COVID-19
Neil Macdonald asks the most important COVID-19 question of all

This is posted with permission from the author, Neil MacDonald. It is originally posted at neilmacdonald.me
So. Who gets the ventilators?
I wish Sophie Gregoire Trudeau good health, and a complete recovery in her quarantine. The same for the lovely Margaret Trudeau, if she comes down with COVID-19. Both women were at the same speaking engagement in London; presumably, that is where Madame Gregoire Trudeau contracted the virus.
If, heaven forfend, either woman develops the sort of severe respiratory difficulties that have killed other COVID-19 patients, I hope they will both have access to peerless medical care, and a ventilator. Actually, I am certain they will.
One is the prime minister’s wife, the other his mother. Privilege has its privileges.
At the same time – and here comes the kicker – I am not at all certain that, if I or any of my aged relatives come down with the disease in the uncertain and increasingly terrifying weeks to come, there will be ventilators for us. And as one American epidemiologist put it recently, the alternative to ventilation for someone with extreme respiratory symptoms is death. As a despairing Italian physician put it on social media from the horrors of his triage centre in Bergamo: “Every ventilator becomes like gold.”
Here is the math: Health Minister Patty Hajdu says between 30 and 70 per cent of Canadians will likely be infected. The mortality rate of COVID-19 is between two and three per cent. Assuming the optimistic end of Hajdu’s estimate, and the optimistic end of the mortality rate, we are still talking about 225,000 people dying, and, as the despairing Italian physician says, the diagnosis is always the same: Bilateral interstitial pneumonia. Meaning those patients’ lungs are so badly compromised the only thing that has a chance of saving them is a ventilator, or mechanical breathing apparatus. It alone can infuse the lungs with enough oxygen to maintain life.
Now: We are told Canada has about 5,000 ventilators. That’s one ventilator for every 45 of those dying patients. Unless Canada somehow acquires a lot more of the machines, and the entire world is now chasing them, there will be rationing. That is what has been happening in Italy. Doctors there have been given the ghastly job of deciding who receives ventilation, and who is sent home to meet their fate.
Now, let’s add something else to the equation: In Canada, the law prevents citizens from paying for core medical care, which a ventilator surely is. In principle, ventilators will be rationed, well, rationally.
But that’s not how the system really works.
In Canada, influence and power get you to the front of the line. Does anyone really believe that cabinet ministers or premiers or captains of industry or very senior government officials sit in waiting rooms, or have a hard time finding a family doctor? Or that those of us with professional or family connections aren’t treated as privileged entities?
So the big question – the crucial, life-or-death question as this virus tears through the population – will very quickly be this: who gets the ventilators?
No doubt, an attempt will be made to lay down a set of objective criteria. They probably already exist. It makes sense to ventilate patients who stand the best chance of surviving. A physician friend in Italy unilaterally decided to send very old people home, along with anyone whose health was already severely compromised by previous morbidities.
But imagine the pressure on a Canadian doctor, or hospital dependent on government funding, when the aged relative of a very powerful politician needs ventilation. Or a very rich person who has donated generously to the hospital. Or the mother or father of a person whose role in the economy is considered so crucial that he or she must not be distracted by familial worries.
Jane Philpott, Justin Trudeau’s first health minister, once declared that not being able to buy your way to the front of the line is a “core Canadian value.” The remark was rather gormless, I thought at the time, given the reality of the system. Doctor friends of mine thought it was hysterical.
But the big test is coming. The public deserves to know precisely how lifesaving care will be allocated. The public has a right to transparent fairness.
My guess: fairness and objective allocation of resources will slam into the wall of privilege. We shall see. We shall also see how intrepid the media is on this subject. So far, it hasn’t been.
From neilmacdonald.me
Neil Macdonald spent 43 years reporting on politics, wars, elections, revolutions, booms, crashes, coups, and the struggles of ordinary human beings in the unforgiving, bewildering rush of history.
He worked as an editor and reporter in three newspapers before moving to CBC News, for which he covered Quebec before moving to Parliament Hill, then abroad as a foreign correspondent in the Middle East and Washington, DC., and finally as the CBC’s opinion columnist.
