I’m trying to understand how the scam of covid was, and continues to be, run on the public. One element, or tactic, has been to keep the public ignorant of the decision-making process, as well as the decisions themselves, at all levels of government. In 2020, when I tried to get answers from local, provincial, and federal representatives, I was told – if I was told anything at all – that they were following the advice of experts. Who were those experts and how were they arriving at their recommendations that the government was heeding? Who appointed the experts? Did the politicians appoint the experts and then defer to them? Did third parties tell the government to convene advisory panels and whom to appoint to them? If so, who was behind those appointments? (Frankly, I can’t imagine that either Premier Ford or Prime Minister Trudeau is smart enough to be that devious. I can see them only as fools – as tools kept in place as long as they serve their masters.)
Most people got their information from the media, not from their elected representatives. That’s where we learned about the virus, the disease, the pandemic, and the lockdown measures that the government was imposing on us. Since the elected representatives wouldn’t talk to me, I had to hope that the media would put my questions and concerns to them. Instead, it turned out that the media was the lynchpin of the whole operation. So, we have to take a few steps back. We have to figure out who the experts were; how they were chosen; what their real relationship was with the government; what power they actually had; and how the media mediated. What role did the media play? How did the media interact with those experts and politicians?
***
A recent CBC report warned of the short-sightedness of the current trend of relaxing lockdown measures. It claimed that the elderly were 280 times more vulnerable to dying of covid than were the young. First, until the existence of the virus is proved, such claims are meaningless in themselves. However, the claim amounts to misinformation – pure propaganda – for another reason, as explained by pairodocs on substack. The same could be said about anything, because, every year that you age, your chances of dying increase. An eighty-year old wakes up every morning with a greater likelihood of dying than a twenty-year old. And, the following day, the odds are even more stacked against the old person. The purpose of the media piece was to frighten seniors and shame youth. Propaganda. And it worked. Some credulous people used the article to advocate for lockdown measures to protect the elderly. Imagine, however, if the CBC piece had simply said, more honestly, “If you are old, you are more likely to die than when you were young.” Ya. So what? You think I didn’t know that? Anyway, that’s what passes for news at the CBC.
These fear-mongering stories are evidence that the CBC is a propaganda outlet of the government. It’s not possible that the producers at the CBC didn’t know how stupid the report was. How misleading. How manipulative. They framed it in order to further the covid agenda. In 2023! Moreover, it is taken right out of the pages of Doctor Van Ranst’s playbook. In 2019, he gave a presentation at Chatham House in London explaining to pharmaceutical officials how to manufacture a pandemic through control of the media in the absence of an actual virus or illness.
***
I want to turn to a couple of other CBC covid stories to develop my proposition that the rules of governance as laid out in the Magna Carta are the way out of the despotism in which we find ourselves. The key mechanism to protect democracy in the Magna Carta (our constitution, whatever else they tell you) is Trial by Jury. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed. What matters is how laws are enforced. And the Jury has the power to enforce, and even annul, laws. Power rests with the people, not with Parliament, through Trial by Jury.
Some people argue that true democracy requires that the population pass legislation through referenda. Majority rule. In that way, statutes have the backing of a majority of the population. I disagree. I think the Magna Carta had it right. I will show through the example that follows why Trial by Jury must be resuscitated or else we will be totally shut out of our democracy, lame as it is.
Through referenda, everyone within a jurisdiction is asked to declare their position in relation to some piece of legislation. Few people have the time and energy to devote themselves to the issue. On the other hand, a few individuals, constituting a Jury, when presented with all the information and allowed to question witnesses to their satisfaction, are then in a position to judge intelligently and fairly. The judgement of those people, necessarily chosen at random and thoroughly informed after having exhausted their questions, is worth infinitely more than the entire body politic of poorly-informed citizens who just want to get back to their football match or novel or television show or career. And, it’s not even worth talking about professional politicians in regards to democracy.
That is also the principle behind arbitration, as we’ll see.
