Pages

Subscribe for free email notifications for new articles:

May 28, 2021

The Lies Exposed by the Numbers: Fear, Misdirection, & Institutional Deaths (An Investigative Report)

On April 30th, 2021, Canada published a weekly COVID-19 epidemiology report that included a simple breakdown of cases and deaths linked to outbreaks, organized according to the location of the source of infection. Beneath the unassuming superficial appearance of this data set lies the incriminating key to exposing (and prosecuting) a jaw dropping series of scandals.

Once the data is put into context, clear proof emerges that gross negligence on the part of government policymakers directly led to the preventable deaths of thousands, most especially among the most vulnerable that the government claims to be trying to protect. The data also makes it crystal clear why "two weeks to flatten the curve" turned into a never-ending 15-month nightmare and why lockdowns as a strategy were a misbegotten fantasy that was doomed from the start. 

The remarkable story told by the data exposes in almost comical relief just how shamefully the government whipped the public into fear by cultivating a sense of vulnerability that is entirely out of touch with reality. But the data set goes even further than that. Written in black and white in the government's own official numbers, published by the Public Health Agency of Canada, lies the evidence that the blame for much of the dying lies squarely in policymakers' hands for decisions taken on its turf, behind institutional walls, and not with the individual actions and choices made by citizens out in the broader community.

No matter how familiar you think you are with the chaos that has unfolded over the past 15 months, I guarantee you there are surprises in this investigative report for everyone. And I believe it contains the conclusive evidence to hold our leaders legally accountable for the lethal consequences of abandoning long-established pandemic protocols, which were meticulously-documented in the WHO's 2019 pandemic planning guide and which were specifically designed to prevent the epidemic of fear and DIY ad-hoc rule-making that have been on display throughout this crisis. 

So, over the coming paragraphs I am going to take you on a guided tour through the pandemic, simply by providing context to the numbers. The tour starts slowly with revelations that you would expect if you have been paying attention over the past year and a half. But as the layers of evidence begin to stack up, one on top of the other, and the implications of each layer become clear, the fog of the last 15 months of chaos will begin to lift. What emerges is a shocking story of scientific misconduct and breach of trust, which reveals the horrifying - and deadly - consequences of stripping data of context and allowing government to evade transparency. 

I have laid out this horrifying story to help us all gain perspective, to serve as a tool to rescue loved ones from the government's shameless fearmongering, and to provide lawyers with a fully referenced framework, with links to original data sources throughout the text and/or in chart captions, to help them build cases to hold these people accountable for what they have done. 

Table of Contents:


    Prologue: 

    Dr. Bonnie Henry lands a whopper - not every lie requires false data to tell a false story.

    One of the most powerful tools in a magician's toolkit is the art of misdirection: using flashy cues that naturally attract the public's eye in order to distract from that which the magician does not want you to see. But the most skilled masters in this art are politicians and public officials who use it to manipulate public opinion and distract from their own misdeeds. "Cases, cases, cases", anti-lockdown protests, anti-maskers, the pastors that opened their churches, the restaurant that refused to close - these convenient scapegoats are the noisy tools of misdirection exploited by our government throughout this crisis. Now I'm going to turn the camera angle to expose the illusion and show you what the magician has been trying so hard to prevent you from seeing.

    I'm going to start this tour of the pandemic with a brief example of the kind of flagrant misrepresentation of data that has been utilized by health authorities and the media throughout this crisis. This example also introduces some of the key themes and background details that will accompany us throughout the rest of the scandal.

    On April 19th, the Vancouver Sun published a story about the COVID-linked death of an infant under two years old: 

    Figure 1: Dr. Henry referenced the death of an infant under 2 years old to remind everyone of the vicious nature of this virus. Context was dangerously absent from this statement.

    Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC's provincial health officer, took the opportunity to tell the public that the infant's tragic death "reminds us of the vicious nature of this virus." The fear sparked by the headline and by Dr. Bonnie Henry's statement is palpable. Yet buried in the text of the article is the missing context. Dr. Henry was using the magician's tool of misdirection to hide what was in plain sight.

    Figure 2: Excerpt from the Vancouver Sun article in figure 1.

    The very same article goes on to say that this was the very first death under the age of 30 in the entire province of British Columbia (population 5 million)! More than a year (and two waves) into the pandemic! That in itself highlights just how NOT dangerous this virus is to young people under the age 30. 

    Figure 3: Canada's COVID waves (not much of a third wave either), showing the date of BC's first death of anyone under the age of 30. (Source; World in Data)

    To illustrate this point further, let's compare COVID deaths in children (0-19) to influenza and pneumonia deaths in children (0-19). Over the past 15 months of the COVID pandemic, a total of 11 children (age 0 to 19 years) have died of COVID in all of Canada (population 38 million). By contrast, as figure 4 demonstrates, an average of 25 children (age 0 to 19 years) die of influenza and pneumonia every year:

    Figure 4: Comparing COVID deaths to influenza and pneumonia deaths in children aged 0 to 19 years of age. Sources: Statistics Canada and Government of Canada daily epidemiology report for May 7th, 2021

    Now consider a few other tidbits hidden in the meat of the article, which directly contradict the frightening impression given by the headline and by Dr. Henry's statement.

    Figure 5: Excerpt from the Vancouver Sun article in figure 1.

    This infant caught its infection inside the BC Children's Hospital. It was already a patient before catching the virus inside the hospital. A hospital-transmitted infection, not an infection caught at school or out in the community. It was an infection caught behind the doors of a government institution. This matters because it reveals that the infant was not an average healthy child living as part of the regular community, but rather that it had extremely serious pre-existing health conditions, so severe that it required seeking out specialized care.

