointments in Canada are agonizingly scrutinised by partisan wonks deep within the Federal Government. They’re not seeking outside-the-box thinkers.
Moreover, Covid proceedings will entirely turn on the testimony of epidemiologists and virologists drawn from the Borg-like international medical-industrial complex. Legal authorities will side with medical authorities.
Resistance to the Covid reign of terror needs to explore additional pathways.
The harmful consequences of public health choices should be explicitly considered and transparently reported to limit their damage, say Itai Bavli and colleagues
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge for governments. Questions regarding the most effective interventions to reduce the spread of the virus—for example, more testing, requirements to wear face masks, and stricter and longer lockdowns—become widely discussed in the popular and scientific press, informed largely by models that aimed to predict the health benefits of proposed interventions. Central to all these studies is recognition that inaction, or delayed action, will put millions of people unnecessarily at risk of serious illness or death.
However, interventions to limit the spread of the coronavirus also carry negative health effects, which have yet to be considered systematically. Despite increasing evidence on the unintended, adverse effects of public health interventions such as social distancing and lockdown measures, there are few signs that policy decisions are being informed by a serious assessment and weighing of their harms on health. Instead, much of the discussion has become politicised, especially in the US, where President Trump’s provocative statements sparked debates along party lines about the necessity for policies to control covid-19. This politicisation, often fuelled by misinformation, has distracted from a much needed dispassionate discussion on the harms and benefits of potential public health measures against covid-19.