After Data Show Vaccinated at Higher Risk of Dying From COVID, Canadian Province Ends Monthly Reports

After the Manitoba, Canada, public health agency reported data showing those fully vaccinated (not boosted) for COVID-19 are at higher risk of dying from the virus compared to unvaccinated individuals, health officials stopped reporting on the data — a trend seen in other countries, including Scotland, the U.K. and the U.S.


Julie Comber, Ph.D

Madhava Setty, M.D.


Canada takes giant leap toward Room 101 in the Ministry of Love,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/

@RandPaul explaining the CDC’s multiple failures, from masking to mandates to denying natural immunity:

Conspiracy Theories and the United Nations agenda

The United Nations is fuelling a misinformation campaign that they cleverly disguise as a war on conspiracy theories.

The UN’s target is you, the citizen. The UN has put out a framework for people to assess and ultimately undermine the legitimate questions that people are asking of their governments by labelling these questions as “conspiracy theories”.

In fact, it is a clear agenda to control thought by pitting citizens against each other and to police the thoughts of their neighbours. We have seen this tactic used by our own government to avoid answering the uncomfortable questions that hold them accountable. It is textbook gaslighting – a way of manipulating and bullying people with feelings of shame by getting them to think that they’re the problem, they’re crazy, or worse – that they are the the ones spreading conspiracy theories.

We have all witnessed news reports and speeches that seem to be parroting the same points with the exact same delivery from leaders all around the world. Prime ministers, former presidents, cabinet ministers, CEOs from all over the world repeating the same line that COVID-19 is an opportunity to reset our economy, and to “Build Back Better”.

Yet, when people point out the obvious, that such similarities cannot be an accident, that there seems to be coordination – they are mocked as a conspiracy theorist. Why?

The truth is that global organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, and the United Nations are working together to transform our way of life. And if you ask any questions about the coordinated changes to our economy, about the new ESG requirements for businesses, about proposed digital IDs and vaccine passports that could be programmed to monitor our purchasing and travel habits, or any other sweeping changes they are ushering in – you will be called a conspiracy theorist and accused of spreading disinformation.

And now, our government and global agencies like the United Nations have established shaming mechanisms to deal with those pesky and “dangerous” questions that the common people in a democracy dare to ask of their elected leaders.  Yes, and the most popular liberal word used to silence you is to call your statements “dangerous”, without any evidence of the danger that your words pose.

What I find so offensive about the UN’s approach is that it attempts to shut down debate and to regulate what people think and believe. It’s the responsibility of governments and leaders to provide the facts, to answer questions and be accountable to the people. It is not the people’s responsibility to censor and shame their neighbours and to stop them from asking questions. It’s not hard to imagine what kind of regimes are ruled by such cultural rules.

Yet in an ironic twist, the United Nations’ campaign also teaches us how to identify a real conspiracy which – don’t worry – never involves the government. The UN has taken a page from the Trudeau Liberals’ internet censorship proposal, Bill C-11, and put it on steroids.

Citizens who care about freedom of thought, who understand that asking questions is a good thing, and who require their elected officials to provide evidence and data supporting their policies, should recognize when they are slowly being silenced. Recently, the Liberals have proposed that taxpayers should fund Members of Parliament to have security. They claim that they cannot protect themselves against conspiracy theorists.

The truth is they fear that Canadians will ask them questions about the destruction that their policies have heaped on our economy and our family structure. They want security guards to shield them from answering the questions that Canadian taxpayers have of them. This is what is actually very dangerous for our democracy.

As engaged citizens and stewards of our democracy, we must not back down when someone in power responds to a legitimate question with, “That’s a conspiracy theory”, or “stop talking, you’re spreading dangerous misinformation”.  Let’s hold our elected officials to account, remind them that they are there to serve the people, and that we have the power to vote them out if they continue to dismiss our concerns by not answering questions with clear evidence.

A healthy democracy is built on open debate, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.  We must fight to keep these freedoms strong in Canada. It is essential.