He has stood in Iraq watching missiles strike, in Bethlehem watching people welcome the new millennium, in Jerusalem watching an intifada erupt, and in Chicago watching Barack Obama accept the American presidency. He followed the Pope through the Holy Land, tracked down Hitler’s last general in Europe, covered the triumphant arrival and subsequent humiliation of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, revealed the plotters who killed Rafiq Hariri in Beirut, and documented the financial horrors unleashed on America’s cities by Wall Street.
He speaks French, having grown up in Quebec, reasonably good English, and sufficient Arabic. He lives in Ottawa.
Learning at home? Here’s a list of links to take you on a “Virtual Field Trip”
COVID-19
Study finds nearly half of ‘COVID deaths’ had no link to virus

MxM News
Quick Hit:
A groundbreaking new study has delivered a searing indictment of the global health and media establishment’s COVID death narrative. According to Ian Miller’s analysis on OutKick, a thorough investigation into hospital deaths in Greece reveals that nearly half of the cases officially labeled as “COVID deaths” had nothing to do with the virus. The findings undermine years of data used to justify lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates. Miller argues that the so-called scientific consensus pushed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the media is collapsing under the weight of real evidence.
Key Details:
-
A Greek study found that 45.3% of registered COVID deaths were not caused by COVID at all.
-
Just 25.1% of deaths were directly caused by the virus, with 29.6% contributing indirectly.
-
Only 54.9% of death certificate-listed COVID deaths matched reality after rigorous review.
Diving Deeper:
For years, COVID death tallies dominated media coverage and shaped public policy. Networks like CNN broadcast running totals, while bureaucrats and politicians used them to enforce sweeping restrictions. But according to OutKick’s Ian Miller, a new peer-reviewed Greek study discredits much of that narrative by proving that the way deaths were defined was deeply flawed—and in many cases, outright misleading.
“In Greece, a more concise and simple definition was used, defining as COVID-19-associated death, any death occurring in a person with positive testing for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of death,” the researchers stated. That definition, however, failed to discern whether the virus actually caused the death.
The study, which covered seven major hospitals in Athens over an eight-month period in 2022, went beyond death certificates. Researchers analyzed medical charts, lab results, imaging data, and conducted interviews with treating physicians. As Miller notes, they did “the work that the ‘expert’ community should have been doing” all along.
The findings were stunning. Just 133 of the 530 recorded deaths (25.1%) were directly due to COVID. Another 157 (29.6%) were cases in which COVID contributed to a chain of events. But a full 240 deaths—45.3%—had no connection to the virus, despite being officially registered as COVID deaths.
What’s worse, Miller reports that death certificate data was wildly unreliable. COVID was listed as the primary or contributing cause in 528 out of 530 cases. After the study’s thorough review, that number dropped to 290. “Just 54.9% of the deaths labeled as primary or contributing COVID, per death certificates, actually met that criteria,” Miller writes.
The data also crushed another major narrative: that the unvaccinated were overwhelmingly the ones dying. Of the 290 deaths partially or fully attributed to COVID, 53.8% were fully vaccinated or boosted. In the group labeled “with” COVID, that figure jumped to 63.3%. “Remember the ‘95% of deaths are among the unvaccinated!!!1!!’ hysteria?” Miller quipped. “There was no statistical significance to vaccination when it came to predicting outcomes.”
And perhaps most damning, 42.5% of COVID-positive patients had contracted the virus inside the hospital—despite mandatory masking and PPE policies. “Because masking does not stop COVID transmission,” Miller points out bluntly.
Miller didn’t mince words in his conclusion: “This study quite frankly obliterates almost every single facet of ‘expert’ and scientific consensus. Masking doesn’t work. A significant portion of COVID deaths were not directly caused by the virus… and death certificate data is not reliable.”
As policymakers and media figures continue to sidestep accountability, this study provides hard proof of what many Americans already suspected: the public was misled. And those who raised questions were dismissed as “deniers” or “conspiracy theorists.” In Miller’s view, this was not just a public health failure, but a failure of integrity and truth. And the consequences, from economic devastation to lost trust in institutions, are still being felt.
COVID-19
US Government ADMITS It Approved Pfizer’s COVID “Vaccine” Despite Knowing About a Long List of Trial Violations

The Vigilant Fox
The US government just admitted something shocking.
They KNEW Pfizer’s COVID “vaccine” trials were a complete sham back in 2020.
But they didn’t pursue fraud because exposing it would blow up the very health policy they’re still clinging to today.
This revelation comes from the whistleblower case of Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia, the company that ran Pfizer’s clinical trials.