    Figure 6: Excerpt from the Vancouver Sun article in figure 1.

    Kids do not go to the BC Children's Hospital because they break their arms or come down with chickenpox. The BC Children's Hospital uniquely specializes in treating only the most seriously ill or injured children from across British Columbia (see their About page). Their focus is on providing specialty services found nowhere else in the province. Yet this infant travelled outside of its own health region to receive "specialized care at the BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver" (CTV quote). Its pre-existing conditions must have been serious indeed if the services it required were not available in its own health region. 

    Yet the article neglects to mention what pre-existing conditions the infant had, and Dr. Henry goes out of her way to emphasize that it was the virus and not the pre-existing conditions that led to its death. This deflects from being able to understand the role these pre-existing conditions played in increasing the infant's vulnerability to the COVID virus. And then she immediately misdirects attention elsewhere by following up with a generic statement about risk from the virus (the vicious nature of the virus), which makes everyone recoil in fear and imagine the risks to themselves and their own children. 

    It was a magician's masterful use of misdirection to distract from the actual important facts of this story while heightening everyone's sense of vulnerability. She succeeded in telling exactly the opposite story told by the facts. She hijacked this infant's tragic death to craft an entirely different public message. And her message is pretty difficult to criticize without coming off like a heartless monster that minimizes this infant's tragic death. 

    Linking the sad fate of this infant to the risk posed to the other 1.7 million children and young adults under 30 living in the province is an unconscionable abuse of her authority and a dereliction of her duty to accurately educate the public of its risks. She spread misinformation by creating a false impression of what the underlying facts mean, by emphasizing and dramatizing some facts using extremely fear-inducing language, by withholding context, and by de-emphasizing the most important parts of the story. A lie created without actually falsifying any data. 

    It was a lie worthy of a Pinocchio Award. But it is tiny compared to the big scandal that this investigative report is really about. And, as you shall soon see as the details of this scandal become clear, if Dr. Henry is right that the virus and not the infant's pre-existing conditions were the ultimate cause of its death, then this infant's tragic death was most probably preventable had the government not turned its back on the WHO's pandemic planning guidelines 15 months earlier.

    ~

    Now I recommend that you go get yourself a cup of coffee and find someplace comfortable to sit. Because clearing a path through a 15-month scandal takes more than a few paragraphs, but I promise it will be worth every minute of your time.

    A little housekeeping: opening statements

    Before I begin untangling this scandalous web of lies, here is Health Canada's official definition of an outbreak, just so we are all on the same page as the conversation switches back and forth between deaths linked to outbreaks versus deaths that are not:

    Figure 7: Outbreak - official definition used by Health Canada

    And here is a screenshot of the incriminating outbreak data set, which organizes all 13,789 outbreak-linked deaths by their source of infection. This is the data I am about to put into context, layer by layer. And rest assured, by the time I reach the end of this story all the other 10,613 deaths not linked to outbreaks will also fall into place. They too are an essential part of the larger scandal that I am about to expose.
    Figure 8: The original data: outbreaks by setting. Canada COV ID-19 Weekly epidemiology report, published April 30th, 2021

    The first layer of this story, represented by figure 9 below, uses the outbreak data to show the average number of cases involved in each outbreak, based on the setting where each infection took place. 
    Figure 9: Average number of cases per outbreak (reported cases ÷ reported outbreaks). A tall column = large outbreaks. A short column = small outbreaks). From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    As you can see, the largest outbreaks are community spread. The average outbreak in enclosed settings like schools, restaurants, gyms and even long-term care facilities is smaller than outbreaks caused by just living life in general. It becomes clear that schools, restaurants, gyms, retail stores, etc do NOT cause larger outbreaks than any other settings, despite being the focus of much of the government's ad-hoc rule making.

    If anything, restaurants, schools, gyms, and retail stores produce the smallest cluster of cases if an outbreak does occur.

    But there is one category that should really spark your curiosity because it is missing altogether. Travel. 

    Figure 10: Statistics Canada's records show more than 4.5 million travellers entered Canada during the rush home in March of 2020, and another 10 million travellers entered the country ever since. Yet rather tellingly, travel did not cause sufficient outbreaks to warrant its own category in the outbreak data set.

    Despite more than 4.5 million travellers entering Canada during the peak rush to come home in March of 2020. Despite more than 10 million travellers, an average of over 900,000 per month (!), entering Canada in a steady stream ever since. Despite a significant portion our political classes having travelled to the Caribbean over the winter holidays. Despite the lack of social distancing on airplanes. Despite the millions of travellers who were crammed together at border checkpoints as they waited to get through airport customs and receive medical screenings at the start of the pandemic when the government asked millions of Canadians to come home, all at once (remember the photos and the outrage in the news?), at a time when the government was still telling us that masks and social distancing were not a thing (more on that later). 

    Yet travel did not even warrant its own category as a source of outbreaks. 

    This is the first of a long list of clues exposing how health officials and media have encouraged fearful beliefs about the behaviour of this virus, which are completely out of sync with the story told by the government's own numbers.

    Figure 11: Toronto Star, May 7th, 2020

    But while the location of infections is clearly not playing a big role in the size of outbreaks, there is a huge difference to how deadly outbreaks are in different settings. Not all outbreaks are created equal. The next exhibit is where the story starts to get interesting and population-wide lockdowns start to fall apart.

    Exhibit B: How deadly are outbreaks in different settings?