FIRST READING: How Canada ignored warnings that euthanasia would immediately go too far

Courts repeatedly dismissed the notion that sick Canadians might be offered death instead of treatment

Author of the article:

Tristin Hopper

Publishing date:

Aug 19, 2022  •  10 hours ago  •  6 minute read  

Vancouver man Ray Chwartkowski holds up a picture of his sister Cheryl (seen as a child in the picture with her mother, Rose). Cheryl received medical assistance in dying in 2019 at age 50 and Chwartkowski believes his sister (who suffered from lifelong mental health issues) should not have been eligible as she did not have a terminal illness.
Vancouver man Ray Chwartkowski holds up a picture of his sister Cheryl (seen as a child in the picture with her mother, Rose). Cheryl received medical assistance in dying in 2019 at age 50 and Chwartkowski believes his sister (who suffered from lifelong mental health issues) should not have been eligible as she did not have a terminal illness. PHOTO BY PHOTO BY JASON PAYNE/ PNG

First Reading is a daily newsletter keeping you posted on the travails of Canadian politicos, all curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent direct to your inbox every Monday to Thursday at 6:30 p.m. ET (and 9 a.m. on Saturdays), sign up here.

Barely a week now goes by without some new case emerging of a sick Canadian being offered assisted death in lieu of treatment. Most recently, it was a Canadian combat veteran who was casually offered the option of dying after he approached Veteran Affairs Canada for help with his PTSD.

It’s a nightmare scenario that was envisioned by no shortage of ethicists and health figures when assisted death was first written into Canadian law. But with few exceptions, these warnings were ignored by the various court rulings that ultimately forced Canada into adopting the world’s most permissive regime of legal euthanasia.

It was the 2015 Supreme Court decision Carter v. Canada that first struck down Criminal Code bans on doctor-assisted suicide and compelled the House of Commons to encode legal euthanasia into law.

Notably, Carter v. Canada directly contradicted another Supreme Court decision from just 22 years before — that was even written by some of the same justices. In 1993’s Rodriguez v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court had dismissed a Charter appeal against the assisted suicide ban, arguing that such a measure would violate the Charter’s “underlying hypothesis” of the sanctity of human life. “Given the concerns about abuse and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide is not arbitrary or unfair,” read the 1993 ruling.

But by 2015, the Supreme Court had decided that denying citizens the option to end their own lives violated Charter guarantees against the “security of the person.” As for the prospect of abuse, this was dismissed almost entirely.

Assisted suicide was already legal in Belgium in 2015, and had similarly yielded a number of controversial cases in which state-sanctioned death was extended to citizens without terminal illnesses.

This included a severely depressed 34-year-old woman who suffered from suicidal ideation, and two twin brothers who opted for assisted suicide when they began to go blind.

Belgian bioethicist Etienne Montero was even flown in to say as much before the court. “Strict safeguards” were an illusion, he told the court. “Once euthanasia is allowed, it becomes very difficult to maintain a strict interpretation of the statutory conditions.”

But the Canadian justices dismissed the Belgian experience as “the product of a very different medico-legal culture” and said it offered no lessons for Canada.

Rather, the justices were optimistic “that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error.”

We should not lightly assume that the regulatory regime will function defectively,” they wrote.

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons was far less cavalier when it came time to encode assisted death into an Act of Parliament.

The resulting legislation, Bill C-14, extended medical assistance in dying (MAID) only to “competent adults whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable.”

This was done to defend the “interests of vulnerable persons in need of protection,” according to the bill, which received support from 15 members of the Conservative caucus.

During parliamentary debates over the bill, a non-partisan cross-section of MPs spoke to their fears of greenlighting an assisted suicide regime that could unwittingly extend to the disabled or the mentally ill.

The NDP’s Joe Comartin warned of “mercy killings” becoming a regular component of an underfunded Canadian health-care system. “The risk we have is sending a message to the country that life is expendable, that we are prepared to say that we do not care enough for people to take care of them,” he said.

