After reading an article in the Post Millennial about an Ontario School Board requiring all its new principals and vice principals to read the book, “me and white supremacy,” I decided as a retired school administrator I’d give it a shot as well.
Layla Saad states that white privilege is; “the reward that white and white-passing people receive in exchange for participating in the system of white supremacy – whether that participation is voluntary or involuntary.” (me and white supremacy, p. 38) So, I have to be held accountable for allegedly participating in a system even if I’m involuntarily participating in it.
For Layla Saad, skin colour says it all. If you’re white or white passing, you have ‘white privilege and have benefited from white supremacy. You have bought into and support a social system that is dedicated to a vile domineering racist ideology.
We are continually bombarded with mainstream media reports that the vaccines – especially the boosters will save us from severe outcomes of contracting Covid 19. Statistics from ‘new studies’ are often used as a way of providing scientific authenticity to these claims. It all looks like the reporter is following the science until you do a little critical thinking then things fall apart. Do the writers think we are all gullible?
CTV News reports:
A new study has added to a growing body of evidence that COVID-19 vaccines and boosters protect against severe illness and death.
Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the peer-reviewed study followed more than 1.6 million U.S. patients over 11 months, and found that among those who were vaccinated and boosted, the incidence of death or hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia was only 8.9 per 10,000 persons. According to the study, severe outcomes like these occurred almost exclusively among high-risk patients like older adults, the immunocompromised and those with conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
“This is remarkable, good news about the power and effectiveness of receiving COVID-19 boosting for all groups,” co-author Dawn Bravata, a research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute and Roudebush Veterans’ Administration Medical Center in Indiana, said in a news release.
The gullible reader will say – ‘Oh, I knew the vaccine/boosters would save me – I trust the experts!’ Case closed!
The critical thinker will ask – ‘Do COVID-19 vaccines and boosters protect against severe illness and death as compared to what – to people who have had no vaccines or boosters?’ The critical thinker will read on looking for some control group data provided. And in this case of propaganda will find none but the barefaced admission;
The study, however, did not look at unboosted or unvaccinated patients. Nearly 70 per cent of the study’s participants, moreover, were 65 or older, while only just over eight per cent were female.
CTV News makes a claim about the efficacy of vaccines and boosters on the basis of one study that has no control group in it! And expects their readers to believe it! They must think they have very gullible readers.
It is possible to compare the findings of this study to a group of people who were largely unvaccinated by looking at the Public Health Ontario data up to the period of time when only 20 percent of the population was vaccinated. The period corresponds roughly to the 1st Wave of Covid 19 to sweep through Ottawa.
Take the combined provincial hospitalization and death rate of 4.9 people per 100,000 in a population with only 20% receiving at least one dose of Covid 19 vaccine and compare that to the ‘study’ cited by CTV-News of 89 people per 100,000 (8.9 per 10,000) who were fully vaccinated and boosted.
Moreover the study cited by CTV-news indicated that it dealt with mostly seniors. Ontario Public Health data indicates that during the first wave of Covid 19 the average age of death was 85 years old and the average age of hospitalization was 70 years old. So the age distributions are comparable between the study cited by CTV and the first wave of Covid in Ontario. Covid 19 was always a virus that hospitalized and killed older people not young people! Notice also that the Covid vaccines and boosters nor Covid evolution into new variants did nothing to change this predominant targeting of older people by the virus throughout the pandemic.
So do Covid 19 vaccines and boosters really help reduce hospitalization or sickness when compared to a control group? Or is this claim just another attempt to boost the official politically correct narrative that covers a horrendous public health failure that is now being exposed?
Canadians are not engaging in the Covid vaccine boosting experiment as much as public health officials and their political leaders would like them to. Why? What is the real reason behind this lack of engagement? Is it really ‘vaccine fatigue?’
Stephanie Dubois writing for CBC news points out that many Canadians seem to be reluctant to line up for the booster jabs. She calls this ‘vaccine fatigue;’
The mixed messaging on vaccines has led to some Canadians facing what experts call “vaccine fatigue” — or being overwhelmed by COVID-19 vaccine information.
And that fatigue might have an impact on booster uptake. About 82 per cent of Canadians have had their primary series completed, about 57 per cent of residents 12 and older have received at least one additional dose and about 12 per cent of the population have gotten two additional doses.
