Categories
Visitor Contributions

Canada’s Covid-19 Resistance – What Dr. Hinshaw’s Affidavit foretells

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.

Author

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.     

Categories
Publications

Harms of public health interventions against covid-19 must not be ignored – BMJ

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.

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4074