A Conservative, Joy Smith, raised the experience of Dutch bioethicist Theo Boer, an initial supporter of euthanasia in the Netherlands who ultimately became a fierce critic when he saw it being applied well beyond rare cases of terminal illness or unbearable pain. “Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again,” said Boer in 2014.

Around this time, even as polls showed more than 75 per cent of Canadians to be in support of MAID, an internal poll by the Canadian Medical Association found that 63 per cent of physicians would refuse to offer assisted death to a patient.

One of them, John C. Wootton, wrote in a letter to the Canadian Medical Association Journal that MAID’s core issue was that it was a 100 per cent successful procedure, with no way of telling whether it was a mistake. “Because few other medical acts can be accomplished with such impunity, we are likely to become more and more comfortable with it, and more and more permissive as times goes by,” he wrote.

But it was another court ruling that would once again push the envelope on Canada’s assisted death regime. In the 2019 decision Truchon and Gladu v. Canada, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that extending assisted suicide only to Canadians with terminal illnesses was similarly a violation of the “security of the person.”

Here again, the prospect of euthanasia going too far was almost entirely dismissed.

The fact that doubts have been raised is one thing, but any possible ‘slippery slope’ remains theoretical,” it read.

The court praised the first years of assisted death in Canada as being governed by “a strict and rigorous process that, in itself, displays no obvious weakness.” And while problems had arisen in Dutch and Belgian euthanasia regimes, the court said that was no reason to believe these issues “will be transposed to Canada.”

This time, it didn’t take a Supreme Court appeal for the issue to be thrown back to Parliament.

Bill C-7, passed last May, was an immediate government reaction to the Truchon decision. It removed terminal illness as a requirement for MAID, and starting in 2023, it will extend assisted death to Canadians whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

In introducing the legislation, Justice Minister David Lametti assured his fellow parliamentarians that even under this “vast” expansion of MAID, “a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards” would protect vulnerable Canadians from abuse.

But as parliament continues to hash out the terms of how MAID would be extended to the mentally ill, they no longer need to rely on Belgium or the Netherlands to supply instances of overreach.

Last June, the Medical Assistance in Dying Committee heard from Trish Nichols, whose suicidal and severely mentally ill brother Alan was given assisted death at a Chilliwack, B.C., hospital in 2019, at a time when MAID was still limited only to Canadians with a terminal illness.

Alan had been taken by his family to the hospital only days before to recover from a psychiatric episode, and in the minutes before he received a lethal injection, Trish described Alan screaming uncontrollably, despite the hospital’s assurances that he had opted for a medically assisted death while “of sound mind.”

Would you feel safe now, bringing your suicidal loved one to seek medical care for recovery when there are no oversight or stringent safeguards surrounding a procedure that kills people?” Nichols told the committee.

Inept corrupted CDC is finally reading our work and listening! “CDC Quietly Removes Statement that Says “mRNA and the Spike Protein Do Not Last Long in the Body” from Their Website”

a very key aspect of what I have been saying & others, that there is no ‘off’ switch, & with this, your immune system will constantly make vaccinal antibodies, constantly suppressing immune system

We’re fighting for the soul of our nation

Imagine that in 2015 you were placed in a time machine, sent into the future and arrived in August 2022. Would you believe your eyes? Could anyone convince you that only seven years had passed?

We have lived through the nightmare of the past seven years, and even still it is hard to believe how much our society has declined in that time.

And while the COVID crisis exacerbated much of the decline, it was not the virus itself that actually caused the speedy fall of our most important institutions. It was government policies that have caused this rapid erosion of trust between Canada’s citizens and their elected officials.

Starting with the Emergencies Act, we now know that it was used as a political tool and that the government lied about whether or not law enforcement had requested it. In fact, the very day before Trudeau’s dramatic press conference calling it a “last resort”, he had actually been advised by key security advisors that they were nearing a breakthrough for a peaceful resolution.