Yet she ignores more recent Canadian data that shows the very opposite – the boosted in Ontario were far more likely to contract Covid (Omicron) than the not fully vaccinated (including the unvaccinated) and the double vaccinated;
The Globe and Mail gives a more realistic picture of why people have ‘vaccine fatigue.’ Even though Canadians are as a whole given to trusting media and experts, more and more Canadians have come to distrust mainstream media;
The report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that only 42 per cent of Canadians surveyed trusted the news, compared with 58 per cent in 2018. However, that figure was higher than in the United States, where only 26 per cent of respondents said they generally trusted the news.
“Large numbers of people see the media as subject to undue political influence, and only a small minority believe most news organizations put what’s best for society ahead of their own commercial interest,” wrote Reuters Institute director Rasmus Kleis Nielsen in the report, which is based on an online survey of 93,432 people, conducted in 46 markets.
Why would the CBC news and their reporters like Stephanie Dubois opine about vaccine fatigue relying on outdated preliminary data regarding the efficacy of Covid vaccine boosting all the while ignoring real official Canadian data that documents the failure of the Covid vaccine boosting experiment? Data that clearly shows that boosting increases your risk of contracting Covid.
This article started with an observation – Canadians are not engaging in the Covid vaccine boosting experiment as much as public health officials and their political leaders would like them to. And the questions – Why? What is the real reason behind this lack of engagement? Is it really ‘vaccine fatigue?’
Isn’t it more likely Canadians are tired of being misled by their leaders and mainstream media. They no longer trust official Covid vaccine propaganda. But what mainstream media hack on the leftist payroll would admit to that?
This video is a brief overview of Doctor Mike Yeadon’s document – The Covid Lies. The video consists of selected excerpts from the document in order to provide an audio abstract of the entire work. Listeners are encouraged to download and read the entire document for themselves as it provides and important piece of the Covid 19 pandemic history or mismanagement.
Michael Yeadon was a scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. Michael Yeadon, wasn’t just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm.
Yeadon (pronounced Yee-don) has emerged as an unlikely hero of the so-called anti-vaxxers, whose adherents question the safety of many vaccines, including for the coronavirus. The anti-vaxxer movement has amplified Yeadon’s skeptical views about COVID-19 vaccines and tests, government-mandated lockdowns and the arc of the pandemic. Yeadon has said he personally doesn’t oppose the use of all vaccines.
Some former colleagues at Pfizer say they no longer recognize the Mike Yeadon they once knew. They described him as a knowledgeable and intelligent man who always insisted on seeing evidence and generally avoided publicity.
The Covid Lies
A Working Draft, April 10, 2022
By Doctor Mike Yeadon.
I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS CoV 2 are lies.
Furthermore, all the measures imposed on the population are also lies. In what follows, I support these claims scientifically, mostly by reference to peer reviewed journal articles. In 2019, World Health Organization scientists reviewed the evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they are all without effect.
It is no longer possible to view the last two years as well intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies.
Testing healthy people should stop. If you’re sick, please stay home. Masks belong in the trash. Covid-19 gene-based injections are not recommended and must not be coerced or mandated.
It is not the purpose of this document to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time.
The Lies
Number 1 Lie
SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives. Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified.
THE REALITY is that
Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an infection fatality
rate (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of
0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or
lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards
repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1 to 0.3%. It cannot now
be argued that it is significantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics.
Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
Doctor John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most published epidemiologists and he has
been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly
unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious
health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious
threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple
comorbidities.
Lie number 2
Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity in the population.
This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.
This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a
population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of
the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a
big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the
population never had cause to worry.
Lie number 3
This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
The intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000X less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
Lie number 4
People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others:
asymptomatic transmission.
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it
never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth
measuring.
<video>
Lie number 5
The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate
them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic
information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle
afer cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle.
The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised
Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was
inappropriate.
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus
which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and
more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many
cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls”
through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below
which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s
an absurd idea.You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “con”rmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days,
you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Lie number 6
Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel
afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the
measure is useless.
We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop
respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by
doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No difference in post-operative
infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via “ne aerosols. No one finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air
moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.
Lie number 7
Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful. Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
This measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This is an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be. The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it
doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
Lie number 8
There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus. Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there be no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.
In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation
of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early
treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was
already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a
sizeable handful of well-understood, out-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have
been characterised.
There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called
“zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals
to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in
2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19,&, including especially
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores).
Lie number 9
It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get
the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise
have passed swiftly.
government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the
Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to
author’s case, it was a pivotal point.
It wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it.
Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later.
Lie number 10
Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic and the fear for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery a!er infection a#ords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2. The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
Lie number 11
The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome. Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination, and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.
Lie number 12
The new vaccines are safe and effective.
I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate. They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines.
They were far too short in duration. the endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection. Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
•There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries, among other organs.
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years.
Doctor Yeadon’s full document can be found at Doctors for Covid Ethics by downloading the file. You are encouraged to read and study the entire document which contains a lot of supporting material for Doctor Yeadon’s points. Thank you for taking the time to review this video.
Initially we were told get vaccinated and we will be safe. That turned out to be wrong. The vaccine was supposed to protect us from contracting Coviid. That didn’t happen. You just have too check the real world data for Canada:
Today in Ontario, the real world data shows that the highest vaccine protected group (fully vaccinated plus 1 booster dose) is contracting Covid 19 at double the rate of any other group:
Common sense tells us that you have to catch Covid 19 before you can get seriously ill or die from it.
Now the politicians and their public health bureaucrats have backed off on telling people that vaccines stop the spread of Covid. Now they are saying that getting vaccinated will keep you from getting seriously ill or dying. That’s not necessarily true. If they were wrong about the vaccines stopping the spread why can’t they be wrong about vaccines keeping you from a severe Covid outcome? Are the Covid vaccines a protection against serious disease and death? Many are learning that vaccination and boosting doesn’t make you safe; they are learning this from the hospital bed or ICU.
So how many fully vaccinated are ending up in the hospital and ICU’s with Covid 19. A lot! Take a look at the Ontario data:
Some argue that the unvaccinated have a greater chance of getting sick and dying of Covid than the vaccinated. This is cold comfort to the majority of fully vaccinated patients who are in the hospitals and ICU’s.
What about the chances of dying if you are fully vaccinated? Take a look at the real world data for Ontario;
On May 2, 2022 The most vaccine protected group is dying at a rate (0.07 per 100,000) very close to that of the least protected group (0.06 per 100,000). That’s not much of a benefit from the Covid vaccine.
The Government of Canada says that the risk of getting a serious adverse side effect from the Covid vaccine is 0.011%. That translates to 11 in 100,000. Yet the risk of dying should you contract Covid is an order of magnitude lower – not even 1 in 100,000 (anywhere from 0.02 to 0.07 in 100,000). So today in Ontario, citizens are being pushed into taking a vaccine that exposes them to a far higher risk of suffering a severe adverse reaction that could put them in the hospital or kill them than that of dying from Covid 19. That’s is a very poor risk – benefit ratio.
Internationally, out of the pro-vaccine bias of our Canadian mainstream media, there are reports that clearly show that the vaccinated are contracting and dying of Covid at greater rates than the unvaccinated. Material has been tabled in British Columbia citing these studies where the chief public health officer was taken to task for her overreach.
Data published by the UK Health Security Agency on February 22, 2022 shows that the fully vaccinated account for 9 out of every 10 COVID-19 deaths in England …. This data does not support statements made by Dr. Bonnie Henry that the vaccines are reducing the severity of symptoms in infected individuals and in fact disclose a disturbing trend.
Although health officials claim that the unvaccinated are driving infection rates and threatening to overload our ICU capacity, and that for this reason vaccine mandates are necessary to manage hospital capacity, a careful inspection of the actual data does not support those claims. . . .
These studies [regarding the Ontario Data] show that although COVID-19 cases were higher among the unvaccinated from August through to mid-October, by early December it was clear that the majority of cases were among the vaccinated and that this surge in cases resulted in a higher proportion of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. . . .
. . . the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ fail to confer immunity, which is protection against disease and transmission. It is common knowledge that ‘vaccinated’ people get infected and sick at least as much as, if not more than the ‘unvaccinated’. This is why a desperate emphasis has been placed on the debatable possibility that disease severity is merely dampened by ‘vaccination’. A such, a biologically incorrect assumption was made here. . .. What many people were not told is that most of the people in Pfizer’s clinical trial never got COVID-19, which is the disease that can occur in some people who get infected with SARS-CoV-2. In fact, the absolute risk reduction at the population level in the study was a mere 0.84% as a result of ‘vaccination’.
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.
The real world efficacy of the Vaccines according to Pfizer’s own data is 0.84% in absolute terms – no wonder vaccinated and boosted people are contracting Covid, getting sick and dying.
People were never as safe as they thought they were (and were told they were) by being vaccinated.
To conclude, vaccination with the experimental mRNA inoculations hasn’t stopped the spread of Covid 19. Vaccination hasn’t significantly reduced the risk of serious illness or death. Vaccination has caused significant levels of adverse effects in the Canadian population; the risk of which is far higher than the risk of dying from Covid 19.
The past two years of Covid have shown one thing for sure – a virus doesn’t care about a fancy haired Prime Minister, parliament, public health mandates or any other societal affectation that we may take up to stand between us and the stark reality of nature.
Our politicians and their public health bureaucrats may sound off about their official science and the dirt of fake science misinformation but Covid19 doesn’t care. Vaccine mandates brought in to stop the spread and save the fragile neglected hospital systems have done nothing to hinder Covid 19’s sloshing through our population.
Re Murphy writing about the disconnect between parliament and reality in regard to invoking the Emergencies Act due to the truckers, observes:
For the past two years the House of Commons has been nothing but a halting-place between vast recesses and the PM’s flight-thick jet romps to international gatherings, back-and-forth flips across the country, and obligatory recuperation air-voyages to the sands and snows of Tofino and Whistler. Trudeau’s carbon-offset bill is probably equal to the entire budget of P.E.I.
Meanwhile, in Ontario, our politicians and public health bureaucrats have performed equally well with their Covid 19 mandates. A look at the reality of Covid 19 in spite of vaccine mandates, masking, lockdowns is enough to convince any thinking observer that the virus doesn’t care about politics, bureaucrats or their politically correct versions of ‘science;’
Clearly, the Ontario data shows that boosting your vaccination status puts you in the highest rate for contracting Covid 19. The virus is ‘laughing’ at mRNA technology – or more accurately, the virus has adapted because that’s what happens in nature.
Society has become increasingly disconnected from nature. Research into this social trend shows;
It is widely accepted that we are more disconnected from nature today than we were a century ago, but is that actually true? A recent study we conducted suggests that it is—and that may be bad news not only for our well-being but also for the environment.
How can we explain this shrinking of nature in our collective imagination and cultural conversation? . . .
The trend of urbanization—which swallows up natural areas and cuts people off from natural surroundings—is typically used to explain the weakening human connection to nature, but our findings are not consistent with that account. . . .
Instead, our findings point to a different explanation for our disconnection from nature: technological change, and in particular the burgeoning of indoor and virtual recreation options. The 1950s saw the rapid rise of television as the most popular medium of entertainment. Video games first appeared in the 1970s and have since been a popular pastime, while the Internet has been claiming more and more leisure time since the late 1990s. It stands to reason that these technologies partially substituted for nature as a source of recreation and entertainment.
Virtual reality is great for shopping, banking and fun, but it sucks when nature comes knocking at your door with a once in 100 year storm or a virus sweeps through your community. Technology fails when the power goes off. Technology fails when those who rely on it forget that nature works by a different set of rules.
Sadly our inept Prime Minster and those who keep him in power don’t seem to understand the mRNA technology isn’t beating Covid 19. Rather the real data shows the opposite. But those in power, as modern WOKE members of a society disconnected from nature, just tighten their virtual reality head sets and double down on their failing policies.
Covid 19 doesn’t care, isn’t affected by social notions about how it should behave and is following its own natural course.
Perhaps we should start listening to those who understand the natural course of pandemics.
I published an article, on Facebook, questioning a bit of research on the role of unvaccinated people in the transmission of Covid 19. I found the research to be an over simplification of the epidemiological reality that we find ourselves in and backed up my opinion (as a lay person) with supporting scientific research.
A couple of trolls thought to add to the discussion (or virtue signal) with the following comments;
I usually ignore such comments but thought a least the second comment might be instructive.
Can people who choose bodily autonomy in medical matters and decide not to be vaccinated be denigrated as selfish people who kill others? Yes they can, this troll just did it.
Is it wise or helpful to denigrate unvaccinated people as selfish and killers? No it isn’t but cowards and intellectually lazy people are happy to virtue signal especially when politicians at the highest levels do so. Bullies like to be backed up – it gives them a nasty kind of false courage.
A person writing to the editor of a newspaper south of our border has a really good perspective on this issue;
The subject of “why unvaccinated people are being ridiculed, threatened and persecuted,” requires further discussion, because such behavior is unacceptable. All citizens in our great country are guaranteed the same protections and rights. As such, everyone is entitled to pursue their beliefs, within the constraints of the law, without being harassed. That includes the right to not agree with the government or one’s neighbors about matters of health.
. . . people who are vaccinated can — and do — get the virus. So some may feel that a hastily approved vaccine is not worth the risk.
. . , many believe there was a great deal of censorship on the topic of COVID-19, and that promotes distrust of the information that is permitted. And, finally, many do not share the confidence in the health officials who are advising us on this pandemic, since the “guidance” has changed frequently.
. . . Maybe the unvaccinated are not “being selfish and self-centered,” but instead are sifting through contradictory and changing information, researching ways to boost their immune systems (the “experts” provided none) and then deciding what is the best course of action for them. And respectfully allowing others to do the same.
In Canada, many imitating our Prime Minister’s abusive comments about the unvaccinated don’t seem to reflect on why someone would choose not to take an experimental gene therapy inoculation.
Perhaps a dose of reality might help. What good do these ‘inoculations’ do in terms of stopping the spread of Covid 19? Today in Ontario, a person that is ‘fully vaccinated with a booster dose’ is in a group that is contracting Covid 19 at a rate twice that of a person in the group that is ‘not fully vaccinated!’
And common sense tells us that you have to have Covid 19 to spread it to others. Doesn’t it make sense to not be vaccinated and dosed up given the real world data? Perhaps the ‘fully vaccinated and boosted’ are the selfish ones – trying to allay their fears by engaging in a practice that clearly doesn’t work in order to have freedom of movement and the approval of our political and bureaucratic masters!
What do all you internet trolls out there think about that? Take a look at the real world data for Ontario and tell me that I’m being selfish for questioning the vaccine mandates.
Mainstream media is again trying to stir up fears about the unvaccinated. And fear leads to hate! Gobal news reports:
Even with high immunization rates, unvaccinated people threaten the safety of people vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus, suggests a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. . . .
Published April 25, the study uses an infectious disease model based on the province of Ontario to reproduce the interactions between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations in a mostly vaccinated population.
“We use models in a lot of different ways,” said Fisman [the study’s coauthor and professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health]. “They’re just simplified versions of reality.”
Generally SIR models are not all that useful in reflecting reality. Other researchers have measured the efficacy of SIR modeling against real world situations:
In this study, we simulated the epidemic in Isfahan province of Iran for the period from Feb 14th to April 11th and also forecasted the remaining course with three scenarios that differed in terms of the stringency level of social distancing. Despite the prediction of disease course in short-term intervals, the constructed SIR model was unable to forecast the actual spread and pattern of epidemic in the long term. Remarkably, most of the published SIR models developed to predict COVID-19 for other communities, suffered from the same inconformity. The SIR models are based on assumptions that seem not to be true in the case of the COVID-19 epidemic.
The SIR model used in this ‘study’ is over simplified – pitting the vaccinated against the unvaccinated;
We constructed a simple susceptible–infectious–recovered compartmental model of a respiratory infectious disease with 2 connected subpopulations: people who were vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated.
This ‘simple model’ doesn’t take into account that fact that epidemiologists now recognize that three populations are mixing in reality – the vaccinated, the unvaccinated and the infection acquired immune;
We reviewed studies published in PubMed from inception to Sept 28, 2021, and found well conducted biological studies showing protective immunity after infection (panel). Furthermore, multiple epidemiological and clinical studies, including studies during the recent period of predominantly delta (B.1.617.2) variant transmission, found that the risk of repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 80·5–100% among those who had had COVID-19 previously (panel). The reported studies were large and conducted throughout the world.
