Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Will We Fall For The Same Old PCR Tricks Again?

Published

8 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By John Carpay

As with the number of COVID-19 “cases,” the number of “Covid deaths” proclaimed by politicians, government health officials and government-funded media is also based on highly unreliable PCR testing, using an undisclosed number of cycles.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. How long will Canadians continue falling for the same media tricks that they fell for during the years of lockdowns and vaccine passports?

“Alberta’s COVID-19 death toll more than 4 times higher than flu over past year,” exclaimed the CBC on September 9. This was followed two days later by Global News exclaiming: “New Alberta COVID data highlights value of getting newly formulated vaccine once available: expert.”

These media stories claim there were 23,933 COVID-19 “cases” in the past year, with 6,070 people hospitalized “for COVID.” Media claim that 732 Albertans died of COVID-19 during the past year, compared to 177 from the flu. University of Calgary professor Craig Jenne describes this as “continual evidence that COVID-19 is not just another flu” and laments that viruses “continue to take lives at a really unacceptable rate.”

It’s the same narrative that we were fed in 2020 and the years that followed: creating and then maintaining unfounded fear of COVID-19. This unnecessarily high level of fear, in turn, generated support for the violations of our Charter freedoms of association, expression, religion, conscience, mobility, and peaceful assembly, and the right to choose freely what will or will not be injected into our bodies.

What is missing from these stories by government-funded media is significant and relevant.

Firstly, government-funded media make no mention of the number of cycles used in the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing that was used to generate these 23,933 so-called “cases” of COVID-19.

The percentage of people testing “positive” for COVID-19 by way of the PCR test depends on the number of times that a viral remnant in a person’s nose or throat is doubled (amplified). If a COVID-19 viral remnant is amplified 40 times, almost everyone will test positive for COVID-19. Conversely, if that very same viral remnant is amplified only 20 times, very few people will test positive for COVID-19. The PCR test does not and cannot determine whether someone is sick with COVID-19, or a spreader of COVID-19.

As explained by expert witness Dr. Joel Kettner in Gateway v. Manitoba:[1] “the outcome of a PCR test depends on Cycle thresholds (Ct), which is the number of cycles of amplification needed to strengthen a weak signal, so as to enable the identification of the amino acid sequence of the virus being tested for. The higher the Ct to obtain a positive signal, the lower the volume of genetic material in the sample.”[2]

In the same court case, expert witness Dr. Jay Bhattacharya explained that the unavoidable errors in PCR testing render the PCR test unfit for public health decision-making: “A reliance on a test that is run up to 40 cycles, (or any number of cycles higher than 30) — is certain to produce a very large proportion of false positive outcomes. Lockdowns that are imposed on the basis of ‘case’ counts derived from PCR tests will be only marginally related to the threat posed by the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

Neither Alberta Health Services nor the media will inform the public about how many times a viral remnant was doubled to generate these 23,933 “cases” of COVID-19. A large but willfully undisclosed number of these COVID-19 “cases” pertain to people who are not sick with COVID-19 and not spreading COVID-19. This includes large numbers of people who have had COVID-19 and who have fully recovered, acquiring natural immunity along the way. Governments which claim to love science should freely and readily disclose this information to the public, as well as to each individual receiving her or his PCR test result. And yet, since 2020, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have kept this information a state secret, typically divulged only under duress in court, when governments get sued by Justice Centre lawyers who defend Charter freedoms.

In Gateway v. Manitoba, for example, government officials admitted under oath that at least 40% of their “Covid cases” were people who were not sick with COVID-19 and not spreading it. Governments and their health authorities can easily generate high numbers of “Covid cases” simply by running PCR tests at 40 (or more) cycles, and encouraging (or requiring) large numbers of people to take the PCR test.

As with the number of COVID-19 “cases,” the number of “Covid deaths” proclaimed by politicians, government health officials and government-funded media is also based on highly unreliable PCR testing, using an undisclosed number of cycles.

The second glaring omission from government-funded media reports is the relevant context. Over 33,000 Albertans die each year, which is what you might expect in a province of 4.8 million people. The leading causes of death in Canada are cancer, heart diseases, lung diseases and strokes. This fact did not change with the arrival of COVID-19 and lockdowns in 2020. If it’s true that 732 Albertans died of COVID-19 (and thanks to PCR testing we really don’t know) that would be just over 2% of deaths in Alberta, with 87% of these deaths among people 70 and over. Compare this 2% with the more than 10% of deaths in Alberta from “ill-defined and unknown” causes in 2021. Professor Craig Jenne states that viruses “continue to take lives at a really unacceptable rate.” The same could be said of cancer, heart diseases, lung diseases and strokes, not to mention suicides, alcoholism, obesity and car accidents.

The omission of relevant facts, combined with a blind and erroneous faith in the accuracy of PCR testing, is what government-funded media used in 2020 to spread unfounded fear. They are trying to do the same thing now. Will we fall for it again?

First published in the Western Standard here.

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trudeau gov’t threatens to punish tech companies that fail to censor ‘disinformation’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’

A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.

MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.

“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.

“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.

The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”

As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.

Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”

“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.

Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’

Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.

“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”

The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”

“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”

LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.

The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A jury ruled that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan committed religious discrimination against 30-year IT specialist and Catholic Lisa Domski when it denied her a religious accommodation from the company’s COVID shot mandate.

A former IT specialist for Blue Cross Blue Shield has been awarded $12 million in damages and lost wages for her lawsuit over being fired for refusing the COVID-19 shot, in a major victory for religious liberty.

Newsweek reports that the insurance company fired 30-year employee Lisa Domski in 2021 after she sought a religious exemption to their jab mandate and was turned down. The insurer reportedly questioned the sincerity of her religious objections as a Catholic, but denied religious discrimination in the trial. 

Domski further maintained that the rationale behind mandating the shot didn’t apply in her case, as 75% of her work was remote before the pandemic and had shifted to fully remote during it, meaning she could not possibly have endangered others even if the shot did prevent transmission, which has since been admitted to not be the case.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion,” declared her attorney Jon Marko. “Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience. Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan] that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”

In response, the company said it was “disappointed” in the jury verdict and would be “reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”

Many religious and pro-life Americans like Lisa Domski have a moral objection to using medical products whose existence is owed in some way to abortion.

According to a detailed overview by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson all used aborted fetal cells during their vaccines’ testing phase; and Johnson & Johnson also used the cells during the design and development and production phases. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science has admitted the same, and even the left-wing fact-checking outlet Snopes acknowledges the statement “that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate.”

Moral qualms are just one of the reasons for the ongoing controversy, next to a large body of evidence identifying significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed mandating them and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists favorably inclined to the rights of employees in similar lawsuits.

Meanwhile, some hope that legal action can succeed in bringing accountability on the issue by legally targeting the companies for misrepresentation rather than their products directly. In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of fraud for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X