Trudeau knew that the matter could be peacefully resolved, but he chose to use the Emergencies Act as a tool to make it seem that he resolved the conflict, that he was a strong leader, and that he acted out of the best interest of Canadians because he had no choice. I remind you that horses and militia style law enforcement was used to disperse the crowd that law enforcement deemed was under control and that a breakthrough of the protest was imminent.

When leaders use a crisis as a political opportunity, they act to selfishly further their political careers instead of acting in the best interest of Canadians. Selfish leadership erodes public trust and makes it harder to trust politicians when the next crisis hits.

Even something as tragic and traumatizing as COVID was used for political gain. I’ve met with elderly residents that were in tears when they found out that the vaccine did not prevent getting or transmitting COVID. These individuals refused to see their own children and grandchildren because they believed our Prime Minister, and now Canadians are left to deal with the guilt of how they treated strangers and even those whom they love the most.

Trudeau knew that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, all the while warning Canadians that it was dangerous to sit next to an unvaccinated person. As one of the only nations to prohibit their citizens from getting on federally operated planes, trains and boats, Trudeau doubled down on his lies to create division and fear and then opportunistically called an election that cost Canadians $650 million dollars. Families were torn apart, friendships lost, and he did it all to try to use hate and fear to win back his majority in an unnecessary election.

Even our most sacred institutions have been tarnished. The Military admitted to conducting propaganda experiments on Canadians during the early days of COVID.

The head of the RCMP appears to have been busted for interfering in a mass murder investigation for political purposes.

The mainstream media had to retract multiple stories about the freedom convoy that spread fear and greatly added to tensions amongst Ottawa residents.

Imagine going back to 2015 and telling yourself that in just seven years you couldn’t trust Canada’s top health officials to be honest about vaccines, the Prime Minister to tell the truth about National Security, the Military not to use propaganda on you, the RCMP to allow important investigations to proceed without interference and the media to not spread fake news about peaceful protesters. I could add that we have also seen the government fail to provide basic government services and take actual political prisoners.

Our nation is unrecognizable, except for one very important part.

I have traveled across this country for the past several months and have seen strength and goodness and love for their fellow citizens. Canadians are awake; they won’t be silenced. They are aware that they are being gaslit by having their concerns always dismissed as conspiracy theories.

We have hope that a strong Conservative Opposition can put the brakes on the further destruction of our democracy. We have hope for a future of courageous leaders that will rise above politics, not dumb down the issues with cheap slogans and talking points, but confront this real risk to our democracy. I have faith in our Conservative membership that you will see that we are at a precipice and that we need real courageous leadership to lead us back from the edge of this cliff.

Strong leadership will once again restore this nation as the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.

Rex Murphy: That sound you hear could be the country fragmenting

The Liberal government’s fixation with Trudeau-style climate action is fracturing Canada

Author of the article:

Rex Murphy

Publishing date: August 13 2022

Where in a Confederation does the power lie for a national government to target the central economic concerns of certain provinces, asks Rex Murphy.
Where in a Confederation does the power lie for a national government to target the central economic concerns of certain provinces, asks Rex Murphy. PHOTO BY GETTY IMAGES

Does it have the authority?

I refer to the Trudeau government’s vast and sweeping announcements that flow with its so-greatly touted climate agenda. Mandates, regulations, ministerial decrees, invasions into the practices of various industries, what look to be arbitrary impingements on provincial jurisdictions — they just seem to happen. And if the claim is made — as it always is — that such and such a declaration or edict “will reduce emissions,” that, from the Liberals’ point of view, is it.

But are they all a legitimate exercise of government power? And if — I seriously doubt — they are legitimate, the more serious question is: Are they wise? Do they help or hurt the Confederation?

And if so — I repeat, a dubious and I think an untested assumption — are they nonetheless an unjustified walk-over of citizens’ and provincial rights and privileges?