What I want is a chance to talk to people who are in positions of power. I want them to answer my questions until I’m satisfied that what they are proposing is in the best interests of myself and the community. I want to judge the evidence for myself. And, if I am not on the Jury, I want to be able to review the full record of how the elected representatives (and experts) answered the questions and satisfied (or didn’t) the concerns of the randomly-chosen Jurists.
We’ll now see how that was done already in relation to lockdowns. For we have two processes at our disposal. First, we have a case of binding arbitration that, from 2015 to 2018, looked into the question of masks and vaccinations among health-care workers at Ontario hospitals. Arbitrator William Kaplan, whom I will liken to a Jurist in a Trial by Jury, examined the evidence brought before him until he was satisfied that he had all the information necessary to pass judgement. And, then, on the other hand, we have one of the key witnesses who appeared before Kaplan and argued in favour of mask and vaccination mandates. While she was unsuccessful over the course of the three-year long arbitration hearing in convincing Kaplan of her position, she would turn up on the expert panels advising both Canada and Ontario regarding covid policy. Those advisory panels were unaccountable and opaque. None of the members on those advisory panels ever needed to justify themselves. They were the anonymous chosen ones behind the shady phrase, “Experts say …”
***
Back in 2020, I was disturbed to see the MSM and government officials promoting, and then mandating, masks. I looked at the available data and determined that there was no evidence that masks prevented respiratory diseases. Moreover, as I explained to them at the time, Ontario was probably the best-placed jurisdiction in the world to know that. In 2018, after three years of hearings, binding arbitration decided against the Ontario Hospital Association in its attempt to force nurses, who refused to be vaccinated against the flu, to wear masks. (Either accept the vaccine or wear a mask.) The Hospitals were unable to provide the court with any evidence that masks prevented influenza. However, the Ontario Nurses Association showed that masks were detrimental to the health of the wearer, while providing no protection to anybody else. The ruling was unequivocal and was binding on all hospitals in the province. An earlier (but non-binding) arbitration hearing had come to the same conclusion in 2013. In that case, the arbitrator had sternly reprimanded the hospital, concluding that it was clear that the purpose of the proposed mandate was to bully the nurses into accepting a medical procedure (the vaccine) against their will.
It is now 2023 and the mainstream media continues to promote all aspects of lockdowns and vaccinations, none of which was ever based on scientific evidence and all of which is increasingly shown to have had devastating effects on individuals and society. Who are these experts that the media invites to promote lockdowns, masks, social distancing, testing, tracing, and vaccines? Answer: They belong to the advisory bodies that successfully counseled weak or complicit politicians to lock us all down, destroy lives and livelihoods, and inject us with unknown substances through vaccines whose clinical-trial data no one has seen to this day. (It’s also possible that they were just there for show and that politicians were really taking their orders from elsewhere.) So, this post looks at a couple of the most consequential bodies responsible for the crimes of the covid era. In fact, the crime of the covid era. (This is the beginning; I will continue this analysis in future posts.)
Informed people are now aware that the entire structure imposed on society in 2020 is crumbling. The foundations of covid are not supported by the data. Lockdowns killed people. The vaccines are continuing to destroy the health of their victims. In fact, the fraud is so obvious that serious commentators have turned their energy to an analysis of why this hoax has been perpetrated. However, I’m identifying here the people who continue to argue for lockdowns and vaccines. To all informed people, they appear increasingly ridiculous. But the CBC continues to promote them as experts and not frauds. And they rely on generous corporate and government funding to support their roles in academia. Universities are further separating themselves from the population and solidifying their role as training grounds for the administrative class in the projected despotism.
This web of propaganda has captured all critical institutions. Take the issue of masking as an example. The Cochrane Collaboration has released an updated review of the literature relating to the efficacy of face coverings in stopping the spread of respiratory illnesses. It concludes, as did Ontario’s courts in 2018, that there is no evidence that masks have any significant effect on the spread of respiratory illness, including influenza and covid19. The Cochrane Collaboration is the most comprehensive survey of the available research worldwide. What, logically, should be the first hypothesis to explore to explain that finding? Answer: there is no virus spreading in the community making people sick. And, sure enough, there is no evidence that the alleged virus exists. There is no evidence that any virus exists.
The Cochrane Collaboration is a respected institution within the field of medicine. Its reviews have carried authoritative weight among medical practitioners for decades. However, its reputation for objectivity was severely damaged during the covid era. Tom Jefferson, a co-founder of the Collaboration and key author of the masking review, has uncharacteristically given an interview in which he reveals that the research was ready to be published in 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic. However, the Collaboration delayed its publication for months until the masking mandates were in place. The Collaboration deliberately excluded itself from the face-covering debate. Consequently, it did not undermine a political agenda that used masks as a stepping stone to vaccinations. That is the same dynamic that Ontario’s arbitrators had identified several years earlier: face masks can be used as a bullying tactic to impose mandatory vaccines on a population. The goal was always vaccinations; masks are a tool.
Jefferson is clearly disillusioned with the Cochrane Collaboration. He does not, however, entertain the possibility that the reason that masks are futile in stopping the spread of respiratory illnesses is that no virus exists. But a reasonable person cannot escape that hypothesis. PCR tests provide meaningless data. Governments everywhere cooked the data to convince people that a virus was killing people. There was no pandemic. Vaccines have been deadly, while not stopping transmission. (Of what?) No government will tell its citizens anything of importance about the vaccines. The most cogent hypothesis, backed by unassailable evidence, is that the vaccines are a hitherto-enshrouded product of the American Department of Defense and that the pharmaceutical companies are simply acting as front men. Who knows? All that is clear at this point is that nothing is clear.
***
For the balance of this introductory post, I will introduce Doctor Allison McGeer, who sat on the Expert Panel on COVID-19, established by the Trudeau government to advise the Trudeau government, as well as the Ontario Science Advisory Table that fulfilled the same role in that province. She is a member of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, from which several of the Advisory Table’s members were drawn. (I’ll look at them all in upcoming posts.) She is an infectious diseases expert at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and has received research grants from Pfizer and Seqirus, as well as personal and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medicago, Merck, Moderna, and Sanofi Pasteur.
In her public statements as a member of the federal and provincial advisory panels, mediated mostly through the CBC, McGeer promotes lockdown measures, including vaccines and masking. For instance, from one CBC report: “One thing we’ve learned very clearly during this pandemic is that masking reduces the transmission of influenza. [It’s] not quite as clear for other respiratory viruses,” said Dr. Allison McGeer, an infectious disease physician and senior clinical scientist at Sinai Health System in Toronto.”
McGeer also was a key witness in the 2015-2018 Arbitration Hearings adjudicated by William Kaplan, discussed above. There, she argued the case for the Ontario Hospital Association in favour of the Vaccine or Mask mandate, where she made the same argument. Let’s see how William Kaplan judged that evidence. Remember, this was a three-year process in the course of which all players had ample time and leeway to table the best evidence they could muster.
From Kaplan’s judgement:
“The fact is, notwithstanding all of the studies, that no one can accurately report on how much, if any, nosocomial [hospital-acquired] influenza is caused by unmasked or unvaccinated HCWs. [health-care workers]” (page 41)
“On balance, and after the most thorough review of all of the testimony, studies and reports tendered in this proceeding, and with the greatest of respect to an accomplished and respected researcher and physician, I cannot conclude that the evidence comes even close to establishing that masking may be as ‘effective as vaccine in protecting patients from influenza.’” (page 47)
So, here we have one person giving the same evidence in two situations. In an arbitration hearing, McGeer could not defend her claims, made on behalf of the powerful Ontario Hospital Association, her boss, that vaccinations and masking stop the spread of influenza. However, when speaking to the CBC as a subject expert, the same claims sailed through without question. In both cases, she was speaking on behalf of the powerful who wanted to assert authority over others. Who knows? Maybe her reliance on funding from pharmaceutical giants coloured her interpretation of the data. Certainly, Kaplan, with no ties to the industry, read the same studies differently.
We’ll carry on looking into the experts that locked us down. I invite readers to consider themselves as Jurists judging their government, corporate, and academic testimonies.