    This next chart looks at how deadly an outbreak is likely to be if it occurs in different settings. It shows the average number of deaths linked to each individual outbreak in each of these various locations.
    Figure 12: Deaths per outbreak (reported deaths ÷ reported outbreaks). Not every setting has the same kind of people in it. Tall columns are places where high-risk people hang out. Short columns are places where low-risk people hang out. From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    As you would expect, outbreaks in long-term care facilities and hospitals are much more dangerous (more deaths per outbreak) than outbreaks in the rest of community. Outbreaks in schools, gyms, restaurants, local processing plants, personal care, etc, are essentially irrelevant to your statistical risk of dying because they cause so few deaths. A PCR-confirmed case does not automatically unleash the Hellhounds to snap at your heels. The level of risk in different settings are orders of magnitude apart. 

    Of course, that shouldn't surprise us. Residents in long-term care facilities and patients in hospitals are obviously much more vulnerable than the rest of the population because they already have severe pre-existing diseases and/or severely weakened immune systems. They wouldn't be hanging out in these settings if they weren't already sick and vulnerable before catching COVID. 

    I have highlighted this seemingly obvious statement because it is an important building block to understand the eye-popping layers that come later in this story. It foreshadows the first glimpse of the scandal, which will become clear and clearer as the layers add up.

    Another way to look at the outbreak data is to look at what percentage of infections (i.e. cases confirmed by a PCR test) will lead to death in each setting. It reinforces what was clearly shown in exhibit B. Infections in different settings lead to very different outcomes. 

    Figure 13: Percent of cases that lead to death in outbreaks, by setting. (reported deaths ÷ reported cases x 100)
    Tall columns = high risk of death. Short columns = low risk of death. From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    It takes very few infections to lead to an outbreak-linked death in a long-term care facility (1 in 5). But boatloads of people can be infected in nail salons (no outbreak deaths), restaurants (1 in 1004), churches, gyms, and stores (1 in 752), and schools (1 in 9016) while producing next to zero fatalities. Living your life is not dangerous. Having a severe pre-existing health condition or a severely compromised immune system are necessary pre-requisites before you have cause to worry. 

    Apparently those who are sufficiently vulnerable to be at an extreme risk of a dying from a COVID infection are also already so sick and/or so restricted in their ability to move about the community that very few of them are actually visiting any of these other locations. In other words, those who are extremely vulnerable are either so sick or so incapacitated before catching COVID that the majority of them do not go to gyms, restaurants, churches, or nail salons. If they did, these settings would not have so few outbreak-linked deaths. Their pre-existing health conditions are so severe that their health conditions are effectively filtering them from the rest of the community and keeping them bottled up at home or in health care facilities.

    Assessing your personal level of risk from this virus begins by understanding the story told by the simple chart in figure 13. It highlights that people with pre-existing conditions face a much higher risk of death if they catch COVID. The sheer size difference between columns should start making anyone not familiar with these numbers start to sit up and take notice. Let's quantify those differences.

    Exhibit D: Relative risk - not all outbreaks are created equal.

    The different heights of the columns in the previous graph illustrate the difference of risk in different settings. The eye-popping realizations begin when we start crunching the numbers to see just how big the difference actually is. It's absolutely mindbogglingly enormous! Yet this nuanced detail is almost universally absent from the public messaging surrounding this virus.

    • For example: an infection at a school is 1,668 times LESS likely to result in death than an infection at a long-term care facility and 683 times LESS likely to result in death than an infection at a hospital. This virus is not a vicious beast preying on children. It is the Grim Reaper calling early on those already teetering on death's door.
    • A less awkward way of expressing this it is that restaurants are 186 times safer than long-term care facilities and 76 times safer than hospitals. 
    • Gyms are 139 times safer than a long-term care facility and 57 times safer than hospitals. 

    • Working in a meat processing facility is 110 times safer than being a resident at a long-term care facility and 45 times safer than being a patient at a hospital. 

    Common sense tells us that it is not the buildings themselves in each of these settings that changes the level of personal risk, but rather that it is the specific characteristics of the people who are hanging out in them. To a large extent, that's true, but only up to a point. As you will soon see once we get to the meat of this scandal, some of the buildings involved in these outbreaks (and specifically the terrible decisions being made by those who manage them) are actually the most significant part of this whole scandal. Vulnerability + bad management = death. As you will see as the story continues to unfold, infections that result in death almost always require both of these ingredients. One is rarely enough.

    For those who would like to play with the math themselves to compare risks in different settings, here are the raw numbers from the previous graph:

    Figure 14: Deaths per 100 cases (a.k.a Case Fatality Rate), by setting. From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes

    One-size-fits-all policymaking is ridiculous when different demographics have such different levels of risk. 

    This was the tip of the iceberg...

    III - A Tale of Two Populations

    Exhibit E: Spending time in a hospital or long-term care facility is dangerous. But why are there so few people dying outside of institutions? 

    I think we can agree by now that when the virus goes on the hunt, it is finding different kinds of prey in different settings. The most vulnerable prey are those living in long-term care homes, as well as patients in hospitals who are already suffering from other serious pre-existing conditions, like Alzheimer's, dementia, cancer, or leukemia. 

    Children, office workers, mall shoppers, personal care clients, gym-goers, restaurant guests, and industrial workers rarely have such severe life-threatening pre-existing conditions that they become easy prey for this virus. The virus can infect them. But the overwhelming majority of these encounters have a happy ending. A significant number of them will not even experience a single symptom. Mild pre-existing conditions, which many active people in the community have, are not a death sentence. Severity matters. 

    So how many of the total outbreak-linked deaths are from infections caught in these two very specific high-risk settings: long-term care and hospitals? 

    Hold on to your hat... a full 97% of outbreak-related deaths are in long-term care & hospitals/healthcare! 

    Add prison populations and that number rises to a full 98.6%! 

    And I promise, you'll soon understand why I have chosen to add prisons to this select group of settings.

