Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Canadian doctor forced to pay $44K fine, serve suspension for prescribing Ivermectin to treat COVID

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan claimed that a Regina doctor was engaged in unprofessional conduct for going against a policy that restricted doctors from prescribing Ivermectin or ‘alternative’ therapies.

A doctor working in a medium-sized Canadian city has been suspended and fined for prescribing Ivermectin to some of his patients to treat or prevent one from getting COVID.

On June 7, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) ruled that Regina doctor Tshipita Kabongo was engaged in unprofessional conduct for going against a policy that restricted doctors from prescribing Ivermectin or “alternative” therapies to patients.

As a result, Kabongo was hit with a one-month suspension starting August 1 and was ordered to pay $44,783.72, which was what it cost for the investigation and hearing.

Kabongo worked at the Integrated Wellness and Health Balance Centre in Regina. From April 2020 to March 2022, he prescribed Ivermectin to some of his patients.

The CPSS policy on “alternatives” to the COVID jabs as a means to combat the virus stated that it is “unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no acceptable scientific basis, may be dangerous, may deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking conventional care until his or her condition becomes irreversible.”

Instead, the CPSS only promoted the COVID shots for the virus, which today are known to have many negative side effects.

“The most effective strategy for preventing COVID-19 continues to be immunization and all Saskatchewan. Ministry of Health approved vaccines provide a high level of protection,” the CPSS said in a joint letter.

According to the CPSS, Kabongo’s recommendation of Ivermectin to some of his patients was not “medically” necessary because he did not recommend other treatment options.

Health Canada, along with many medical groups in Saskatchewan and in other provinces, in the fall of 2021 said that using Ivermectin to treat COVID was potentially dangerous and claimed that there was no evidence the drugs worked to stop the virus.

However, Dr. Pierre Kory, the author of The War on Ivermectinclaimed in testimony that the drug is safe and said some meta-studies show that it has an 81 percent mortality reduction rate in those with COVID.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society. Many governmental or private sector workers lost their jobs for refusing to get the shots.

Shots were promoted by health officials as only way to treat COVIDn

The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

A recent study by a team of experts that includes prominent critics of the COVID establishment as well as Dr. Peter McCullough shows that the COVID shots have a 200-times higher risk of brain clots than other injections.

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

However, despite health officials in Canada and the United States opposing using Ivermectin, which is historically used to treat parasites and rosacea when applied to the skin, the drug has long been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a variety of human ailments. In fact, it is included in the World Health Organization’s (WHO’S) Model List of Essential Medicines.

During the earlier days of COVID, the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID gained notoriety, and there have been many promising studies along with anecdotal reports of positive results from the use of the drugs.

It even got to the point that some families in the United States had to go to court to force hospitals to let them try the medications for their loved ones. Some U.S. doctors have seen their medical licenses threatened for prescribing it, which prompted states such as Missouri and Oklahoma to take action to protect medical freedom for those who wish to try and prescribe them.

COVID-19

Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Four Canadians who refused to comply with the government’s border surveillance program had charges against them withdrawn, but no determination was made on the constitutionality of forcing the unvaccinated to quarantine.

A constitutional legal group says a recent court decision to withdraw charges leveled against four men who refused to go along with a COVID border surveillance program means the federal government “escaped accountability” for rules that targeted jab-free Canadians.

“This outcome is bittersweet for each of our clients,” said Chris Fleury, an attorney for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), in a recent press release sent to LifeSiteNews.

“It is positive for each of them personally. On the other hand, they were deeply interested in seeking a determination of the constitutionality of the irrational and unscientific decision forcing unvaccinated Canadians to quarantine.”

Fleury noted that the court ruling means the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has “again escaped accountability for Covid policy decisions that breached Canadians’ Charter rights.”

The JCCF said the City of Mississauga withdrew “five charges against four Canadians who refused to comply with ArriveCAN requirements at the Toronto Pearson International Airport.”

The federal government’s $59.5 million scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app was introduced in April 2020 and mandated in November 2020. The app was used to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and to enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.

When the app was mandated, all travelers entering Canada had to use it to submit their travel and contact information as well as any COVID vaccination details before crossing the border or boarding a flight.

In February, LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party MPs accused the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of lying to Parliament over sweetheart contracting approvals concerning ArriveCAN.

Man revealed COVID jab status after breaking down under ‘pressure,’ then hit will $5,000 fine

“After arriving in Toronto from the Netherlands, Mr. Sly-Hooten felt that his personal medical information should remain private and chose not to disclose his vaccination status via ArriveCAN. In response, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada personnel detained him,” the JCCF said.

The JCCF added that “under pressure” and without any “counsel,” Sly-Hooten “broke down and revealed his vaccination status.”

“He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days,” the JCCF explained.

The JCCF noted that it was able to help Sly-Hooten launch a constitutional challenge “against ArriveCAN, citing his right to liberty, his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his right to counsel after arrest and detention – all protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Other withdrawn tickets include those issued to Mark Spence, Aaron Grubb, and Evan Kraayenbrink.

The JCCF noted that, like Sly-Hooten, “each were charged for choosing not to provide information via ArriveCAN and were ordered to quarantine for 14 days.”

“Prosecutors have withdrawn the charges because they believe it is not in the public interest to expend further resources on a trial,” the JCCF said. “This outcome follows a similar pattern of ArriveCAN-related charges being dropped before their trials in what appears to be an attempt to shield the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, charges are being dropped before the merits of constitutional challenges to ArriveCAN can be heard by the courts.”

Canadians were told ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest number showing it cost $59.5 million.

The app itself was riddled with tech glitches along with privacy concerns from users.

Canadian Auditor General Karen Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) is investigating how various companies such as Dalian, Coaradix, and GC Strategies received millions in taxpayer dollars to develop the contentious quarantine-tracking program.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Employee wins lawsuit filed by gov’t agency after losing job for refusing COVID shot

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The federal government successfully sued on her behalf, citing a Title VII violation.

A former assistant manager who was fired after applying for a religious accommodation to refuse the COVID shot has been awarded a six-figure payout after a federal government agency filed a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf.

Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers on Thursday ordered the Pensacola, Florida store Hank’s Fine Furniture (HFI) to pay a former manager, identified in the lawsuit as “K.M.O.,” $110,000 for refusing to accommodate her request for exemption from the COVID shot due to her “sincerely held Christian beliefs.”

“HFI is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII,” Rodgers wrote, the Pensacola News Journal reported Monday. He further declared that HFI “will reasonably accommodate employee and prospective employee religious beliefs during all hiring, discipline and promotion activities,” and “any activity affecting any other terms and conditions of employment.”

Significantly, the store also “cannot require proof that an employee’s or applicant’s religious objection to an employer requirement be an official tenet or endorsed teaching of said religious belief,” according to Pensacola News Journal.

Hank’s Furniture must also adopt a written policy, disseminated to all employees, declaring that HFI “will not require any employee to violate sincerely held religious beliefs, including those pertaining to vaccinations, as a condition of his/her employment.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on behalf of K.M.O. (EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-24533-MCR-HTC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida after it was unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement “through its administrative conciliation process.”

According to Pensacola News Journal, about two weeks after HFI implemented a policy mandating that its employees receive a COVID shot, K.M.O. told the company she would not get the shot due to her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and then requested a religious exemption.

According to the lawsuit, HFI ignored her request and asked if she would comply with their COVID shot policy, and K.M.O. then told HFI she planned to submit a written religious accommodation request, asking “whether HFI had a particular form she should use.”

HFI reportedly did not respond to her request. When K.M.O. complained that HFI’s unwillingness to grant her a religious exemption was “unjust,” her new supervisor reportedly told her that “HFI did not care why she would not take” the COVID shot and that HFI “would never grant an accommodation.”

When K.M.O. emailed HMI on September 6, 2021, asking for the status of her religious exemption request, HFI informed her that her religious exemption request was “severely lacking,” and then denied it.

K.M.O. then “asked for help to submit an acceptable religious exemption request,” but HFI refused to discuss any accommodation, according to the lawsuit. Then on October 31, she was fired by HFI because she did not comply with their COVID “vaccination” policy.

Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson remarked regarding the case for an EEOC press release, “Employees should not have to renounce their religious beliefs in order to remain employed. Let this case serve as a reminder that employers should afford accommodation for religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X