The ‘not so mainstream media’ is reporting on Ontario’s chief medical officer’s acknowledgement of the infection acquired immune group in the dynamics of Covid 19 infection in our population:
Responding to a reporter’s question regarding Ontario’s vaccination levels at a press conference Thursday, Moore stated that natural immunity to the virus is an important piece to consider when assessing levels of immunity among the broader population.
“You either get immunity from natural exposure to this virus, or you get immunity through the vaccination process,” stated Moore. “It’s that combination of numbers [which] can tell us how safely we can open up.”
Clearly, Fishman’s SIR model is too simple minded to reflect the current Covid 19 epidemiological situation. It is deficient science that produces misinformation spread by mainstream media. But it is a useful tool for those who wish to stir up more fear and hate against Canadian citizens who choose to exercise bodily autonomy and freedom of choice in medical matters.
What makes this hate mongering so dangerous for Canada is that it is promoted from the very top political levels of our country. Rex Murphy nails our Prime Minister for his part in spreading hate:
In much of Canada, the unvaccinated may not go where they wish, may not visit family in moments of pain, may not travel or enter public places without their papers. And most significantly, if you resist taking the vaccines, you are that most felonious and vile of human beings; you are Justin Trudeau’s villain of the moment: an anti-vaxxer.
What is Covid convergence? I define it as the point where your vaccination status doesn’t matter. At that point the chances of the most vaccine protected (2 + 1 doses) person contracting Covid is equal to or greater than that of the least vaccine protected (none or 1 dose) person contracting Covid. The concet of Covid convergence can also be applied to Covid death rates. The Ontario data shows that we have Covid convergence both in contracting Covid and dying from Covid.
The politically correct would shout – Covid convergence could never happen. If it did that would mean that the public health bureaucrats, doctors and politicians are completely wrong. In December of 2021, the Ontario Science Table and other politically correct doctors said people need 3 doses to immunize against contracting Covid, and if they do contract it they won’t get seriously ill or die if they’ve been boosted.
Any thinking citizen who has been following the Ontario Public Health data would know that in terms of contracting Covid, Ontario is long past Covid convergence. The fully vaccine protected (double vaccinated plus booster) are contracting Covid AT A GREATER RATE (almost double) than the least vaccine protected (unvaccinated or single dose).
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data, Most vaccine protected are contracting Covid 19 at almost DOUBLE the rate of the least vaccine protected!
And in terms of serious illness on April 14, 2022 the most vaccine protected were hospitalized and in the ICU in far greater numbers than the least vaccine protected;
If the vaccine inoculations were so effective in preventing serious illness we wouldn’t see these kinds of numbers in the real data!
In terms of death rates from Covid 19, we have now reached Covid convergence – the death rate of the most vaccine protected is equal to the death rate of the least vaccine protected.
The only reason our public health bureaucrats can get away with saying that vaccinations and boosters reduce the risk of contracting Covid and serious illness or death from Covid is because most Ontario citizens trust them. The doctors and bureaucrats are considered trustworthy authorities so few don’t check the data themselves. Also the mainline news media are not fact checking the claims of the public health bureaucrats, politically correct doctors or the politicians. The mainline news media used to be a check and balance in our society. Now this once trusted institution has become a propaganda outlet for politically correct (mis)information.
A word to the wise, check the data for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
After two years of Covid drama the behaviour behind the main characters involved boils down to a simple grid of types. Cipolla’s Theory of Stupidity provides the character profiles. Most if not all the behaviours of the ‘movers and shakers’ of any social drama in general and our Covid 19 nightmare can be categorized in one of these four character types. We can ‘cast’ the characters involved like movie producers do using Cipolla’s scheme.
Intelligent People
According to Carlo Cipolla, intelligent people work for their own good and the good of others. . . . This is also why they aspire to occupy prominent places in society.
Unfortunately, their plans are thwarted by the unpredictable and destructive behavior of the vast majority of other individuals, who instead seem determined to take everyone down with them. Thus, they are supposed to make the greatest contribution to society as a whole, but only from a theoretical point of view.
Helpless People
These are all those people who do good for others while losing or gaining nothing for themselves. They usually have a strong suspicion that not everything is going their way. This is also why they prefer to play socially useful roles.
They contribute to society but are also exploited by it, especially by bandits and criminals. However, these altruists and pacifists people may willingly and consciously accept a place in this category for moral or ethical reasons.