    Figure 15: Outbreak-linked deaths by setting: 98.6% of deaths are linked to outbreaks in just three settings: long-term care facilities, hospitals, and prisons. From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    The remarkable pie chart in figure 15 begins to put the risk to the general public into perspective. Anyone not hanging out in one of these three settings faces an almost inconsequentially small level of risk from this virus. 

    The pie chart demonstrates that this is a crisis that affects people with extremely serious pre-existing health conditions and compromised immune systems. And almost no-one else. 

    But if you think you're beginning to gain perspective, I haven't even started getting to the good bits yet. Remember, there are also large numbers of people with equally serious pre-existing health conditions and compromised immune systems living outside of these three settings, but they are not dying in droves. 

    Why are the vulnerable living outside of these three institutions not suffering the same fate? 

    The eye-popping layers of this scandal begin here...

    Exhibit F: Captive populations vs the rest of the community.

    If you thought that 98.6% number was surprising (it surprised the heck out of me, which is why I started digging deeper into this data set in the first place), I'd now like to point out exactly what these three settings are. The people in these three unique settings are essentially captive populations that are permanently or semi-permanently segregated from the rest of society inside government-owned or government-regulated institutions. (Note: Privately-run nursing homes fall under this category because they are extremely tightly regulated by the government in order to acquire and maintain their licenses. They are privately owned, but they operate according to the government's rules.)

    All three are institutional settings. Everyone who lives in these three settings is either a resident, a patient, or a prisoner. They don't go home at night. They don't mix with the rest of the population. They live there, permanently or semi-permanently. The only way they get to mingle with us is if we visit them. And we are only allowed in after staff members look us over, test us, and let us through the door. The people inside these settings already live behind an institutional wall. They permanently live under some form of lockdown, even when the rest of society does not.

    I'm going to say it one more time, because it's so important to everything else that comes next:

    They already live behind an institutional wall. 

    Which means that, despite all the shaming about our desire to have a BBQ in our backyards with our friends, 98.6% of outbreak-linked deaths are from infections caught and spread inside the walls of tightly controlled institutional environments, not out in the community.

    For the past 15 months these institutions have been closed or severely restricted to the public. If the virus makes it in, it is because staff brought the virus with them to work or when health officials transferred patients from hospitals into long-term care in order to free up hospital beds. !?!

    There is an equivalent of a medieval wall separating the people living inside these institutions from those living outside these walls. Their world and our world is permanently separated by an institutional barrier. There is a door that leads between these two worlds, but the government has the choice to close that door, even seal it, at any time. 

    As long as the government defends that institutional barrier between our two parallel worlds whenever there is a virus circulating outside, the rules imposed on those living outside are largely irrelevant to those living inside. These institutions were designed to function that way. During bad winter flu seasons, staff of long-term care homes have the option to shut the doors and live on the inside with their patients for a few weeks while the worst of the flu surge passes through the population outside. 

    Most pandemic waves last around 6 to 8 weeks +/-, and then the doors can be reopened. 

    That is how long it takes for most respiratory viruses to surge through a healthy population when general population-wide lockdowns are not used to slow the spread. But "flattening the curve" stretches that 6-week period into months, now over a year, and there still isn't enough natural immunity built up outside the walls to safely reopen the doors between these two separate worlds. Isolation kills in its own right. And defending a door for 15 uninterrupted months all but guarantees a steady stream of mishaps that let the virus through the door (more on that later).

    98.6% of all outbreak-linked deaths are the result of infections caught inside these institutional barriers. Only 1.4% are linked to outbreaks in the community at large. That context is probably starting to grow a queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach about how this pandemic is being managed. But this is just the beginning of the scandal.

    Exhibit G: Institutionalized people, the community on the outside, and the wall that divides them.

    I'm going to reorganize the data from the pie chart in figure 15. I'm regrouping all those deaths into two very simple categories because this important distinction sets the stage for the next set of big eye-popping revelations:

    • Institutionalized People (deaths in red column)
    • The Rest of Us (Community) (deaths in blue column)

    Figure 16: Outbreak-linked deaths the "General Public" versus outbreak-linked deaths among people living in institutionalized settings (i.e. long-term care, hospitals, prisons). From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    At this point of the story I'm sure it has become quite clear just how specific this crisis is. Despite the fact that t
    he virus is clearly circulating on both sides of that institutional barrier, the vast majority of the deaths are linked to infections spreading on only one side of that barrier. This is not a general population crisis; it is an institutional crisis. 

    Here is one more shocking view of what is happening on either side of that institutional divide. The little numbers on the pie chart are the actual raw numbers of outbreak-linked deaths in Canada. 13,611 deaths linked to infections caught on the government's side of the institutional divide. And only 178 deaths linked to infections on our side of the institutional barrier. 13,611 vs 178. Those are the hard numbers illustrating the differences of what is occurring on either side of that institutional divide. 

    Figure 17: Outbreak-linked deaths, based on the location where the infection occurred: either behind institutional walls defended by government, or out among the general population. From data shown in Figure 8, calculations in the notes.

    And don't worry, I will soon bring the other 10,613 deaths not linked to outbreaks into the story as this scandal continues to build. We'll climb this layer cake one layer at a time.

    IV - The Old, the Dying, and Who Is at Fault

    Exhibit H: Deflecting blame - first implications.

    When the numbers are sorted along this institutional divide, the data becomes rather shocking.  It doesn't matter what we do on the outside of this barrier. What matters is how well the government controls that barrier. It doesn't matter if every single school, church, shoe store, gym, restaurant, campground, nail salon, and meat packing plant in our country was bulldozed to the ground and vaporized by aliens with ray guns. The deaths on the inside of those institutions would continue, relentlessly, as long as the government fails to defend that barrier.

    98.6% of the dying would continue, relentlessly, even if you arrested every single small business owner, pastor, worshipper, anti-lockdown protester, restauranteur, fitness enthusiast, anti-masker, nail salon owner, hair stylist, college student, party animal, and conspiracy theorist. You could lock us all in a stone quarry and throw away the key. You could increase social distancing to 90 feet. You could make everyone wear 10 masks. The collateral damage to those living outside those institutional walls would become even more extreme that it is already. But 98.6% of the dying would continue anyway as long as the virus continues to circulate inside these institutional walls.

    Blaming those on the outside of that institutional barrier for the disaster happening inside is a convenient distraction that allows the government to try to escape accountability. By making the nuanced details of the epidemiological data so inaccessible to the general public, by refusing to have an honest debate with critics, and by labelling everyone who tries to raise a concern as a "conspiracy theorist", the government is deflecting from the fact that the government and not the general public is the one with marbles in its brain and blood on its hands. The longer this goes on, the greater the panic among the population, and the more extreme the desire becomes to control others using measures that fundamentally misunderstand the problem and, as you shall soon see, serve only to make the problem worse.

    Now that we've taken a little pause to consider the first of the implications of what we've discovered so far, let's dive back into the data. Because now I am going to really blow your socks off. I am going to give you perspective on just how tiny that institutionalized population is and how badly fear is being blown out of proportion for those living outside of this institutional barrier. Put on your seatbelts, because this is where magnitude of the scandal really becomes clear.

    Exhibit I: Risk to the elderly living inside vs outside institutional settings.

    To expose the next layer of the scandal, I first need to take a small step backwards. The following chart is the age distribution of all 24,402 COVID-related deaths in Canada:

    Figure 18: Age distribution of COVID deaths. Source: Canada's official daily epidemiological updates

    You have probably seen the chart in figure 18 before. According to this chart, approximately 86.7% of all deaths in Canada are among people who are 70 and older. That rises to 95.3% if you include those between the ages of 60 to 69. That gives the impression that we are facing a pandemic that preys predominantly on the elderly. There is a kernel of truth to that statement, but only a very small kernel, because unless the age distribution data is combined with contact tracing details to identify the source of each fatal infections, this age distribution data creates a wildly distorted sense of risk.

    According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 9.4 million Canadians over the age of 60 living in Canada today. That's approximately 25% of the population. This demographic would appear, based on the impression created by Canada's age distribution graph, to be the demographic most at risk from the virus. 

    But let's go back to the outbreak data.

    The outbreak data showed that 98.6% of all outbreak-related deaths are among cases caught inside institutional walls. And this is where any last remnants of doubt holding together the lockdown fantasy really come unglued. 

    Not all elderly with pre-existing conditions live inside institutional walls. Sounds obvious, right? But watch closely to what happens next as I put some numbers to the actual size of the high-risk populations living on either side of that institutional barrier.

    • Long-term care residents: according to Census data, there are approximately 160,000 people living in long-term care facilities in Canada. Most (but not all) of those 160,000 long-term care patients are seniors (long-term care also has some younger residents with mental illness, handicaps, head injuries, and other severely debilitating conditions), but for the purpose of this exercise we can pretend they are all extremely vulnerable elderly.
    • Hospital beds: there are approximately 95,000 hospital beds in Canada.* Clearly not all are filled with grievously ill seniors. There are also children's hospitals, maternity wards, ER wards, COVID treatment wards, and so on. And not every bed was full (in Ontario, hospital capacity rarely exceeded 90% at any time during this pandemic and even fell to historic lows (below 70% occupancy) during the first wave, although you may have gotten a different impression from statements of health officials and the scare stories promoted by the media. I have included a chart from Ontario to back up my claim in the notes at the base of this investigative report (figure 56) along with a chart from the UK (figure 57), which demonstrates that low hospital utilization was not unique to our country**. I have also extensively documented the misrepresentation of overwhelmed hospitals in Canada during COVID in a previous article). So, although there are clearly far less than 95,000 seniors living as patients in hospitals in Canada, this number does put an upper bound on the maximum number of seniors that could be exposed to infection inside hospitals at any given time. 
    • Prisons: Canada has approximately 37,000 people incarcerated across the country. Obviously only a small proportion are likely to be elderly, but again it puts an upper bound on the maximum number of law-breaking seniors that could be serving time in prison at any given time. That's good enough for where this story goes next.

    That adds up to a maximum total of 292,000 potential seniors living inside these three institutional settings where 98.6% of the outbreak-linked deaths are occurring, versus at least 9.1 million seniors who live outside of this institutional barrier. A ratio of 1 to 31.

    The following chart puts the size of these two elderly populations in context. Green is the minimum number of elderly living outside institutional walls. Red represents the maximum number of elderly living inside institutional walls where 98.6% of the outbreak-linked deaths happened. 

    Figure 19: Seniors living outside of institutions (low-risk settings) vs the total institutionalized population in Canada (represents the maximum number of potential seniors living in high-risk settings). Our side of the institutional divide looks pretty safe. The government's side of the institutional divide is a disaster zone.

    Imagine for a moment that every single outbreak-linked death had happened in one of these two elderly populations. That would mean 13,611 outbreak-linked deaths occurred among this tiny population of 292,000 elderly living on the inside of the institutional barrier account. Versus only 178 outbreak-linked deaths in a population of at least 9.1 million elderly living outside of the institutional barrier. Our side of the institutional divide looks pretty safe. The government's side of the institutional divide is a disaster zone.

