Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Trudeau “Played Doctor” With Children

Published

11 minute read

Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath

Alberta Health hides data against the wishes of Premier Danielle Smith

Prior to the vaccine roll-out for children, PFIZER’s OWN DATA in Table 14 of its Emergency Use Authorization, admitted that COVID would only notionally kill 1 child per million from original virulent strain COVID but PUT 34 CHILDREN PER MILLION INTO ICU WITH MYOCARDITIS. Pfizer in that same table made the remarkable, but highly questionable statement that they posited 0 DEATHS in children from the vaccine. The table claiming no children would die from the vaccine also only focused on myocarditis and ignored potential deaths from transverse myelitis, anaphylaxis, and RSV which are all well-known potential side effects of the Pfizer COVID shot. Trudeau, Tam, Kenney and Hinshaw were all personally warned by the author of this Substack of those risks. Did they pause the childhood COVID injection roll-out to even investigate if the concerns about the shots killing more children than COVID were accurate? Of course not. It has become apparent that Trudeau’s obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder leaves no room for self-reflection or ever admitting that he is wrong.

Don’t forget that from a “vaccine” approval perspective if Pfizer put any digit other than “0” on the “DEATHS FROM VACCINE” column the Pfizer shot could not be approved for use in children. Even admitting to 1 death per million from the vaccine would mean that the vaccine was as deadly or more deadly than COVID and could not be approved or justified for an age cohort at statistically zero risk of COVID Mortality. Also, the recent high powered JAMA Cardiology Study referred to below shows that the Moderna shot has an almost 300% greater risk of increased myocarditis risk in children than the Pfizer shot that already increases myocarditis risk in children by 500%. The mixing of the shots which “Doctor Trudeau” recommended exponentially increased the risk of IN-PATIENT myocarditis in children by a shocking 3600%.

Appendix 6 of The “ALBERTA COVID 19 PANDEMIC RESPONSE Alberta COVID-19 Pandemic Data Review Task Force FINAL REPORT” reads in part as follows :

“Nordic countries have restricted use of vaccines in children, referencing a large Nordic population-based study which showed that the 28-day risk of IN-PATIENT MYOCARDITIS wash higher in the vaccinated component compared with the unvaccinated. For males aged 16-24 years the risk of myocarditis was 5x higher following 2 doses of Pfizer, 14x higher following 2 doses of Moderna and 36x higher WITH A PFIZER FOLLOWED BY A MODERNA VACCINE.”

This study was massive. It reviewed health outcomes post COVID vaccine roll out for 23.1 million people. It can hardly be dismissed as “misinformation.”

The same Appendix of the Alberta Government Task Force report notes:

“A US Lancet-published study assessing the long-term health quality of life effects of adolescents and young adults diagnosed with myocarditis following vaccination found that they were unable to complete their usual activities (21%), had pain (20%), and had anxiety or depression (46%) in the 90 days following their diagnosis.” …

The ALBERTA GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT In APPENDIX 3 of Chapter 8 on vaccines cites that other well-known source of “anti-science”, “misinformation” and “anti-evidence, the JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS in a 2023 Bullen, Heriot and Jamrozik article on “Herd Immunity, vaccination and moral obligation” showing data at Table A3.2 that demonstrate that in children, COVID related “severe adverse events” were orders of magnitude higher in vaccinated children as opposed to children who just got COVID and recovered.

The TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT is now being attacked by self-appointed “expert” Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail on February 4th, 2025 as being “misinformation” that “is an insult to health care workers and officials”.

Notably Mr. Mason’s scientific credentials are unknown. It is also notable that Mason attacks a reference to a Substack in the Task Force report without acknowledging that the Substack author was likely better educated and accomplished than Mr. Mason or that the Substack in question was simply citing government published data and reports. None of the critics of the TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT including the AMA, CMA, or Trudeau pal “Little Timmy” Caulfield EVER identify specifically what they allege is “anti-scientific”, “anti-evidence”, “misinformation” that takes us back to the “dark age”.

This is reminiscent of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta persecution of Dr. Eric Payne. Last year, the CPSA quietly dismissed “misinformation” complaints brought against Dr. Payne. This followed 4 years of the CPSA steadfastly refusing or being unable to identify a single statement made by Dr. Payne that CPSA or its “investigators” and “experts” could identify as “misinformation”.

Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail takes the same “drive by smear” approach and goes so far as to suggest that:

“Dr. James Talbot an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health, told the Edmonton Journal that Ms. Smith’s Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical conditions after being inoculated. Yet that information remains a state secret.”

What Mr. Mason ignorantly refuses to acknowledge is the number of times that Dr. Gary Davidson an “Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Alberta” in good standing, repeatedly stated in the Report that a PUBLIC INQUIRY with subpoena powers is required. The reason for this is that a Government Task Force ORDERED BY THE PREMIER OF ALBERTA was repeatedly refused access to data by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services bureaucrats who appear intent on continuing to play hide the ball on vaccine safety and efficacy. Mr. Mason also refuses to acknowledge data and tables scrubbed from the internet by these same ALBERTA BUREAUCRATS—opaque, nameless, faceless bureaucrats—which confirm the high-powered Cleveland Clinic study that demonstrates that the greater a person’s vaccine and booster uptake, the worse their health outcomes, including COVID related hospitalization and death.

The Mason hit piece and Talbot quote above demonstrates the degree of dirty propaganda being promulgated in the legacy press. The statement that “The Government was sitting on data that showed who got immunized, how many of them developed COVID and whether any developed any rare medical condition” is largely true. The problem for the pro-pharma propagandists is that the information is being withheld AGAINST THE STRICT INSTRUCTIONS OF PREMIER SMITH in the TASK FORCE MANDATE.

While it may be slimy and underhanded for these Vaccine Propagandists to try to smear Premier Smith’s reputation for integrity with these underhanded insinuations, its simple defamation to suggest that Premier Smith has anything to do with evidence being withheld from her own TASK FORCE.

There is absolutely no way that if AHS or Alberta Health bureaucrats had evidence to refute AHS tables showing increased hospitalization and death among the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated—confirmed by the 56,000-person Cleveland Clinic Study, JAMA Cardiology, Lancet and Pfizer Studies referred to in this column—those same self-serving, insubordinate, bureaucrats would have either gleefully provided the data to Dr. Davidson’s Task Force team or have leaked it to the media long before now.

Premier Smith and Dr. Davidson need to name by name the bureaucrats that are actively smearing both of their reputations by making scurrilous statements to the media that suggest that THEY are the ones hiding the truth as opposed to all the pro-vaccine cultists in AHS and Alberta health.

I know Premier Smith is really busy trying to save Alberta and Canada from the trade war provoked by Justin Trudeau’s despicable degradation of Canadian sovereignty. Howver, she needs to hold a press conference accompanied by Dr. Davidson to defend her own reputation against the faceless, disloyal minions in her own government who continue to hide the truth from Albertans by fraudulently parroting the words “safe and effective”.

Jeffrey R.W. Rath B.A. (Hons.), LL.B. (Hons.)

Foothills, Alberta

February 5th, 2025

Subscribe to Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Alberta

Calls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder

Published on

From Resource Works

Alberta wants a new oil pipeline to Prince Rupert in British Columbia.

Calls on the federal government to fast-track new pipelines in Canada have grown. But there’s some confusion that needs to be cleared up about what Ottawa’s intentions are for any new oil and gas pipelines.

Prime Minister Carney appeared to open the door for them when he said, on June 2, that he sees opportunity for Canada to build a new pipeline to ship more oil to foreign markets, if it’s tied to billions of dollars in green investments to reduce the industry’s environmental footprint.

But then he confused that picture by declaring, on June 6, that new pipelines will be built only with “a consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people.” And he added: “If a province doesn’t want it, it’s impossible.”

And BC Premier David Eby made it clear on June 2 that BC doesn’t want a new oil pipeline, nor does it want Ottawa to cancel the related ban on oil tankers steaming through northwest BC waters. These also face opposition from some, but not all, First Nations in BC.

Eby’s energy minister, Adrian Dix, also gave thumbs-down to a new oil pipeline, but did say BC supports expanding the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain TMX oil pipeline, and the dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow bigger oil tankers to load Alberta oil from TMX at the port of Vancouver.

While the feds sort out what their position is on fast-tracking new pipelines, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith leaped on Carney’s talk of a new oil pipeline if it’s tied to lowering the carbon impact of the Alberta oilsands and their oil.

She saw “a grand bargain,” with, in her eyes, a new oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert, BC, producing $20 billion a year in revenue, some of which could then be used to develop and install carbon-capture mechanisms for the oil.

She noted that the Pathways Alliance, six of Canada’s largest oilsands producers, proposed in 2021 a carbon-capture network and pipeline that would transport captured CO₂ from some 20 oilsands facilities, by a new 400-km pipeline, to a hub in the Cold Lake area of Alberta for permanent underground storage.

Preliminary estimates of the cost of that project run up to $20 billion.

The calls for a new oil pipeline from Bruderheim, AB, to Prince Rupert recall the old Northern Gateway pipeline project that was proposed to run from Alberta to Kitimat, BC.

That was first proposed by Enbridge in 2008, and there were estimates that it would mean billions in government revenues and thousands of jobs.

In 2014, Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper approved Northern Gateway. But in 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal overruled the Harper government, ruling that it had “breached the honour of the Crown by failing to consult” with eight affected First Nations.

Then the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who succeeded Harper in 2015, effectively killed the project by instituting a ban on oil tanker traffic on BC’s north coast shortly after taking office.

Now Danielle Smith is working to present Carney with a proponent and route for a potential new crude pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert.

She said her government is in talks with Canada’s major pipeline companies in the hope that a private-sector proponent will take the lead on a pipeline to move a million barrels a day of crude to the BC coast.

She said she hopes Carney, who won a minority government in April, will make good on his pledge to speed permitting times for major infrastructure projects. Companies will not commit to building a pipeline, Smith said, without confidence in the federal government’s intent to bring about regulatory reform.

Smith also underlined her support for suggested new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Manitoba, and potentially a new version of Energy East, a proposed, but shelved, oil pipeline to move oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and a marine terminal in the Maritimes.

The Energy East oil pipeline was proposed in 2013 by TC Energy, to move Western Canadian crude to an export terminal at St. John, NB, and to refineries in eastern Canada. It was mothballed in 2017 over regulatory hurdles and political opposition in Quebec.

A separate proposal known as GNL Quebec to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline and export terminal in the Saguenay region was rejected by both federal and provincial authorities on environmental grounds. It would have diverted 19.4 per cent of Canadian gas exports to Europe, instead of going to the US.

Now Quebec’s environment minister Benoit Charette says his government would be prepared to take another look at both projects.

The Grays Bay idea is to include an oil pipeline in a corridor that would run from northern BC to Grays Bay in Nunavut. Prime Minister Carney has suggested there could be opportunities for such a pipeline that would carry “decarbonized” oil to new markets.

There have also been several proposals that Canada should build an oil pipeline, and/or a natural gas pipeline, to the port of Churchill. One is from a group of seven senior oil and gas executives who in 2017 suggested the Western Energy Corridor to Churchill.

Now a group of First Nations has proposed a terminal at Port Nelson, on Hudson Bay near Churchill, to ship LNG to Europe and potash to Brazil. And the Manitoba government is looking at the idea.

“There is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,” says Robyn Lore of project backer NeeStaNan. “It’s in Canada’s interest to do this.”

And, he adds: “The port and corridor will be 100 per cent Indigenous owned.”

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has suggested that the potential trade corridor to Hudson Bay could handle oil, LNG, hydrogen, and potash slurry. (One obvious drawback, though, winter ice limits the Hudson Bay shipping season to four months of the year, July to October.)

All this talk of new pipelines comes as Canada begins to look for new markets to reduce reliance on the US, following tariff measures from President Donald Trump.

Alberta Premier Smith says: “I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November. I think that’s changed the national conversation.”

And she says that if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast oil pipeline.

“I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”

Now we need to know what Mark Carney’s stance on pipelines really is: Is it fast-tracking them to reduce our reliance on the US? Or is it insisting that, for a pipeline, “If a province doesn’t want it, it’s impossible.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Conservative MP Damien Kurek stepped aside in the Battle River-Crowfoot riding to allow Pierre Poilievre to enter a by-election in his native Alberta.

Conservative MP Damien Kurek officially resigned as an MP in the Alberta federal riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in a move that will allow Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre to run in a by-election in that riding to reclaim his seat in Parliament.

June 17 was Kurek’s last day as an MP after he notified the House Speaker of his resignation.

“I will continue to work with our incredible local team to do everything I can to remain the strong voice for you as I support Pierre in this process and then run again here in Battle River-Crowfoot in the next general election,” he said in a statement to media.

“Pierre Poilievre is a man of principle, character, and is the hardest working MP I have ever met,” he added. “His energy, passion, and drive will have a huge benefit in East Central Alberta.”

Kurek won his riding in the April 28 election, defeating the Liberals by 46,020 votes with 81.8 percent of the votes, a huge number.

Poilievre had lost his Ottawa seat to his Liberal rival, a seat that he held for decades, that many saw as putting his role as leader of the party in jeopardy. He stayed on as leader of the Conservative Party.

Poilievre is originally from Calgary, Alberta, so should he win the by-election, it would be a homecoming of sorts.

It is now up to Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney to call a by-election in the riding.

Despite Kurek’s old seat being considered a “safe” seat, a group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Poilievre in the by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carleton riding in April’s election.

Continue Reading

Trending

X