Not everything I’ve posted is true.
The data demonstrating that regions using mask mandates and lockdowns have faired no better than regions that used neither is true.
The statistics showing the average age of death due to covid in Canada (83.8) is actually higher than the 2019 life expectancy (82.1) is true.
As are the stats showing the overall survival rate of covid as 99.95%, and death by covid for children as a 0% statistical chance.
Natural immunity is real and well established.
Herd immunity through infection of the strong and protection (including vaccines) of the vulnerable is also true.
But there are things I post that are still undecided.
I’ve featured epidemiologists in favour of the C-19 vaccine (for the vulnerable), and those who have grave concerns about the growing reports of injury and death.
I’ve posted frontline doctors advocating for proven though still not approved early treatment protocols including repurposed drugs.
I continue to present you, dear reader, with information that I believe you have a right to, because I am not seeing these points and issues being debated in the mainstream media.
Given what we already know to be technically true, why are we still using disproven measures to control a now systemic coronavirus?
Why are we seeing an alarming trend favouring medical Apartheid in the mainstream media?
Why the moralizing against those who choose not to get the jab?
On Monday, the Globe & Mail ran a disturbing editorial complaining about taxpayers having to pay for the regular C-19 tests of those healthcare workers who refuse the experimental injection.
Since when do we judge the right to government services based on people’s personal health choices?
And where do we draw this moral line?
Why, then, should we pay for the testing and treatment of those obese people who refuse to eat well and exercise?
Why pay for smokers’ cancer treatments?
Though I am a big proponent and advocate of healthy living, I defend anyone’s right to drink, smoke, and sit on their couch eating donuts.
These are unprecedented attacks on personal sovereignty.
One has to ask why.
And since there seem to be no logical explanations for the disconnect between the actual risks of C-19 and the extreme measures, I feel duty-bound to explore all explanations.
So as uncomfortable and time-consuming and upsetting as some of this may be, I am in this with you, standing for our collective right to information and freedom of choice.
Why do I bring this up?
For a few reasons.
Today, I found a post on Twitter by someone refuting anything she’s ever quoted by evolutionary biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein, because of his belief that covid can be completely eradicated through the prophylactic use of Ivermectin.
I believe, as most epidemiologists have stated, that that is impossible and also unnecessary.
As Harvard Professor and Epidemiologist Dr. Martin Kulldorff responded, “No @BretWeinstein. SARS-CoV2 cannot be eradicated, and such attempts have devastating collateral public health damage. After the pandemic stage, it will become endemic just like the other four common coronaviruses we live with. Eradication efforts should refocus on polio.”
This is a sound, scientific response.
It is not a personal attack or a dismissal of everything Bret has ever said.
Dr. Weinstein has been a brave and vocal proponent of open scientific dialogue — something we’re not seeing a lot of due to unprecedented censorship.
I believe we need more discussion and civil refutation and less censorship and angry dismissal.
In addition to contrary opinions, I’ve also posted interviews and documentaries based solely on theories.
My last post contained a very controversial interview with Dr. David Martin, where he explained his theory of a planned pandemic based on 20 years of research of patent evidence.
It’s outrageous and I don’t know if it’s true, but it at least puts forward a possible explanation for why this new gene therapy injection technology has been pushed so hard and so fast, along with overt systemic suppression of safe and effective early treatment.
I’m open to all theories because no theories are being discussed in the mainstream.
We are being manipulated, but why?
I’ve also posted about The Great Reset.
While this plan is quite real, whether or not it is a benevolent or sinister idea is debatable.
But using a pandemic (real or exaggerated) to forward a political agenda is something that must be disclosed.
I’ve been posting now for nearly 3 months.
The evidence is clear that C-19 is nowhere near the disaster initially predicted.
All the models were wrong.
So why aren’t we celebrating??
Why aren’t our authorities rejoicing, but are instead doubling down?
Why the fear-mongering and coercion?
We must not give in to fear and lose our ability to think and question.
Here is Noam Chomsky with a fascinating short read from his 2002 book, Media Control...
It has never been more relevant.
This week, Canadian investigative writer Julius Ruechel posted a plea to those “silent good people” who question the mainstream narrative but are still remaining quiet.
In his latest outstanding essay, he calls on all of us to end our public silence so that those who have been afraid to look at the evidence feel compelled or freed to examine the data and see the truth.
“The doubt that is needed to open frightened minds to data can only be created by breaking the illusion of consensus. No-one can afford to wait this one out on the sidelines. What is at stake is liberal democracy itself.”
We need your voices.
Not just the rumblings at home or to close, safe friends, but publicly.
I believe many people sense that something is not right.
It’s time to speak out, before the segregation and vilification of vaccine choice and the imposition of inhuman and unscientific measures turn into something far more permanent and even more dangerous.
Please read Julius’ excellent article here…
And please find a freedom rally near you this Saturday, July 24th.
There will be millions in attendance in over 180 cities around the world.
Whatever our political stripe, we must unite for freedom — of information, of choice, of speech, of association, of conscience.
What are you willing to do for the truth?
What are you willing to lose?
If there is a discussion you want to have, if there are points you’d like me to address, please let me know.
I am open to respectful discourse in the marketplace of ideas.
It is you and I that must defend and re-establish the principles upon which our society is based.
I'll give the last word to Julius...
“Freedom is not granted by governments. Freedom is earned by crowds willing to defend it for themselves, for their neighbors, for their peers, and for their children. On principle.”
——————————
If you found this blog useful, please hit the ❤️ button below.
If you’d like other people to have this resource, please share.
If you haven't already, please go to the BLOG page and subscribe.
If you can afford even the cost of a coffee each month, please consider a donation.
If you’ve got something to contribute, please leave a comment.
コメント