Stupid People
They are by far the most dangerous category of people, more than criminals and bandits. No one benefits from their behavior, neither themselves nor anyone else. Stupid people have no rationality in their actions, which makes them unpredictable and therefore dangerous.
Plus, according to Cipolla the percentage of people behaving irrationally is a constant in any group, regardless of education or environment. And even worse, stupid people do not know they are stupid.
Carlo Cipolla also stated that “the problem with stupid people is when they take up positions of power. And they occupy all positions in society, from top to bottom.”. This is why a stupid person with power is the most threatening.
Bandits
They harm others for personal gain. Even though they are criminals, they may contribute to an improvement in society. This happens when they cause more benefit than harm overall. Cipolla also clarified that they are almost always aware of their behavior, knowing they are outlaws. . . .
Cipolla wrote that “the bandit’s actions follow a pattern of rationality: nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality”. So, unlike stupid people, bandits fall within the spectrum of rationality, and this what makes them inherently different. This also implies that intelligent individuals can understand them. Consequently, bandits and criminals are less dangerous than stupid people.
Where do our political leaders, Big Pharma and CEO’s of vaccine manufacturing companies, public health bureaucrats, dissenting scientists and citizens as well as the many ordinary people who took the vaccine either because they trusted the authorities or because they were coerced, fit into this grid. Below is my casting of the characters of the Covid drama. The casting doesn’t cover everyone on stage but it is enough to give an overview to understand what has happened to us as a country.
My casting does show my bias. Intelligent people are the dissenting voices in the Covid mandate debates calling for caution and freedom of choice. The intelligent people were the truckers who stood up for basic freedom and the rights of the individual, the doctors and other scientists who have been vilified and silenced because of their dissenting views. What benefit have they provided our society and to themselves – they represent integrity and reason in a world sliding into authoritarianism. They are holding us back from the brink.
The bandits are those who have gained billions in profits from the sale of hastily tested experimental vaccines and their spokespersons. Also those who have openly said that the pandemic is a good time to push their ‘great reset’ agenda. They are so powerful and rich they live in the stratosphere – out of our reach.
The helpless people are the public health bureaucrats who believed what they are told and followed orders but also have provided a human and compassionate face to the public even though their ‘advice’ wasn’t proven effective by their own data. For example – get vaccinated to stop the spread! Also I include the vaccinated who trusted the authorities as well as those who were forced into getting vaccinated to keep their jobs.
Finally the stupid people, those who have done damage to their own reputations/careers (as well as their critics), exposed themselves to allegations of crimes against humanity as well as criminal negligence and exposed others to the risk of serious vaccine side effects without stopping the spread or returning our society to ‘normal’ as promised. They also damaged the mental, physical and social well being of those that trusted them as well as those that could not resist their coercion. I also include every one who promoted the scapegoating of the unvaccinated as well as the mainstream media lackeys who helped spread this hate. After two years of their ‘leadership’ and activism our Canadian social fabric is in tatters and Covid 19 has evaded the vaccines and is rampant. There was no gain to anybody or themselves.
I am aware that someone else could have a totally different view of the drama and casting. But the proof is in the outcome. Did the vaccines work? Is Covid 19 gone? Are we ‘back to normal?’ Are we any safer in the pandemic than we were at the beginning? Are we not a divided nation, deeply in debt with a broken hospital system and unsure as to what the next steps should be in ‘building back better?’
Cipolla observes;
When stupid people are at work, the story is totally different. Stupid people cause losses to other people with no counterpart of gains on their own account. Thus the society as a whole is impoverished. . . .
Whether one considers classical, or medieval, or modern or contemporary times one is impressed by the fact that any country moving uphill has its unavoidable fraction of stupid people. However the country moving uphill also has an unusually high fraction of intelligent people who manage to keep the [stupid people] at bay and at the same time produce enough gains for themselves and the other members of the community to make progress a certainty. . . .
In a country which is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people is still equal. . . ; however in the remaining population one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity. . . and among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of helpless individuals . . . . Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the å fraction and makes decline a certainty. And the country goes to Hell.
The reader can consider the outcomes of the handling of the Covid 19 pandemic over the last two years and decide for themselves if my casting of the main characters in this drama is on the mark or not.
scrapbookwithtony 