    It's important to point out that many of the elderly among those 9.1 million are every bit as sick and vulnerable as those living on the inside of that institutional barrier but are still living at home. Many are living with the same severe pre-existing conditions that exist inside long-term care homes:

    • Stroke,
    • Heart disease,
    • Chronic lung disease,
    • Cancer,
    • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
    • Diabetes,
    • Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or dementia, 
    • Kidney disease requiring regular dialysis,
    • Morbid obesity,
    • People receiving palliative care at home,
    • People living with HIV who take retrovirals to suppress their immune system,
    • People like my own father, who is head injured and requires 24-hour home-based care and almost always ends up with severe live-threatening pneumonia when he catches a cold. If my mother did not make the huge effort to provide home-based care, he would be living inside one of these long-term care facilities. And he would be among their most vulnerable residents.
    Let's try to put some numbers to how many elderly live outside of these institutions with high-risk pre-existing conditions. 

    Data from the USA on the number of people living with multiple chronic conditions allows us to guesstimate what kind of numbers we're talking about. Canadians are slightly healthier, but these numbers get us in the right ballpark.

    Figure 20: Percentage of Americans living with multiple pre-existing conditions (source). 

    So, let's redraw the same chart shown in figure 19 by projecting the American percentages onto the Canadian population to identify what percentage of the 9.4 million people over the age of 60 are living with multiple chronic conditions in Canada today. 

    • If 50% of people between the ages of 60 and 65, and 81% of people over 65 are living with multiple chronic conditions, we get the ballpark figure of 6.8 million Canadians over the age of 60 living with multiple chronic conditions. This paper by the Canadian Institute of Health Information shows that 74% to 79% of Canadians over the age of 65 have at least one and 50% have at least 2 chronic conditions, but the paper does not include data on 60- to 65-year-olds. So, my guestimate using US numbers is not exact, but it get us in the right ballpark and allows us to understand how risk is divided between those living inside versus those living outside these institutions. Even if we generously pretend that all 292,000 residents inside these institutions are elderly with multiple chronic conditions, that still leaves over 6.5 million elderly Canadians with multiple chronic health conditions living outside of institutions. Yet, at most 178 outbreak-linked deaths can be attributed to this vast vulnerable population living outside of government-controlled walls.
    Figure 21: Seniors with multiple chronic conditions living outside of institutions (low-risk population), vs the total institutionalized population in Canada (represents the maximum number of seniors living in high-risk settings). Our side of the institutional divide still looks pretty safe, even for those with pre-existing conditions. The government's side of the institutional divide is still a disaster zone.

    Yet the large population of vulnerable elderly Canadians with multiple pre-existing conditions who live outside of institutions are NOT dropping like flies. They are doing just fine. But God help those living under the government's care behind an institutional barrier. You can probably guess by now where I'm going to take this investigation next...

    How is it possible that almost all the deaths are stacked on one side, but almost all the people (including the vast majority of those who are extremely vulnerable) are stacked on the other side of this institutional barrier?

    The simple solution is that those on the outside have their own front door - their own defensive wall. Whereas those who rely on the government to defend them behind their institutional doors are being ravaged by this virus, seemingly without end, despite their tiny population. The tightest lockdown in the country, that of institutions, where every move made by every person inside can be controlled, is proving worthless despite being every Central Planner's dream come true. Yet everyday people that the government cannot control, but who are given information and retain the right to make their own choices about whether to leave their homes or bolt their front doors, are coming through this just fine.

    ➤ June 5th update: a research paper published in the Lancet on March 17th, 2021, about the situation in Sweden came to the same conclusions: risk of death is much higher for those living in care homes, and pre-existing conditions are far more important than age. Here are a few quotes:

    "The results suggest that age alone is not necessarily a risk factor for COVID-19-specific death, beyond the “normal” risk of age that is present in absence of the pandemic."

    "Of special note was the relatively higher excess mortality among groups receiving care, suggesting that health status plays a more important role than age for COVID-19 associated deaths. Part of our findings may be attributed to differences in exposure to the virus between individuals receiving formal care and those living independently."

    ~

    If you have a little nagging doubt about the clear-cut story I've laid out so far, then you have been paying attention. Because there is an important loose end that needs to be tied up before I take you into those institutions to explain the scandal that has led to such a high death toll inside them. This scandal is about much more than just numbers presented without context and lies uttered to conceal incompetence. It is about gross criminal negligence causing death. But to credibly reveal the crime, I first have to deal with the other 10,613 deaths that aren't accounted for in the outbreak data. 

    V - The Story of the Pandemic, Told by the Numbers

    Exhibit J: Let's bring in the rest of the data - ALL deaths by setting.

    Now that you understand this institutional barrier, which effectively divides Canada into two separate populations, it's time to bring in the rest of the data not included in the outbreak data set. Let's see how much the picture changes when ALL Canadian COVID deaths are held up against this institutional divide.

    As I showed previously in figure 18, there were a total of 24,402 COVID deaths in the 15-month period ending May 7th, 2021. The outbreak data covered 13,789 of them, leaving 10,613 unaccounted for. It would be nice if the government provided the infection setting on those other 10,613 deaths, but it hasn't. Perhaps contact tracing wasn't possible for these infections. However, we do have some official data that allows us to allocate some of them, and we can give the government the benefit of the doubt and put all the rest on our side of the institutional barrier just to see how much the story changes.

    Here's how I assigned the 10,613 deaths between the two sides of the institutional barrier:
    • The Canadian Institute of Health Information has confirmed that 69% of all COVID deaths happened in just one setting: long term care. Using that number, 69% of the 24,402 total deaths recorded on May 7th is 16,837 deaths in long-term care. Since 12,541 long-term care deaths are already accounted for by the outbreak data (figure 8), that adds another 4,296 deaths to the government's side of the institutional barrier. 
    • If deaths not linked to outbreaks were happening at the same rate as outbreaks in each setting, we would have expected 9,647 (90.9%) of these 10,613 deaths to have occurred in long-term care. Instead, at 4,296, we only got 45% of that, which makes intuitive sense. Infections in closed institutional settings with vulnerable populations are easier to contact trace, so we would expect deaths not linked to outbreaks to be more common outside of institutional walls. So, we will use this same 45% number to guesstimate deaths linked to hospitals and prisons. 
    • The outbreak data (figure 8) showed that 1070 outbreak-linked deaths were linked to infections in hospitals and prisons (844 + 226). So, if the ratios from the outbreak data held true, 817 (7.7%) of the remaining 10,613 deaths would have occurred in hospitals and prisons, but again we'll reduce this to 45% of that amount to account for the fact that it is also easier to contact trace in hospitals and prisons. So, we'll add another 368 deaths to the government's side of the leger. This number is so small that it essentially doesn't matter which side of the ledger they go on in the context of the story.
    • And that's it. That's as all the extra info we have. So, we'll give the government the benefit of the doubt and assign the balance - 5,949 deaths - to our side of the ledger (community spread). Here's what the end result looks like:
    Figure 22: All COVID deaths in Canada, assigned by source of infections, giving the government the benefit of the doubt for any that we don't know the location of infection. Yet, we still see 75% of all deaths occurring inside government institutions.

    These numbers make intuitive sense. But they also continue to expose the dramatic difference in death rates on either side of the institutional divide. 75% of all deaths are linked to infections in institutional settings. 

    75% of all deaths constrained among the tiny population of 292,000 living inside government-controlled institutions. Versus only 25% of all deaths spread out among the 38 million Canadians living outside of government institutions, including more than 6.5 million vulnerable elderly with multiple chronic conditions!

    Just to get a little extra visual perspective, let's recreate a similar chart to the ones shown in figure 19 and 21 to demonstrate the size of each of these populations on either side of the institutional barrier and how deaths are divided between these two separate worlds: 

    Figure 23: Population living inside institutional settings (red) versus everyone else. And how deaths are divided between these two populations.

    Since everyone prefers different types of charts to get perspective on a situation, here is another way to represent the data. I especially like this one:
    Figure 24: The government can't even protect the 292,000 people under its care. The public seems to be doing just fine by comparison.

    It also is worthwhile to reflect back on the 14.5 million Canadians who have travelled into Canada since the pandemic began. Travel didn't even warrant its own category in the outbreak data despite all the PCR testing and contact tracing that focused almost exclusively on travellers throughout the first wave of this pandemic. Yet the tiny population of only 292,000 people living inside institutions (1/50th the number of travellers) managed to rack up 75% of ALL deaths.

    But the story is far from over. The scandal is about to take a darker turn. Now I'm going to show you why lockdowns are not just ineffective, but that they are responsible for many of the COVID deaths that have occurred among the vulnerable, quite possibly including the death of the infant in Dr. Henry's propaganda message at the beginning of this investigative report. The two separate but parallel populations living on either side of the institutional barrier are the key to unlocking the next layers of this scandal.

    On January 29th, 2020, as health authorities first began to take notice of the virus spreading around the world, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, warned that "the epidemic of fear could be more difficult to control than the epidemic itself" and that "any measures that a country is to take must not be out of proportion to the risk." Dr. Tam correctly identified that the greatest risk of pandemic management is fear itself. Yet in the months that followed her warning turned into a prophesy, driven in no small part by her own public messaging.

    The following screenshot comes from the WHO's 2019 pandemic planning guide. It shows the different levels of health measures that a government can use to manage pandemics of various degrees of severity. The reason why these guidelines were created was not just to prevent panic-driven mistakes made in the heat of the moment, but just as importantly to limit government action in order to prevent sparking fear among the population. These guidelines are based on decades of research and on experiences gained from previous respiratory virus pandemics. Study this list carefully. Every limit placed on the government appears to have been ignored.

    Figure 25: Recommended public health measures suitable for pandemics of different severities. From the WHO's 2019 pandemic planning guide.

    The measures used by the government during COVID are "off the chart." Contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry screening at buildings and stores, and border closures are not to be used under ANY circumstances. Not only do these "off-the-chart" measures not work (i.e. experience shows that by the time you close the border, the virus is already circulating inside), they also heighten fear, which risks triggering panic in the population.

    The fact that government also used workplace closures, internal travel restrictions, and school closures would all suggest that we faced a pandemic of high or extraordinary severity. 24,402 deaths sound like a lot, right? You be the judge:

    How severe was the COVID pandemic compared to previous years with normal mortality? The annual total of deaths (all causes) released by Statistics Canada allows us to compare the 2020 COVID year to previous years:

    Figure 26: Total annual deaths per 100,000 (adjusted for the growing population size) from February of 2011 to February of 2021. The trendline laid across the top of the peaks illustrates the long-term growth in deaths attributed to an aging population. Extension above this trendline in 2021 illustrates the magnitude of the extra deaths during COVID beyond the peaks of previous bad flu seasons. Extra deaths are either caused by COVID or by the lockdown measures. Source: Adapted from @Milhouse_Van_Ho (link to original) - the most accurate source tracking official Canadian government COVID data on the internet, found exclusively on Twitter with data sourced from Statistics Canada.

    The blue column represents the first year with COVID and captures the first and almost the entire second wave (see figure 3 for reference). Yet it barely extends above the trendline laid out by previous bad flu seasons. 

