Connect with us

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leaders’ lawyers ask court to dismiss ‘weak’ case over lack of evidence

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘There is no evidence of any of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy 2022 agreeing to pursue their ends by way of illegal activity,’ the defense team wrote, asking for the case to be dismissed

After the Crown prosecutors abruptly decided to end its case against Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber last week, the pair’s legal teams have filed for the case to be dismissed, saying the government has no evidence that would lead to the convoy organizers being found guilty of their charges.  

“To the extent there were any collective objectives on the part of the protesters, they were not inherently illegal,” wrote Lich’s legal counsel Lawrence Greenspon in a filing seeking a full dismissal of the case against his client.

Continuing, Greenspon pointed out in the filing, which was submitted to the court last week, that something that would be “inherently illegal” would be murder or serious drug-related issues, but that going to Ottawa to protest government COVID mandates does not fit this description.  

“Similarly, there is no evidence of any of the leaders of the Freedom Convoy 2022 agreeing to pursue their ends by way of illegal activity,” added the defense.

The defense team also noted that there is “[n]othing illegal about encouraging others to come to or stay in Ottawa to protest lawfully.” 

“Lich does not encourage anyone to engage in any unlawful conduct at any time,” they added.   

Last Monday, which was sitting day 27 of the trial, Lich and Barber’s legal counsel argued that the Crown to date has not been able to prove the organizers participated in a conspiracy to break the law or encourage others to break the law, and that therefore the case should be tossed altogether. 

The Crown has been trying to prove that Lich and Barber had somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy.  

The trial has been ongoing for nearly three months, having started on September 5, 2023. Despite seeing a few breaks here and there, including being off most of November, the Crown prosecution had been taking its time calling forth its witnesses.

Also on Monday, the Crown’s last witness, Nicole Bach of the Ottawa Police Services’ (OPS) Police Liaison Team (PLT), testified in court about a chat group created between officers. She had previously testified her police-provided phone was “wiped” of all information when asked by Judge Heather Perkins-McVey if she had copies of vital information of conversations between her and protesters.  

Lich and Barber are facing multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for weeks before she was granted bail.  

In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14.

During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, an elderly lady, was trampled by a police horse, and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister. 

Lich and Barber’s trial has thus far taken more time than originally planned due to the slow pace of the Crown calling its witnesses. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively. 

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

COVID-19

USAID directed over $200 million to gain of function research leading up to SARS-CoV outbreak

Published on

By John Leake

USAID gave Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance $207 million between 2009 and October 2019, right when SARS-COv-2 began to spread

With revelations emerging about USAID’s spending spree on friends and pet projects, I was reminded of the following April 2023 exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Samantha Power, Administrator of USAID from 2021 to 2025. I vividly remember the vexation I felt as I listened to the recording on my evening jog the next day. Note how she repeatedly looks Senator Paul directly in the eye and insists that USAID has disclosed the grant documents he has repeatedly requested, even though he repeatedly admonishes her that he KNOWS she isn’t telling him the truth because he has never seen them.

Note as well that in October 2019, when USAID officially ceased funding PREDICT, papers like the New York Times lamented that, bereft of such funds, the program would not be able to predict emerging infectious diseases.

A great deal of evidence indicates that this was precisely the time it became apparent that a novel SARS coronavirus was circulating in Wuhan, almost certainly the result of GoF research conducted as part of the PREDICT program.

In other words, PREDICT predicted nothing—it actually created the monster.

Yet another irony was a letter that Elizabeth Warren—the Supreme Self-Righteous Bloviator of the Senate (SSBS)—wrote on January 20, 2020 to the then Administrator Mark Green, demanding to know why PREDICT funding had been cut off.

I would bet a considerable sum that at least someone in USAID knew in October 2019 about the circulating monster that PREDICT had created with the assistance of the $207 million the agency had given the program over a ten year period.

The evidence is clear: USAID has long been a rogue agency that should indeed be brought under direct State Department Control with new, stringent transparency requirements about its activities and long prison times for people like Samantha Power who conceal the agency’s activities and then lie to Senators about them.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

FDA Lab Uncovers Excess DNA Contamination in Covid-19 Vaccines

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By 

An explosive new study conducted within the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own laboratory has revealed excessively high levels of DNA contamination in Pfizer’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine.

Tests conducted at the FDA’s White Oak Campus in Maryland found that residual DNA levels exceeded regulatory safety limits by 6 to 470 times.

The study was undertaken by student researchers under the supervision of FDA scientists. The vaccine vials were sourced from BEI Resources, a trusted supplier affiliated with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), previously headed by Anthony Fauci.