Do they help or hurt the Confederation?

Take a very trivial example.

That pathetic white plastic cutlery you get at every takeout — is it a world hazard? Must be so. One-time Greenpeace protest performer, now a cabinet minister in the Canadian federal government, Steven Guilbeault, has declared it is being banned. Who gave Guilbeault this fastidious latitude? You don’t oversee his utensils. Why has he leave to choose yours?

It may be a small point but it is a big question. What does a national government have to do with the private use of plastic forks? Has it no other business to attend to? And — I know this is a useless question — was this petty and precious ruling ever debated? Did Guilbeault raise his hand in cabinet and introduce the topic? Was Jagmeet Singh, the Liberals’ NDP comforter, consulted?

That’s the small stuff, but don’t dismiss it. There may come a time when bringing plastic knives and forks into Canada may be a smuggling offence. And caught for such, you may not get bail.

Now on to the much bigger stuff. Out of the great, stuffy, infertile Ottawa bubble recently came the edict that farmers must cut down on emissions from fertilizer, which means cutting down on fertilizer. After which debate? By what power?

What is the legal or constitutional status of this decree? I already know there was no prior consultation with western premiers or their agricultural ministers. It came as a fixed target, not up for discussion. It was a federal order.

Can a national government tell its citizens how they should farm, decide on their fertilizer requirements, potentially savaging the occupations and lives of those people?

May I throw in the most rhetorical of rhetorical questions. Did Guilbeault, or Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself, convene meetings with actual farmers and their families before bringing in these measures?

Did any or all of them — via government jet, Pearson is such a bore these days — drop in to Weyburn, or Redvers, or Red Deer or — this is the real challenge — Fort McMurray, to ask the people whose lives and jobs are at stake under this fixation with the Trudeau brand of  “climate action,” what they might have to say? Did they test their “law” with the people who have to live with it? The question is its own answer.

As always I must ask — and I know people do not like to be reminded of this question — whether, if farming were as important in Quebec as it is in Saskatchewan, a Trudeau government would issue, arbitrarily, the same mandate? If Ontario was the oil province of Canada, would there not be pipelines going in every direction of the compass?

Which leads me to another point. We are in a two-tier Confederation. Perhaps even a three-tier one.

Quebec is a solidly protected singular independent-in-all-but-name entity. It is as close to being a sovereign nation as one can be while still wearing provincial brocade.

We are in a two-tier Confederation. Perhaps even three

Ontario with its population and wealth, and being the centre of finance, communications and parliamentary seats, is a king among barons. The Atlantic provinces — a mere addendum, worth a fly-by but essentially, each on their own, without real force or voice in the Confederation. And British Columbia, sometimes a player, more often a spectator of Ottawa’s distant machinations.

Back to the central point. Where in a Confederation does the power lie for a national government to target, assault and injure the central economic concerns of certain provinces on a say-so? These edicts, measures, bans — call them what you will — keep coming down, as if such great national issues merely require, to take effect, a photo-op besides some tree, with a cluster of nodding ministers behind the PM. And we’re supposed to accept them.

Outpost provinces, the second-tier group, must bend to the central voice.

Nothing is too small, and nothing is too consequential, to slip by the ministrations of this hard-green government. It can’t fix what is in its remit, from airports to boil-water advisories to the issuing of passports. Yet it plans to fix the world. It is a grievous folly. COVID inured us to be obedient to voices on high. Green alarmists insist we do.

To which I offer an axiom: Great ambitions are the most powerful seduction: the idea you are saving the planet allows full excuse to what you think you can do, but over which you have no command whatsoever.

Our country, under this imperative mindset, is unwittingly toying with its own fragmentation.

National Post

Social media backlash after TD trainers caught telling staff not to vote Conservative

TD Bank
TD Bank Courtesy NerdWallet

A number of Canadian public figures condemned TD Bank for a social justice training session where the leaders told employees not to vote Conservative because they do not care about indigenous people.

%d bloggers like this: