Canadians cannot leave the country by air or rail if we are not vaccinated because we are not allowed on a plane or train. We cannot even take a plane or a train to another province if we are above twelve years old and not vaccinated.
As I write there is a court case in progress in B.C. that will determine the validity of vaccine mandates for Health Care Workers. Our heroes suddenly became villains and this is a most cruel way to treat our caregivers. These were the women, primarily, many of them recent immigrants, who donned layers of protective gear and faced a frightening pandemic with an unknown outcome. The did not cringe. They did not draw back. Yet our government is cringing from them and treating them like lepers.
Everyone is getting covid, vaccinated or not. Vaccinated are dying of covid, as well as unvaccinated. This is not a vaccine, by definition. It is a shot.
Right now if you get covid, you are recommended (not required) to stay home for five days. Meanwhile, my 12 year old grandson who lives across the border will have to isolate for 14 days–even if he tests negative for covid before and during his stay–just because he is crossing a border. Canadian federal regulations. And note that he still can’t get on a plane after his 14 day isolation! So due to all this he will have to miss a family reunion and possibly his last chance to see his great grandmother. Let’s add that he has had covid and recovered, so he is forced to take a vaccine for a disease he already had. This is bordering on criminal.
The benefits of vaccinating children are not proven to be significant while the risk involved with vaccination is real. If it were my choice, I too would not vaccinate children and the primary reason is because it is taboo to mention vaccine injuries. We are being controlled. Compelled speech. Only say the party line, the politically correct thing. How much of our taxes have gone towards vaccine ads? Let’s not even begin to talk about money spent on tracing and testing. One must admit this is a business to keep going, lucrative as it is, especially now that the vaccine is not working and an antiviral treatment is selling fast.
Does any of this make sense? Meanwhile airports don’t have workers. Why? Federal mandates. My son and his wife missed their flight due to long security check lines and they were by far not the only ones. They had to shell out an extra $700 to reach their destination last month.
Does freezing the bank accounts of people who gave to the truckers make sense? My husband met someone at a Pierre Poilivre leadership rally who had their bank account frozen for one month because they gave a $25 donation to truckers. This is why people are coming to Poilivre’s rallies by the droves wherever he goes. Truckers, in their cabs, were not spreading covid. There was no need for a last minute call to mandate vaccines for truckers. The whole protest could have been avoided if our government had behaved in a reasonable manner. It’s time our Prime Minister stops holding Canadians hostage.
We have all tried to figure out what has been going on in the past two and a half years. On the surface we saw what was hailed as a world-wide pandemic. Countries were initially thrown into confusion as they tried to respond appropriately. Well, that’s not going to happen again. The WorldHealthOrganization (WHO) has leaders in place who have a plan to coordinate and control global response in the event of any similar occurrence. This might be seen by some as subverting the sovereignty of nations as they sign over their health care autonomy to the WHO.
In the 2007 IHR report, which can be found on the WHO website, we read, “196 countries across the globe have agreed to implement the InternationalHealthRegulations (2005) (IHR). This binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.” If you, like me, have wondered how the same message came from so many sources during the pandemic, it wasn’t an accident. It is because of this coordination. The recent news is that an amendment which will be much less accommodating is being worked on by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). If you read the proposed amendment you will see that what will be lost is the need for consultation. This potentially gives more direct control to the WHO and that is the purpose. Representatives from some countries have enthusiastically recommended that sanctions be imposed on nations that do not comply.
The WHO is working in close partnership with an organization called The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), created in 2016, with cofounder and funder Bill Gates, in order to fund vaccine development and create global stockpiles. The CEPI is funded by countries using “vaccine bonds” as pledge supports according to wikipedia information, in addition to banks and wealthy financiers. Here you will find a full list of contributors. Notably, Germany and Norway have contributed extraordinary sums.
As stated on their website, the CEPI has an “innovative 2022-2026 plan which seeks to reduce the risk of future epidemic and pandemic threats, including CEPI’s ambition to compress vaccine development timelines to 100 days – a third of the time it took to develop the first COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Richard Hatchett is president of CEPI. Among his impressive credentials is serving as Associate Director for Radiation Countermeasures and Research and Emergency Preparedness at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under Anthony Fauci from 2005 to 2011. Wikipedia also credits him for coming up with social distancing as a means to prevent the spread of contagious disease but I think this idea is not original with him. One of five recent appointees to the board of CEPI is Dr Anita Zaidi. Her bio says she is the president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Gender Equality Division and also serves as the Foundation’s director of the Vaccine Development, Surveillance, and Enteric and Diarrheal Diseases programs. No doubt there are many distinguished people coordinating the vaccine program.
The CEPI works with key agencies such as the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, as well as pharmaceutical companies. There is an interesting reference in a New York Times article that states CEPI had made a “failed effort to get large pharmaceutical firms to agree to be partners without insisting on substantial profits or proprietary rights to research that CEPI helped to finance and produce.”
The CEPI was formally launched at the 2017 WorldEconomicForum meeting in Davos. An inter-institutional roundtable, referred to as the Joint Coordination Group, helps with coordination efforts.
On the COVAX website we find behind the scenes work required for coordinating a worldwide vaccination effort. There is need for a Country Readiness and Delivery (CRD) “workstream” led by WHO, UNICEF and Gavi. The Research and Development and Manufacturing Investment Committee is a “multidisciplinary group with industry expertise that manages the allocations of funds under the Development and Manufacturing Workstream of COVAX.” From the website we also learn, “The RDMIC is comprised of the CEPI CEO, Gavi CEO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation President of Global Health, (ex-) industry R&D experts, (ex-) industry manufacturing experts, current active industry (non-vaccine) leaders and senior global public health leaders (including a CEPI Board member, to ensure linkages) and is accountable to the CEPI Board.” The CEPI website states, “RDMIC is a multidisciplinary group providing investment decision recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine projects.”
Vaccine development costs a lot of money and there is also a lot of profit to be made in this industry. The world is clearly in a vulnerable place when a pandemic hits. The question is, who guards against health care becoming more about financial gain and advancement of political agendas than the welfare of our loved ones?
As the government of Canada continues to be silent on the subject of ending federal vaccine mandates, one has to ask the question, is vaccination even warranted when the vaccine does not prevent infection against Omricon? To put it another way, we have an injection that is not a vaccine.
My family, living in Canada, are all vaccinated and we all got Omricon. Between us we also had adverse reactions after the vaccine including neurological issues, heart and breathing problems, bleeding, inflammation and melanoma.
Pfizer released documents this month confirming that they knew of adverse events in the three months following the introduction of the vaccine, including over 1000 deaths reported during that time. It is plausible that results for Moderna and Astra Zeneca are similar. That means there were potentially 3000 “reported” deaths attributable to vaccination in the first three months of the roll-out of vaccines. We do not know how many deaths went unreported, but given that only about 10% of adverse events are actually reported, we can be sure there were many more.
You can view Dr. John Campbell’s discussion of the Pfizer documents here. You can also view the original PDF (with redactions) prepared by Pfizer. Go to this section: Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28 Feb 21. For a complete list of adverse events reported see the Appendix.
This week I decided to do an informal survey of friends and see who among their family and acquaintances suffered after the vaccine. As far as I know, these were not reported on VAERS. This is what I came up with (edited for brevity and clarity):
1. Several people that work for me or with me have complained a lot about brain fog. To the point that they are having a hard time accomplishing their tasks.
2. My brother in-law had a heart issue after his 2nd dose.
4. An 11 year old boy, very athletic, exercises for hockey and baseball, 2 days after his shot his neck muscle started spasming. It got so hard and kept spasming. He was screaming in pain. His mother called drs, they said call 911. The ambulance came, couldn’t take him until they had given him fentynal because the pain was so bad. They gave pain killers and muscle relaxers. It still took about 3 weeks for the muscle to go back to normal.
5. University student didn’t want to get thrown out of university so had her 2 shots. Has been bleeding and lots of pain twice a month for whole weeks. Now she has a cyst. Her doctor said “It wasn’t confirmed, but it was probably from the shot.”
6. Another young woman had bleeding so bad after one vaccine she didn’t go for her second one.
7. In our family I know of several that got covid after injections. In extended family and friends I am aware of only 2 cases (of adverse reactions). Both females. One got arthritis and was in excruciating pain, the other one developed heart issues and actually died as a result. She was in her 30s.
8. My physiotherapist died of heart issues and his brother died of heart issues as well.
9. Male, between 35-40 years, healthy, strong, eats well, had a heart attack.
10. Female, age 64, 2 shots of Moderna. After the first shot she instantly got a very sore firey red throat. I seen it!! She had bumps all over her tongue and white sores forming at the back of her throat. She swelled up so bad that she could barely swallow and was in so much pain. She also had this reaction when she took the 2nd shot. To this day she has trouble swallowing food, drinks and especially pills. She’s been tired ever since she was vaccinated. She used to go out to walk with me. She was a very fast walker. Now she can’t walk fast as she has breathing issues. Since the vaccine her breathing has gotten worse. When she got her 2nd shot she landed in the hospital for 5 days with Double Pneumonia. She told me she is still experiencing leg, arm and hand cramps. Her legs feel like dead weight when she tries to sleep. Hands shake all the time now. Her heart also races which causes her to become very tired fast. Remember she was a woman who had more energy that I have!!! She said these shots made her face age badly. She will NOT be taking anymore shots.
11. Woman in 60’s cancer returned and she passed away.
12. Male, 40. No previous health issues except his back which he injured in a bad accident five or six years before he passed. Died with his lungs half full of blood. Autopsy came back inconclusive. Nothing in the tox screen. Had his first jab 6-8 weeks prior to passing in September of 2021, as required by his employer. Went to bed and didn’t wake up the next morning. Pathologist assistant said it wouldn’t be listed as adverse. We did some digging and found that pulmonary embolism can cause lungs to fill with blood. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him before the jab.
13. 71 year old female nurse. Bells palsy within hours of first injection. No report made. Also tingling of ears and dizziness.
14. Male, 50 years old. Complete paralysis on one side of his body with convulsions within hours of first shot, mandated by employer. Not reported.
15. 39 year old athletic male. Came down with Covid and high fever after shot.
16. 40s female. Previous remission of cancer. Blood clots in heart- heart attack. Now cancer is back and very aggressive.
17. A female from our church in late 40s, paralysis within hours of jab. Could not even speak. Better now.
18. Female early 20s from church. Miscarriage. Not conclusive but suspected. (Note: It is virtually impossible to say the vaccine caused the injury. We can just look for patterns.)
19. Female from church early sixties rapid onset gastrointestinal issues.
20. Male college athlete. Cardiomyopathy. Died within days of second dose. Not reported.
21. Local physician. Male 60s. Death myocardial infarction.
22. Local surgeon, 50s. Tremors – cannot operate.
23. Male, approximately mid 30’s. Never ever sick- got sick after jab. He got sick while un-vaxxed family did not.
24. Our paralegal. Female 40s. Had two oral surgeries and both surgeons said they thought the vaccine she took had an effect on the poor healing process.
25. My aunt had tinnitus immediately after 1st dose, followed by vertigo 8 weeks later. Within 6 months of dose a minor stroke (did not take 2nd dose).
26. Female 72. Blood counts are off and doctor cannot find reason. He is attributing to the shot.
27. 88 year old female having hallucinations and now fungal infections.
28. I have a female friend who developed ovarian cancer in her 80s. Not a cancer that 80 year olds get. She was diagnosed in late December and died in early February. Very aggressive.
29. I have several friends that I strongly suspect died following the 1st dose. One a male in his 40s had CHF which was under control. Following 1st dose was hospitalized 3x for 1 week each with symptoms opposite of his CHF. Drastic weight loss with no explanation from his cardiologist. They couldn’t figure out what was going on. He was going back into the hospital the day that he was found deceased on his couch.
30. Female, 40+, university professor. Died of a heart attack 9 days after vaccination. She had a recent clean bill of health.
31. Doctor reported he had 4 other ladies who similarly died over a 6 month period.
32. Doctor reported a patient who had a stroke and no underlying health issues so attributed it to recent vaccination.
I share the above to support the conclusion that VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reports) may indeed only represent about 10% of cases, since people, even doctors, don’t generally report reactions. It takes about 30 minutes to fill out a report and doctors and nurses do not have the time or get paid for taking the extra time. Medical staff has been discouraged from acknowledging vaccine injuries and saying anything to patients that might cause vaccine hesitancy. Think about this for a moment. Information about the harm caused by vaccines is deliberately being withheld from the public.
Here are the (abbreviated) reports from Dec 2020 to Feb 2021 that Pfizer knew about but didn’t release until March, 2022. After each data set is the following summary: Conclusion: This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues. Surveillance will continue. I will only list “fatal” outcomes related to cases.
AESI – Adverse Event of Special Interest
2958 potentially relevant events; Relevant event outcome: fatal (9). There were four individuals in the anaphylaxis evaluation who died on the same day they were vaccinated.
(As a side note, an allergic reaction is a risk factor for many medications.)
Number of cases: 1403; Relevant onset: median <24 hours; Relevant event outcome: fatal (136)
Number of relevant events: 168; median 4 days; Relevant event outcome: fatal (18)
Most frequently reported relevant PTs (>1 occurrence) included: Pulmonary embolism (60), Thrombosis (39), Deep vein thrombosis (35), Thrombophlebitis superficial (6), Venous thrombosis limb (4), Embolism, Microembolism, Thrombophlebitis and Venous thrombosis (3 each) Blue toe syndrome (2);
Number of relevant events: 300; Relevant onset: median 2 days; Relevant event outcome: fatal and resolved/resolving (61 each)
Number of relevant events: 34; median 3 days; Relevant event outcome: fatal (1)
This is the short term data. We cannot tell if these vaccines are safe in the long term because this data does not exist. But we do know that adverse events have occurred and those who hesitate to take the vaccines are being put under unreasonable duress bordering on outright coercion. This is in violation of the standards of health care as presented by the Canadian Medical Protective Association.
On March 25, Stephen Ellis, a Conservative MP, pointed out that it is against medical ethics to pressure patients to take a medication, yet that is precisely what we are doing. This is a quote from the Canadian Medical Protective Association.
The consent must be voluntary. The patient must have the capacity to consent. The patient must have been properly informed.
Patients must always be free to consent or to refuse treatment and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated.
Canadian Medical Protective Association
CanadianMedicalProtectiveAssociation Profile and History Founded in 1901, CMPA is a membership-based, not-for-profit organization that provides legal defense, liability protection, and risk-management education for physicians.
This past week our province, British Columbia, announced the dropping of mask mandates, as of Friday, March 11. Masks will still be required in medical facilities.
On Friday my husband suggested we go to a mall to see how people were responding to the lifting of mask mandates. About 65% of the people we saw were not wearing masks. I entered two business with staff who were not wearing masks. Most staff were still wearing masks.
Last year BC briefly dropped the mask mandate but then re-instated it to coincide with a surge in the Delta variant.
During the early months of the pandemic B.C.’s Public Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, held back on mandating and encouraging mask wearing. We found comfort in Bonnie Henry’s daily, almost motherly, encouragement and admonition at the beginning of the pandemic as we sat isolated in our homes. It was reassuring to learn she has a background working with pandemics. When her approach differed slightly from that of other provinces we concluded that she was looking at the bigger picture and was in particular concerned about the psychological impact of a pandemic. She knew how important it was for us to remain calm and hopeful. She knew the necessity of health officials being able to maintain the trust of the public. And she knew it was crucial for people to be a support to one another during these trying times.
So much has changed since then.
Two specific decisions eroded my trust in Dr. Henry. Both exhibited a change in what were once her strongly held beliefs. The first was implementing mask mandates after repeatedly telling us for weeks that masks did not offer significant protection against covid-19. The second was bringing in vaccine passports after saying on May 25, 2021 that “there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by the use of things like vaccine passports for services with public access here in British Columbia.” I wrote a letter to her, asking for an explanation, and received no response.
Not everyone is happy with the lifting of mask mandates. This is how the World Socialist Web Site news media and other sites responded to her decision:
“Thursday’s announcement is just the latest in a crush of decisions by provinces from coast-to-coast over the past five weeks that effectively implement the far-right Freedom Convoy’s demand that all anti-COVID public health measures be rescinded and the potentially deadly virus be allowed to run rampant.” (Note “far-right” is an opinion and does not accurately describe the truckers. Note also that the government-funded Canadian Broadcasting Company recently retracted two articles, one with a false claim that the Freedom Convoy had Russian influence and the other claiming that hefty donations to the truckers GoFundMe came from foreign sources. Both false insinuations originated with our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and served as his justification for employing the Emergencies Act against the truckers protest.)
In Burnaby Now you can read a similar opinion article that voices the fear that Henry is not “following the science” by lifting mask mandates.
The trouble is that we don’t know where to find the truth about the science anymore. It may not be so far-fetched to think that our governments and health officials are actually following opinion polls and have been doing so for some time.
Another question I have concerns the science. Is the science being communicated faithfully? This week I read an article referencing five instances of wrong conclusions being reported in “the science.” What led me to the article was my own observation when I decided to look for scientific research and scholarly reporting on the efficacy of masks.
I first went to the Mayo Clinic website where I found a recommendation that a cloth mask have multiple layers and is tight–fitting in order to prevent “droplets” from escaping. Initially we were told that the virus was spread by droplets but a few months later scientists informed us that the virus was in fact spread by aerosol particles. This changed the whole mask-wearing paradigm since evaporated respiratory particles can get through a porous surface. Note, if we want to inhale air, we will have to use a mask with a porous surface.
On the Mayo Clinic website I read, “Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.”
My search for data on the protectiveness of masks alone against the spread of the coronavirus was unsuccessful. I found a lot of discussion on comparisons between masks. I found studies done in labs, but no assurance that lab results translated to effective protection by masks worn by the general public. In fact there was evidence to the contrary.
I went to the CDC website where I read, “Masking is a critical public health tool for preventing spread of COVID-19, and it is important to remember that any mask is better than no mask.”
OK, that is like saying, “any condom is better than no condom.” Would you say a leaky condom is a “critical public health tool” in the prevention of transmissible disease? Because masks are “leaky.” There is scientific evidence for that. Hence the insistence on “layers” and “tight fitting.”
But how many layers of a “leaky” mask are enough? The Mayo Clinic website also says, “Don’t add layers if they make it hard to breathe.” So, added layers can make it hard to breathe and when a child says, “I can’t breathe,” we should listen. I have low blood pressure and a low oxygen level and sometimes I find I am just not getting enough air with a mask. But that is another issue.
The CDC advises us to “Wear the most protective mask you can that fits well and that you will wear consistently.” And it further states, “Wearing a well-fitted mask along with vaccination, self-testing, and physical distancing, helps protect you and others by reducing the chance of spreading COVID-19.”
Wherever we read of the effectiveness of masks, note that it is always mentioned in conjunction with other protective measures. That is because, masks, on their own, are not sufficient protection. It has never been proven that masks are effective to prevent infection. Every reference to masks has a qualifier such as “tightly fitting”or a comparison of the fabric or weave or construction (N95 KN95 medical masks). One of the most troubling pieces of guidance offered is for people with hearing disabilities to wear a “clear mask.” We’ve always been warned not to put plastic over our heads. This is the same, unless there are breathable parts of the mask where air can enter. But do they not get the point that it is not the hearing challenged person who needs to wear a clear mask? They need to lip read others and they cannot do this if other people are wearing masks.
The CDC website goes on to say, “Masks and respirators are effective at reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, when worn consistently and correctly.” Medical staff have to be trained to put on their masks, and they have masks that are rated for higher protectiveness. Masks prevent droplets from escaping, so, in the case of surgery, I would want my surgeon to wear a high quality mask.
I looked at an article referenced on the CDC site entitled, An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19. The authors claim to have synthesized the relevant information and conclude that “The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts.” Preponderance of evidence in a court of law means that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. Another research article referenced on the site states this result: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).
Another article listed on the CDC site concerning masks states, There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). This is the “preponderous” evidence we have. It makes little or no difference. The “little” might tip us above the 50% threshold of evidence of truth.
Here is something more of interest I discovered. “While laboratory tests generally suggest that N95 masks are superior in performance to surgical masks, population studies in healthcare workers have not documented significant differences. This discrepancy may be due to the lack of proper fit when using N95s. Conversely, cloth masks generally perform poorly compared to N95 and surgical masks in laboratory tests. However, in part because of the global PPE shortage, cloth masks have become the most commonly used PPE by the general public. Despite their shortcomings, community-based research has demonstrated the efficacy of cloth masks in slowing down the spread of COVID-19.”
Do you want to hear about the community-based research on which mask wearing has been based? Here it is, from the same article:
As of July 2020, the CDC recommended that all Americans wear masks in public settings . This recommendation was made, at least in part, due to a report from a hair salon in Missouri that demonstrated the efficacy of wearing masks . In May 2020, two hairstylists in Springfield, Missouri received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 and were exposed to 139 clients in total since the onset of their symptoms . Both stylists, as well as all 139 clients, wore some kind of facial covering while in the salon, with the stylists wearing either a double-layered cotton face covering or a surgical mask. Despite their proximity to the infected stylists, for appointments ranging from 15 to 45 min in duration, it was found that none of the 139 clients developed COVID-19 symptoms within the two-week quarantine period. Furthermore, of the 67 clients tested, all results were negative. Interestingly, the type of face mask worn by the 139 clients varied, with only two clients wearing N95 masks, 46% wearing surgical masks and 47% wearing cloth masks . Although anecdotal, this incident suggests that consistent and proper usage of facial coverings can help minimize symptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during close contact, as at a hair salon. In fact, it appears that COVID-19 transmission rates are generally lower in countries and regions where citizens are accustomed or required to adopt universal masking, such as many parts of Asia [22,23]. Simulations and mathematical models have also predicted that the adoption of universal masking would substantially curtail the spread of COVID-19 .
Yes, it is as a result of an anecdotal survey done by two hairstylists and because it “appears” that COVID-19 transmission rates are lower in regions like Asia…. This is the science behind mask wearing. Then, again, the article says, “Although there is a lack of published work evaluating the efficacy of universal masking by healthcare workers to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2, the continuous use of masks by healthcare workers in clinical settings is widely supported.”
We wear masks because the continuous use of masks is “widely supported.”
It is important to take careful note of wording when you read anything. It is, after all, the truth we want, is it not? And, as I have discovered, truth can be misrepresented rather easily. There is sufficient evidence for that.
The two things truckers asked for, they didn’t get–vaccine mandates lifted and travel restrictions lifted. But they didn’t come away with nothing. Quite to the contrary. They came away with their eyes opened.
It can be very distressing when you expect one thing and get something entirely different.
Truckers drove to Ottawa in anticipation. You had a very real need. You knew who could address that need.
The problem is that only Prime Minster Trudeau could address the felt need of the truckers. There was no one else to go to, so you went directly to him, at great cost to yourselves.
The relationship between citizens and the government and our Prime Minister is not exactly a parent/child relationship but there are similarities. There is a similarity in that we have an authoritative presence in government and we, the people, experience a measure of dependency and susceptability to the whims of this authority.
In the case of the truckers, you wanted an audience with “dad.” But he turned his back on you. He did not even come out and say “No.” You had what you perceived to be a very reasonable request. Your “dad” verbally abused you, insulted you, belittled you and essentially trashed you before others. That is not a good feeling. It leaves you floundering with all kinds of internal dissonance.
The dissonance is there because what happened is very difficult to reconcile in your heart and mind and mostly this is due to the high regard you had for leadership. Your leaders have fallen from the pedestal on which you held them.
In the case of abuse, and that is clearly what happened here, there is the tendency of the victim to excuse the perpetrator. We want to hold onto our ideal. We need to hold onto our ideal. Because not to do so turns the world we imagined upside down.
We may even go so far as to deny reality in order to preserve the ideal.
Many Canadians have embraced a vision of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a man of decency with respect for the ordinary citizens of Canada. We thought we held a precious place in his heart. Not only was he deaf to the voices of the truckers, but he slandered those who relied on his good judgment and had no where else to turn with their need.
Essentially, truckers, you felt like you were calling out your “parent.” Parents make mistakes. Some are ready to admit them and humbly ask for forgiveness. Some are not. Some will never apologize to their children. They see themselves in another protected category and this is very unfortunate because the necessary coming together cannot happen. A beautiful and trusting relationship cannot happen without being attentive to, and exploring, each other’s views.
I’m trying to unpack what happened because I find it uncomfortable and even distressing to be in a place of tension where actual experience suddenly does not match my long-held and cherished vision of Canada.
Truckers determined to have a peaceful protest. You did everything possible to convince Canada that you were going to remain peaceful. I truly cannot imagine a more peaceful truckers’ protest. One evidence of this was how you cared for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Ironically this monument symbolizes those for whom there was never resolve because they did not return from battle, either dead or alive, and their remains were never found.
Truckers showed kindness and fed the homeless. When people’s generosity towards you overflowed to the point where you had food left over, you donated to food banks. You showed yourselves to be generous and caring and fun-loving. You cleared sidewalks and picked up garbage left by others. Crime in the area dropped by 90%. But of course this was not how you were represented in the legacy media.
We rely on media for accurate documentation. Not only did the Prime Minister refuse to speak to you, relegating you to a class of citizens that he deemed too despicable to address, the media used talking points over and over again to try and smear your peaceful protest before the public. Both succeeded in maligning the protest to the degree that some neighbours felt justified in villainizing you as well. You suddenly found yourself experiencing a completely different world, one you never anticipated, one very unfamiliar to you, one where people were cruel and unjust and lied and turned others against those who never did them wrong.
The City of Ottawa, under the direction of the mayor, deployed a huge and unwarranted police presence. However, you welcomed the police because you had nothing to fear by their presence since you were following the law. You were respectful and friendly towards the officers who in turn treated you with dignity, more dignity than the Prime Minister demonstrated. The police were on the scene, daily, as witnesses, and can attest to your high character.
The media jumped on the visual of groups of police officers patrolling downtown Ottawa. They could turn this optic in their favor. Their goal, as we can see in hindsight, was to paint the most alarming picture possible of the protests and to incite a reaction. They attempted to create a story that would later justify the “crushing of an uprising.”
Many of the truckers did not hold to a conspiracy theory before they came to Ottawa, but what they witnessed made it clear there was a conspiracy between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the media. They conspired to turn the truckers into villains in the eyes of the public. This they did.
Not everyone believed what they saw in print and came to Ottawa to find out what was going on for themselves. Others watched independent commentators online who were committed to documenting what was happening, of their own choice and at their own expense.
When the City of Ottawa asked you to stop honking horns, you stopped. Admittedly, you knew the horn honking would agitate some residents. Even peaceful protests cause disruptions. You were trying to get Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s attention. This was a means of making him aware of your presence, and making the community, and indeed the world, aware of the fact that you came to Ottawa with a purpose. You wanted to be heard.
Stop the vaccine mandates. Stop the ArriveCan app. Let Canadians be free, once again, to work in their chosen professions, and to travel.
From the beginning I have found it unconscionable that Canadians lost their jobs because they chose not to get the vaccine. If you cannot work, you cannot buy food and feed your family. Our government knows that if you cannot work, you cannot own a home. You lose your dignity and sense of purpose.
For some people it is impossible to get the vaccine, either for conscience sake or for medical reasons. Let’s not under value the significance of personal conviction and consent. Mandates remove the possibility of volition and consent by enforcing intolerable consequences.
Prime Minister Trudeau colluded with the press and it is becoming apparent that there was collusion with pharmaceutical companies who have a lot to gain from ongoing vaccination requirements, regardless of efficacy. It is unrealistic to expect 100% cooperation from the public. It is also totalitarian to have this kind of top-down legislation. The measures taken to force people into compliance are harsh and oppressive.
I am reminded of a little known historical tragedy that happened in Ukraine between 1932-1933 known as the Holodomor or “Great Famine.” Oppressive government mandates issued by Joseph Stalin limited travel and food production and distribution. Farmers were forced to give up their land under new government collectivization efforts. Peasants who resisted forfeiting their land were misrepresented as enemies of the public and violently suppressed by the government and cooperating neighbours during this period of Soviet Industrialization. As a result of the measures an estimated 7 million people in the Ukraine died unnecessarily of starvation.
As shocking as this account may be, it serves to remind us that government leaders are fallible. They are capable of making decisions that lack compassion and that disregard the rights of their citizens, namely the right to dignity and sustenance.
The cognitive dissonance felt by truckers began when they lost their jobs due to the vaccine mandate. This is true of health care workers as well. Peculiarly, these past “heroes” became targets of our government. At time when we lived in much greater fear of the dangers of covid-19, these people could not isolate and work from home, as the Prime Minister did. Daily they exposed themselves to risk and disease because of their commitment to providing care and delivering the goods on which Canadians depended.
The only thing that will resolve the dissonance is to stare, fearless and unflinching, directly at the brutal facts, without excuse or rationalization. This means moving away from denial. Experientially it is similar to feelings of grief after a great loss like a death. In stages of grief, people who move past denial find themselves angry. Anger is an acceptable response, not to be feared, but it must taper off. Anger depletes a person of energy and is typically followed by a season of depression. At this point it is helpful to find counsel or look for consolation in encouraging slogans, symbols or rituals. Finally we move into a place of acceptance, reluctant as we may be. I say acceptance, not in the sense of resignation, but rather facing the truth of how life is altered and summoning the courage to move forward.
We’ve now reached a fork in the road in Canada. Either we will rebuild our democracy, or the alternative will happen. We can only imagine what that might look like.
Admittedly, there is a part of us that wants to say, “It’s not as bad as I think.” But maybe it is. Maybe what you are thinking and feeling is exactly right. Our desperate longing for good in this world can get in our way. Our child-like innocence and blind trust can cause us to walk, unseeing, into a pit. As the saying goes, “It’s time to call a spade a spade.” Trust serves us well when others are trustworthy.
The trust of Canadians is tragically broken and that is the saddest outfall of the protest. But it was unavoidable and necessary for Canadians to come to this point of acknowledgement. Our government, its tactics, and its attitude towards the people has been exposed. We were living with a false perception of reality that may have been an illusion even in the more distant past. Things have deteriorated to the point that there is no longer any hiding.
I am hopeful that we can return to the Canada where there was trust in our government. Rebuilding trust will be a very long and arduous journey.
Yes, Canada is in a very fragile place. We must act with great care, going forward. The world is watching with expectation. Not all are cheering us on. Some are looking for a tragic end. Some are eyeing Canada calculatingly, hoping for opportunity.
Let’s not despair. All is not lost. Every day new voices are speaking up for dignity, truth, freedom and democracy.
Truckers have had their eyes opened. The images of force in downtown Ottawa as a result of the employment of the Emergencies Act will forever be burned in our memories as testimony to what we did not think could happen in Canada. Peaceful protest turned violent by our government.
There is another side of the coin we must consider as well.
Truckers, you were an imposing presence on Parliament Hill, virtually immovable, and definitely heard. Your peaceful protest attracted a lot of sympathy across Canada and this was undeniably threatening to our government.
Yes, you were a threat. A threat by your goodness and by your reasonableness. You represented justice. You represented fairness. You represented a sensibility understood by the common man. In the face of false accusations, in the face of loss of property, in the face of loss of freedom to work, you have this to hold onto. You did not violate your conscience.
You had no intention to overthrow the government but this was the charge cast against you, unrelentingly, by the Prime Minister and the press. The constant talk of weapons, the arrests that had noting to do with protesters, the defacing of monuments by vandals, which was attributed to truckers. You saw it all. You responded in a calm, respectful manner. You held the higher ground, and the Prime Minister knew it. Our representatives in government witnessed it as they went to work, and attested to the fact that they never felt more safe in downtown Ottawa, that is, until the day when the Emergencies Act was weaponized against innocent citizens.
In these times I turn to my faith for guidance and strength. Jesus knew what was in the heart of man. He was not under any illusions and he knows today. It was this knowledge that gave him courage, no matter the outcome.
We can have the same confidence and assurance when we are on the side of goodness. That does not mean that suffering is avoidable.
This battle for freedom to work, travel and live peacefully alongside our neighbours will continue around the world and it is truth and justice that will set us free. Let’s keep our eyes open and give thanks for every evidence of provision and each step forward in victory. Continue to sing “God keep our land, glorious and free….Oh Canada we stand on guard for thee” and to pray, “Thy kingdom come. They will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Hold the line.
Trudeau may have revoked the Emergencies Act this week, under local and international pressure, but only after all the damage was done in his “crackdown” on truckers. Below is an article, in full, from this website, describing what the truckers face now: Nearly 40 Trucking Businesses Involved in Canada’s Freedom Convoy Protests Have Been Shut Down. The truckers have been vilified in the news in Canada and particularly by our Prime Minister. Prime Minister Trudeau has done everything he could to tarnish their name and to malign their motives. It is truly shameful. In Canada we feel we no longer have a democracy due to the draconian measures Trudeau has taken against the Freedom Convoy of truckers. Their big ask? To be able to work and freely cross the border. What did they get? Permanent shut-down. I have no words.
By Katabella Roberts
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) confirmed that it shut down nearly 40 businesses during its crackdown on Freedom Convoy protesters opposing COVID-19 mandates and restrictions.
In an email to Global News on Feb. 23, Dakota Brasier, a spokesperson for Minister of Transportation Caroline Mulroney, said the ministry had issued 12 seizure orders to Ontario-based large truck operators which suspended them from being allowed to operate within Canada.
The ministry also issued an order to seize all plates registered to them, Brasier said.
Outside of Ontario, the ministry also issued 27 seizure orders to out-of-province large truck operators, which stopped them from operating any commercial motor vehicles in Ontario, Brasier said.
The MTO would not reveal the name of the businesses that were issued with the seizure orders when asked to comment by Truck News.
“In an effort to preserve future police investigations into the illegal occupation in Ottawa, the ministry will not release the names of affected businesses at this time,” a ministry spokesperson told the publication when asked.
The Epoch Times has contacted an Ontario Ministry of Transportation spokesperson for comment.
Ford declared the emergency on Feb. 11 to address the impact of the ongoing protests against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions by trucker conveys who arrived in Ottawa on Jan. 29.
However, Ford’s office said in a statement on Feb. 23 that the “emergency tools” provided to law enforcement would still remain in place for now, “as police continue to address ongoing activity on the ground.”
“We remain grateful to all front-line officers and first responders that contributed to peacefully resolving the situation in Ottawa, Windsor, and in other parts of the province,” the statement said.
Invocation of the act granted the federal government powers to freeze protesters’ and supporters’ bank accounts without a court order.
Trudeau said invoking the act initially was “the responsible and necessary thing to do” and that there was evidence that individuals wanted to “undermine and even harm Canada’s democracy.”
However, prior to the Emergencies Act being invoked, Ambassador Bridge, the busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing which transports products between the two countries, had already reopened.
Meanwhile, blockades at the border crossings in B.C. and Alberta had also ended shortly after Feb. 14, and the biggest protest still ongoing was in Ottawa, yet the government insisted it was still necessary to use the act because there was an ongoing threat that new protests or blockades might pop up again.
After Trudeau’s announcement, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said that it was reaching out to financial institutions to unfreeze accounts.
“As of February 21, 2022, the RCMP has gone back to financial institutions with some updated information about certain entities whose status may have changed pertaining to the illegal protest activity,” RCMP said in a statement.
“This new information can be assessed alongside all other information to help inform decisions to unfreeze certain accounts.”
In total, RCMP had frozen at least 206 accounts due to support of the Freedom Convoy, totaling $7.8 million, according to Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance.
I have for some time ignored all conversations about a New World Order and The Great Reset, maybe because I thought I had more important things on my mind. Maybe because I thought people were obsessing over the same old global dominance theory I’ve heard for decades. I didn’t want to get involved in talk by a bunch of people getting their knickers in a knot.
Now, very recently, I’ve begun to think I had better give this a listen.
I was alerted by a Western Standard interview of Kyle Kemper. For those of you who don’t who Kyle Kemper is, he is the younger, half brother of the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau.
I am particular about my sources and when I heard the half brother of Trudeau say that Klaus Schwab was proud of his protege, Justin Trudeau, and proud of how he, Schwab, had infiltrated the Liberal government, I sat up and listened. I started to look into the matter. Here is what I found. For your interest, the January 27, 2022 Western Standard interview of Kemper can be found here.
Klaus Schwab, is famously known for the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” He has indeed written a book, published in July of 2020, early into the coronavirus pandemic, entitled Covid-19 and The Great Reset. In it he imagines possibilities presented by the pandemic—changes on a global scale. I have not yet finished reading the book but what stands out for me is the “opportunity” for global elites, banks and corporations to have a much greater role in government, globally.
A wikipedia search will inform you that Klaus Schwab is “a German engineer and economist best known as the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.”
Klaus Schwab and Trudeau do indeed have a close relationship as is evident in this 2016 video clip. Schwab addresses Trudeau as he fantasizes about “a diverse world, characterized by plurality…it will be a young world, a digital world. Now who could represent such a world better than you, Prime Minister? We are very glad that at the beginning of this meeting you are talking to us, to represent a new, open Canada. I want to use this opportunity to thank our Canadian constituency which always has been a very loyal, and very much engaged, constituency, as a whole. But now, I think, with you… we can make sure that in the future we strengthen the cooperation even more with your country.”
I have observed how entities with money and global influence are gaining increasing leverage over our government. In the back of my mind I am thinking about how this might relate to the Canadian Truckers’ protest and Trudeau’s refusal to speak with the truckers.
A little bit about the World Economic Forum. This is from their website:
World Economic Forum Partners are leading global companies developing solutions to the world’s greatest challenges. They are the driving force behind the Forum’s programmes.
Our Partners engage in Forum Platforms to shape the future, accessing networks and experts to ensure strategic decision-making on the most pressing world issues.
On the WEF website I found a Jan 24, 2019 article entitled: António Guterres: Read the UN Secretary-General’s Davos speech in full. Guterres states the following:
There is no way governments or intergovernmental organisations alone can deal with climate change, can deal with the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or can deal with migration. We need more and more a multilateralism that also is able to incorporate the contribution of all these other sectors, and I think the World Economic Forum has an absolutely vital role to play.
On June 13, 2019, in New York, USA, The World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework. On the WEF website we read, “The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab.” Here is a further report:
The UN-Forum Partnership was signed in a meeting held at United Nations headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The partnership identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations.
Here is an article of interest: Who’s who at Davos Agenda Week. The meeting of the WEF was held in Davos, Switzerland in January 2021. The image of Klaus Schwab with Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China is quite compelling.
Speaking of corporate interests in government, I am wondering about the influence over the Canadian government of the Power Corporation of Canada which appears to have close ties to the People’s Republic of China.
I will leave you to do your own further investigation to satisfy your curiosity. In the meantime, I feel a little chagrined to be so far behind in my own information gathering just because I thought this was a “conspiracy theory.”
As a Canadian, who just witnessed the historic Canadian Truckers Freedom Convoy travel from coast to coast across Canada to convene in our great capital, Ottawa, for a peaceful demonstration on Saturday, January 29, to protest vaccine mandates imposed this month on truckers by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, I find myself perhaps a little more surprised than I might usually be by the actions of two Canadian musicians—Neil Young and Joni Mitchel—who took it upon themselves, this week, to give an ultimatum to Spotify regarding vaccine “misinformation.”
On Tuesday I came across the Global News headline, Neil Young threatens to pull music from Spotify over Joe Rogan vaccine ‘disinformation.’ Not much later it was followed by the CTV News headline, Spotify pulling down Neil Young’s music collection. I waited and the plot thickened as CTV News reported the next day, Joni Mitchell removing music from Spotify in solidarity with Neil Young.
“I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines….” —Neil Young professed.
I think this can only be understood in the context of the original article’s statement that “a group of 270 scientists and medical professionals previously shared an open letter with the platform on New Year’s Eve.”
Young has removed the open letter he penned on his personal site and this is unfortunate because I really wanted to get a closer look at the letter. As a matter of fact, I thought I read the letter on a news site which no longer has it either and to me the wording sounded suspiciously familiar. If somebody put Neil Young up to this, that didn’t go over so well. By no means do I think we have seen the end of this little skirmish. Not at all.
But it really is about nothing. I mean with all the money spent on advertising and the procurement of vaccines, and all the effort already put into stamping out “misinformation” I can hardly imagine that some talk show host could be a threat to the vaccine effort. With between 80-90% of adults already vaccinated and health officials telling us that everybody—vaccinated and unvaccinated—will get the Omicron variant and we should think of it as the flu and go back to work in five days, how can this “misinformation” be any kind of a threat?
Sometimes timing is everything. Just like Prime Minister Trudeau’s timing of slapping a vaccine mandate on truckers and potentially taking 16,000 Canadian truckers off the road—drivers who made sure we had food in our grocery isles during two years of a pandemic—comes at a very bad time, I think the open letter to Spotify comes at the wrong time as well. Because this virus is going to have its way, without any regard for mandates or vaccination status. It’s much ado about nothing. And it’s not very friendly.
It surprised me how long it took for experts to agree that SARS-Cov-2 could be spread in aerosols.
On a cool, humid day I watched a person wearing a mask and saw a plume of vapour escaping their mask. I observed how far the vapor travelled and it was several feet. Had I stood nearby, the vapor, along with any virus particles it carried me, would have reached me and if it could travel through the other person’s mask, it could travel equally well through mine. This was the day I knew for myself that masks did little to retain aerosols.
But for those who would like a little more information, I’ll add there are studies that indicate surgical masks deliver a slightly higher level of protection. You have to be careful when looking at studies because I’ve noticed they like to combine hand washing with mask wearing and the result is different when only mask wearing is the factor.
I’ve mostly ignored the numerous articles comparing different masks because I’m happy with my mask. I have faithfully followed the masking regulations, out of respect for those who see masks as important. The reason I’ve ignored the articles is because improving masks means adding more layers, more filtration systems, or closing all possible gaps in order to prevent air from escaping. Eventually we will suffocate if we can’t get air through our masks. Or at least we will become oxygen deficient. If our masks are so airtight that we cannot expel the carbon dioxide our body is trying to get rid of when we exhale, then we will breath it back in, along with all the viral particles we may or may not have. I prefer to breathe in fresh, clean oxygen so I try and limit my mask use. The only way to do this is to avoid going out as much as possible to places where masks are required.
I have put up with mask wearing because I didn’t want to major on the minors, so to speak. I told myself I am not significantly harmed by this mandate so I will tolerate it. I don’t believe that mask wearing is entirely harmless. I re-wore a mask once and re-caught the respiratory illness I had, making it last nearly three weeks longer.
I wear a mask out of consideration for others who have very strong feelings about masks, even if their beliefs are not supported by evidence. I just haven’t wanted to keep making a fuss about masks so I went along with the game.
I knew the real reason for wearing masks was to give a sense of security to the fearful. People who are afraid feel better if they can perform an action and do something visible that they feel will make a difference. I wish there was a least a placebo effect for masks, but I think studies will not prove this to be the case.
Our BC public health official, Dr. Bonnie Henry, is documented to have resisted mask wearing for the longest time, repeatedly, publicly, insisting they made minimal difference and could give a false sense of security. What changed? The data? The efficacy of masks? No. Opinion polls changed.
People were insistent on wanting to wear masks. They wrote articles. Businesses put pressure on health officials. People wanted regulations that could make them compel others to wear masks into their businesses and places of work so they could feel more secure. Eventually our respected Dr. Bonnie Henry caved. Literally. She went against what she had been saying for months.
I admit that at the beginning of the pandemic I was greatly reassured by Dr. Henry’s expertise, since she has had experience with pandemics. I thought we were especially privileged to have her on board in our province. But, sadly, we are not all impervious to external pressure. She was also the doctor who made a complete reversal of the famed headline of May 25, 2021, No vaccine passports in B.C’s future: Dr. Bonnie Henry. Here is what she said then,
“This virus has shown us that there are inequities in our society that have been exacerbated by this pandemic, and there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by the use of things like vaccine passports for services with public access here in British Columbia,” provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry said.
These societal inequities were later exacerbated when she changed her mind. In other words she lied to us.
Below is the data about mask wearing, directly from the World Health Organization.
Global Influenza Programme: Non Pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risks and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, document published by the World Health Organization in 2019. The downloadable file can be found on the WHO website.
In the document we read that according to the study there is a not significant “reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced (RR:0.92, 95% CI=0.75–1.12, I2=30%, P=0.40). The article adds, “the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission. “
The reason I am speaking out now is because Dr. Bonnie Henry has told us “everybody” will get the Omicron virus. There is no stopping it. It’s time to point out the obvious. Masks are just for show. I might add I just had Omicron myself this week.
I am trying to imagine a scenario in which vaccine mandates would be a good plan and it’s difficult to actually come up with any situation. If people were dying so rapidly that everyone knew we were doomed, and only those who were vaccinated lived, a mandate would not be required because people would be desperate and lining up and demanding the vaccine. Unfortunately, if we were in this dire situation, it is unlikely that a vaccine could be produced in time to save the planet.
Event 201, held in October of 2019 and hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation proposed a response to a theoretical pandemic. One part of the strategy to ‘diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences’ of a pandemic was to focus on the control of misinformation.
I think this part of the strategy has seen abuse. Information around the pandemic has been tightly controlled to the point of being misleading because of what has been omitted.
So much effort has gone into controlling the dialogue during the COVID-19 pandemic that people’s thoughts, if they have been following the media, are not truly original. We’ve been programmed as a result of a pre-determined narrative that has been fed to us, relentlessly.
My husband and I don’t have TV and Cable but we went out for his birthday to a restaurant with several TV’s on display and while we dined, every few minutes there was an image of a person having a needle put in their arm. First of all, it is an image that I find disturbing, but more importantly, I thought about the people who have seen this many more times than I have. I can’t imagine how many times this has come across the screen in the past couple of years, never mind the funding that has gone into this advertising.
What we are seeing now is new information coming out which doesn’t match the mainstream narrative and is creating confusion both among people without medical backgrounds and medical professionals. Questions are arising. Until now these were squashed pretty effectively but when literally “everyone” is getting sick, regardless of vaccination status, it becomes increasingly difficult to push the vaccine as the solution to a pandemic. Thankfully we do not see people dying at unprecedented rates. Some may say this is due to the vaccine, but even that is coming into question.
This brings me to the point of vaccine mandates.
There are psychological and sociological reasons why the vaccine mandates are a bad idea. I’m going to use a somewhat crass illustration. We take our dogs to the vet to get castrated. We don’t ask them. We do it for their good, or so we tell ourselves. Actually we are doing it for our convenience because we don’t want the responsibility of more dogs to care for, but none the less, we make the decision for them because we are the ones who know what is best for them. Ultimately, we are in a position to decide this on their behalf. We feed them, provide a home for them and care for them. We decide what sort of life they should have which is ultimately the kind of life we want for them. We don’t want a house full of dogs, because puppies grow up. So we implement the solution. And after a few days the dog gets over the pain and it appears that life for out pet goes on as normal.
A vaccine mandate is a little like that. It ignores the will of the people. It assumes a kind of unquestionable superiority.
This is not how people in society like to interact with one another. We have an aversion to bending unquestioningly and without options to the will of the other.
When one has the right to apply force, and the other is left without choice we understand this as victimization. It is not pleasant to be backed into a corner and threatened. It is definitely not good for the relationship.
If you have raised children you will have somewhat of an understanding of the dynamics here, but even if you do not have children, you will remember being a child. As a child, your parents tried to make decisions in your best interest. As children we accepted the decisions of our parents, sometimes reluctantly, but mostly we could see they were making choices for our good. Unless we were raised in a severely dysfunctional or abusive home, we knew they loved and cared for us and we could trust them.
The government and health authority assumed they could play the role of loving, caring parents and make decisions for us. However, the fact remains that these people are not our parents. They are our peers.
Peers consult with one another. Peers are open to alternate views. Peers respect each other’s choices. If you have a strong sense of self and healthy boundaries you quickly move on from a friend who thinks they can control you or make your decisions for you.
Dialogue and negotiation go into maintaining a trusting relationship. If you can sense there is a forgone conclusion being forced on you then dialogue begins to look like manipulation. Psychologically that is an abusive relationship. Most of us can sense this.
Many people are naively trusting. This is the majority that the government has relied on during this pandemic. These people do not spend time listening to alternative sources because they feel there is no need to do so. They trust the government. They trust the health authorities. They are afraid and need someone in charge to make decisions for them. They’ve been told that certain sources promote “misinformation” and believe that listening to them is potentially harmful. Rather than listening and determining this for themselves, they simply take the word of others and believe that these sources cannot be trusted and that they have malign motivations that are not in the best interests of the public.
I’ve listened to many sources during the pandemic and have tuned out many, but I’ve also thought to myself that if there was a grain of truth in among all the chaff then I wanted to find it. So I compared what I heard and weighed it. Fortunately I have more time than most, as a writer, to do this kind of “research.” Someone said to me, “Do you think you have some secret information?” Actually, I may have accessed information that others have not noticed, simply because I allowed myself to look.
During a pandemic people are afraid and typically we have a fight, flight or freeze response. There is really a very small percentage of the population who end up taking leadership roles or who end up seriously questioning the status quo. As a result, there is a small number of people who end up making decisions on behalf of the majority during a pandemic. Globalization and the WHO has meant we are much more on the same page than we might have been even a few decades ago. Someone I spoke to pointed out to me how all the world is saying the same thing, implying that this was evidence that the narrative was reliable. Maybe so.
I went back this week to why I have become suspicious even when all the voices are saying the same thing. I have a keen interest in parenting and so a number of years ago I wanted to know what the research showed regarding children and corporal punishment. It turns out that the research shows that mild, carefully and thoughtfully administered spanking positively affects children. I went back to the original resource to find this information, because all the news sources and articles, and there were probably hundreds, reported a different story. They all copied an article that had misinterpreted/misrepresented the actual research. If any of these journalists would have taken the time and effort to actually read the research they would not have written their articles in the way they did. That was the day I learned that we cannot simply gullibly accept what we are fed.
I’m sure you can’t have helped noticing how news sources tend to parrot one line. It is because they often have one source. Let’s say that source is the WHO. The whole world has access to what the WHO is communicating, so, understandably that will be the message that most of the world hears. And as I’ve already demonstrated, journalists can be lazy about doing research.
There is a comparatively small number of people, leaders in their own right, who don’t swallow everything. For some reason they don’t entirely trust the “step-parents” so to speak—the ones who have stepped into the parental role. We see this in about, what? 15% of the population?
Initially we were comforted by news from our government leaders and directives from health officials whom we saw as legitimately working on our behalf to mitigate a bad situation. But now, after two years, we have so much more information to fit into the picture. People are waking up to the possibility that allowing pharmaceutical companies to make decisions for us far into the future in terms of an indefinite number of boosters might not be a good thing. Clearly something is not working as advertised. And to add to the suspicion is the fact that the definition of vaccine was broadened mid-pandemic. Here is the comparison:
From 2015 to August 31, 2021 a vaccine was defined as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” and vaccination was “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
The new definition for the vaccine now reads, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” while vaccination is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”
The real reason mandates are not a good idea is that they can end up creating the worst scenarios in a society. The worst scenario is when we report our neighbours and when this means we turn on one another and can no longer trust those who desire to live peacefully beside us.
I’m going to use another analogy. If your neighbour is playing loud music, at first you tolerate it. Then you decide you can no longer tolerate it and you deliberate what you will do about it. Maybe wait it out. Maybe there is a birthday party, a one time occasion and you can let it pass. But then you realize there is no party, so you go over and ask if they might turn the sound down a little. You ask in your calmest tone. We’ve done this on a number of occasions and the result has always been positive. People are accommodating because they are neighbours too. We’ll all do better if we get along.
Now if you went over and told your neighbour you didn’t like their choice of music and demanded that they stop playing it, then they would look at you like you were crazy. And you would be the crazy one because in our society people have the freedom to play whatever music they choose.
Asking people to wear masks is like turning down the music.
Social distancing is like turning down the music.
Even staying home when you’re sick, is like turing down the music.
But vaccine mandates force people to change something very basic about themselves. Vaccines will change what happens inside their body. We are not the same after taking a vaccine and that is the whole purpose of the vaccine. Medically speaking, it is the desired outcome that the vaccine will have a long term “protective” impact. While some people are ready to change their music, others are not. Some are more concerned about the impact on their body than receiving “protection.” I believe we need to respect this. If we sacrifice a few for the good of many, where do we draw the line? I do not see this as a good idea. Maintaining respect for individual music choices is very important to a harmonious society and a harmonious society is important for the world. It is probably the most important thing in the world. We do not become more harmonious by picking on one another and singling out people, turning people against others and name calling.
We live in a condo and have seen interactions between neighbours that have not always been acrimonious. We have been the go-between at times. We’ve employed various means of communication and suggestions for adaptation. One neighbour in particular was a source of agitation for others since they are recently immigrated and don’t understand the culture fully. The people beneath them complained persistently about thudding noise to the point where restraints were put on communication as the relationship became increasingly tense. One day the neighbour appeared at our door and wanted us to see what he had done in his suite. He had put a large plush carpet on the floor. This suggestion had been made at one time. He had a broad smile on his face and to see him happy to have come up with a resolution in his own time was very satisfying, after literally years.
The reason why mandates are not a good idea is mandates do not meet the ultimate end goal of good relationships that are essential in a well-adjusted society. Ask any coach what makes a good team and they will tell you cooperation. Mandates have given people justification for turning on each other. Rather than negotiating, we make “demands.” In the case of the man who installed the carpet, patient understanding brought about a positive outcome.