Recently published in the Journal of High School Science, the peer-reviewed study challenges years of dismissals by regulatory authorities, who had previously labelled concerns about excessive DNA contamination as baseless.

The FDA is expected to comment on the findings this week. However, the agency has yet to issue a public alert, recall the affected batches, or explain how vials exceeding safety standards were allowed to reach the market.

The Methods

The student researchers employed two primary analytical methods:

  • NanoDrop Analysis – This technique uses UV spectrometry to measure the combined levels of DNA and RNA in the vaccine. While it provides an initial assessment, it tends to overestimate DNA concentrations due to interference from RNA, even when RNA-removal kits are utilised.
  • Qubit Analysis – For more precise measurements, the researchers relied on the Qubit system, which quantifies double-stranded DNA using fluorometric dye.

Both methods confirmed the presence of DNA contamination far above permissible thresholds. These findings align with earlier reports from independent laboratories in the United StatesCanada, AustraliaGermany, and France.

Expert Reaction

Kevin McKernan, a former director of the Human Genome Project, described the findings as a “bombshell,” criticizing the FDA for its lack of transparency.

“These findings are significant not just for what they reveal but for what they suggest has been concealed from public scrutiny. Why has the FDA kept these data under wraps?” McKernan questioned.

CSO and Founder of Medicinal Genomics

While commending the students’ work, he also noted limitations in the study’s methods, which may have underestimated contamination levels.

“The Qubit analysis can under-detect DNA by up to 70% when enzymes are used during sample preparation,” McKernan explained. “Additionally, the Plasmid Prep kit used in the study does not efficiently capture small DNA fragments, further contributing to underestimation.”

In addition to genome integration, McKernan highlighted another potential cancer-causing mechanism of DNA contamination in the vaccines.

He explained that plasmid DNA fragments entering the cell’s cytoplasm with the help of lipid nanoparticles could overstimulate the cGAS-STING pathway, a crucial component of the innate immune response.

“Chronic activation of the cGAS-STING pathway could paradoxically fuel cancer growth,” McKernan warned. “Repeated exposure to foreign DNA through COVID-19 boosters may amplify this risk over time, creating conditions conducive to cancer development.”

Adding to the controversy, traces of the SV40 promoter were detected among the DNA fragments. While the authors concluded that these fragments were “non-replication-competent” meaning they cannot replicate in humans, McKernan disagreed.

“To assert that the DNA fragments are non-functional, they would need to transfect mammalian cells and perform sequencing, which wasn’t done here,” McKernan stated.

“Moreover, the methods used in this study don’t effectively capture the full length of DNA fragments. A more rigorous sequencing analysis could reveal SV40 fragments several thousand base pairs long, which would likely be functional,” he added.

Regulatory Oversight under Scrutiny

Nikolai Petrovsky, a Professor of Immunology and director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, described the findings as a “smoking gun.”

“It clearly shows the FDA was aware of these data. Given that these studies were conducted in their own labs under the supervision of their own scientists, it would be hard to argue they were unaware,” he said.

Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute in Adelaide

Prof Petrovsky praised the quality of work carried out by the students at the FDA labs.

“The irony is striking,” he remarked. “These students performed essential work that the regulators failed to do. It’s not overly complicated—we shouldn’t have had to rely on students to conduct tests that were the regulators’ responsibility in the first place.”

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which has consistently defended the safety of the mRNA vaccines, released its own batch testing results, claiming they met regulatory standards. However, Prof Petrovsky criticised the TGA’s testing methods.

“The TGA’s method was not fit for purpose,” he argued. “It didn’t assess all the DNA in the vials. It only looked for a small fragment, which would severely underestimate the total amount of DNA detected.”

Implications for Manufacturers and Regulators

Now that DNA contamination of the mRNA vaccines has been verified in the laboratory of an official agency and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it becomes difficult to ignore.

It also places vaccine manufacturers and regulators in a precarious position.

Addressing the contamination issue would likely require revising manufacturing processes to remove residual DNA, which Prof Petrovsky explained would be impractical.

“The only practical solution is for regulators to require manufacturers to demonstrate that the plasmid DNA levels in the vaccines are safe,” Prof Petrovsky stated.

“Otherwise, efforts to remove the residual DNA would result in an entirely new vaccine, requiring new trials and effectively restarting the process with an untested product.”

Now the onus is on regulators to provide clarity and take decisive action to restore confidence in their oversight. Anything less risks deepening the scepticism of the public.

Both the US and Australian drug regulators have been approached for comment.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Maryanne Demasi, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD in rheumatology, who writes for online media and top tiered medical journals. For over a decade, she produced TV documentaries for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and has worked as a speechwriter and political advisor for the South Australian Science Minister.

Continue Reading

Trending

X