In 2021, Jackson filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging that Pfizer, Ventavia, and others committed fraud by falsifying data and violating clinical trial protocols.
And now, the government refuses to investigate further—because doing so would expose that they knowingly pushed a harmful product onto the American people.
We’ll show you the court filings with Brook Jackson in this report.
Here’s what Brook Jackson witnessed firsthand.
As regional director at Ventavia, the company running Pfizer’s vaccine trial sites, Jackson said the entire operation was riddled with serious violations. She saw falsified data, trial participants who were unblinded, staff who were poorly trained, and vaccines that were improperly stored.
Worse, she claimed the company FAILED to follow up on adverse events, including serious, potentially life-threatening ones—which recklessly endangered patients and destroyed the integrity of the entire trial.
“We were so inundated with the number of adverse events that we could not keep up,” she said. Pfizer even called asking what the plan was to handle the flood of safety reports.
She said patients weren’t even given full informed consent—her “number one concern.”
Jackson reported these issues to Ventavia. When nothing changed, she went to the FDA.
Six hours later, she was fired. The reason? “I was not a good fit,” she said. “I was not a good fit for reporting fraudulent conduct in a clinical trial.”
Jackson worked at Ventavia for just 18 days but says that’s all it took to get a grasp of the fraud she witnessed.
The court documents reveal a disturbing admission: the government KNEW about ALL the previously listed issues before granting Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s COVID shot.
“The FDA was aware of the protocol violations allegedly witnessed by relator BEFORE it granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for its vaccine.”
That’s the quote from page 19 of the court documents.
The “Relator” they’re referring to is Brook Jackson.
If Jackson’s allegations were true, it would completely undermine the trial’s integrity.
So what did the FDA do with that knowledge?
According to Jackson, nothing.
“I called them. I filed a report. Did they investigate the allegations I was making? The answer is no,” she said.
In a second slap in the face to the American people, the government claimed they moved forward with the COVID shots because they had “continued access” to Pfizer’s vaccine clinical trial data.
That’s the same data the FDA tried to hide for 75 years.
Now that it’s been forced into the light, we know exactly what they were trying to cover up—data showing:
• Heart damage in young people
• A massive volume of adverse events
• Biodistribution to vital organs and dangerous accumulation
• Reproductive harm affecting fertility and pregnancy outcomes
• Deaths and severe injuries linked directly to the shot
• COVID-19 listed as a side effect
• Complete failure to stop transmission
• And much, much more.
They had access to it all. And they pushed the shots anyway.
The most disturbing admission of all comes in the third point of the case.
The court filing states:
“The government further explained that discovery and litigation obligations associated with the case would place significant burdens on FDA, HHS, and the Department of Justice and that the government should not be required to bear such burdens on a case ‘inconsistent with its health policy.’”
In plain English: the government didn’t want to investigate Pfizer, not because the fraud claims lacked merit, but because digging deeper would conflict with its official narrative that the COVID shots are “effective.”
That’s the health policy they’re clinging to.
And they’d rather bury anything that threatens to expose flaws, fraud, or harm from these shots than face the fallout of their own actions.
Jackson emphasized that her lawsuit is about one thing: fraud.
She questioned how exposing fraud could possibly go against public health policy, especially when that policy has never even been clearly defined.
“These were our taxpayer dollars used to fund their experiments,” Jackson said, adding, “these [COVID shots] are not safe or effective products. They’re contaminated, they’re dangerous, and they need to be stopped immediately.”
She called for a full recall, congressional investigations, and accountability for the dangerous experiment that’s been carried out on the American people.
“Fraud should not be allowed to be a part of a clinical trial. Period.”
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to this page for more COVID reports and stories that matter.
Watch the full conversation with Brook Jackson and Maria Zeee below.
-
International2 days ago
Ice Surprises – Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets Are Stabilizing and Growing
-
Alberta2 days ago
Energy projects occupy less than three per cent of Alberta’s oil sands region, report says
-
Energy2 days ago
Oil tankers in Vancouver are loading plenty, but they can load even more
-
Energy2 days ago
Carney’s energy superpower rhetoric falls flat without policy certainty
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again
-
Alberta2 days ago
Charges laid in record cocaine seizure
-
Autism1 day ago
NIH, CMS partner on autism research
-
conflict2 days ago
WATCH: U.S. ending bombing campaign on Yemeni militant group