    The other thing worth noting is that bad years are typically followed by mild ones. This is not necessarily a result of a more deadly strain of virus. The best analogy, however brutal it may be, is to compare it with the dry tinder that builds up in a forest, waiting for a spark. After a big fire, the forest becomes relatively fire-resistant until enough fresh tinder builds up again. In a flu season, the tinder is, sad to say, the population of vulnerable citizens living, especially (but not exclusively) those living in long-term care facilities where it is particularly challenging to prevent the virus from spreading among residents if it gets inside. COVID comes on the heels of two milder years following the deadly winter flu year of 2017/18 (I provide many examples in this article demonstrating how badly hospitals were overflowing during the 2017/28 flu season). The virus is real, but it is far from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu.

    These numbers may surprise you. 24,402 deaths represents approximately 8% of the total number of people that die in Canada every year. The blue column in figure 26 is nowhere near an 8% bump over the numbers of previous years, even if you measure off the bottom of the 2019 trough. It is easiest to explain this strange phenomenon by looking at this statement in a recent article, made by BC's chief medical officer for the Interior BC region, Dr. Albert de Villiers:

    Figure 27: Source: Castanet News, Kelowna, BC, Half of deaths unvaccinated: May 21st, 2021

    In other words, what Dr. Albert de Villiers is pointing out is that many COVID deaths are deaths with but not from COVID. People who died of other causes but also had a positive PCR test, even if they showed no symptoms from COVID itself. Including people already receiving palliative care - these are people who are dying, imminently, within days or weeks, and there is no longer anything that can be done to stop it.

    Considering that 75% of all COVID deaths in Canada occurred inside government institutions, especially hospitals and long-term care, wouldn't it be nice if the government provided this context? By not making this distinction, it inflates the numbers. That may be useful for epidemiologists to track the spread of a virus, but it is grossly irresponsible and completely contrary to the fiduciary duty of our public health officials to withhold this context while educating the public about their risks.

    Mass PCR testing has never been used before to test all nursing home patients for the presence of respiratory viruses, regardless of their underlying cause of death. It is a well-known phenomenon that the immune systems of people who are nearing the end of their lives are essentially in the process of shutting down. Dying is a process, not a one-day event. As their immune systems slowly shut down, they become increasingly susceptible to picking up all sorts of viruses. In many cases the presence of the virus is merely a side show to the actual cause of death. At most, it is the straw that breaks the camel's back. In many cases the presence of the virus found in a PCR test is as an inconsequential in the patient's death as the flowerpot standing in the corner of the room. If you did mass PCR testing of nursing home patients for all the other respiratory viruses that cause colds and flus (there are hundreds), you would find tons of them. 

    And if you decided to ignore all this context, and simply started doing mass PCR testing for influenza virus in palliative care patients using the lax "case" definition used for COVID, and then gave the virus a fancy name and kept a running case count and death count on the front pages of newspapers, you would be able to create mass panic just like we have today, every single winter. This misuse of a diagnostic aid to do mass PCR testing of every patient and every death in long-term care facilities and hospitals is unethical, it is scientific fraud, and it is a criminal breach of trust in light of the illusion of mass dying that it creates.

    Here's another official confirmation of this inflation of COVID deaths, straight from the official Twitter account of Toronto Public Health:
    Figure 28: Toronto Public Health confirmed on June 24th, 2020, that case counts include deaths with COVID that were not necessarily caused by COVID.

    Figure 29, below, uses Statistics Canada's own data to provide a clue of just how many "COVID" deaths may have been deaths with instead of from COVID. Look at the first three columns in particular - does COVID cure heart disease and cancer? It seems more likely that heart disease and cancer patients who would have died anyway were either misattributed to COVID as a result of a concurrent positive PCR testing, as described by Dr. Albert de Villiers in the Castanet news article, or bad management inside long-term care exposed them to the virus, robbing them of the last few weeks or months of their life by pulling their death forward - the straw that broke the camel's back a few weeks or months early.

    Figure 29: Causes of death during the first year of the pandemic. Adapted from @Milhouse_Van_Ho (link to original), with data sourced form Statistics Canada.

    It's not just the deaths of the elderly that are affected by this phenomenon. In an article in the Toronto Sun on May 21st, 2021, the Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that only 36.6% of children hospitalized with COVID were actually admitted with a COVID infection. In other words, a full 63.4% of children were admitted to hospital for treatment for other non-COVID health issues and caught COVID while they were on the inside of the hospital. Hospital transmission, not community transmission. Just like the infant in Dr. Henry's propaganda masterpiece. Yet another quiet release of real information, against a backdrop of the media and health officials making lots of noise about "cases, cases, cases" and rogue pastors to keep the public distracted and in the dark. The magician's tool of misdirection at its finest.

    Figure 30: Source: Toronto Sun, FUREY: Fewer Canadian kids hospitalized with COVID than previously thought, report shows, May 21st, 2021

    The next chart shows the running totals of weekly deaths (all causes) going back over the last 11 years, ending February 6th, 2021. The clear peaks and troughs in figure 31 represent seasonal variations in death rates caused by the winter flu season. Strong peaks correspond with especially strong winter flu seasons. The strong 2017/18 season is clearly visible. 

    Figure 31: Weekly deaths in Canada over the last 11 years. Adapted from @Milhouse_Van_Ho (link to original), with data sourced form Statistics Canada.

    The first two COVID waves of the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 winter seasons are recognizable on the chart in figure 31, but do not stand out from the pack. A glance to the left shows there are between 5000 and 6000 deaths per week in Canada, every single week of the year, of all causes. In 2019, that added up to a total of 284,082. That's the background of normal mortality in Canada from all causes of death. The gradual rise in death rates over the last decade, which is visible in the chart, is caused by a combination of a growing population and an aging population as the large numbers of baby boomers begin to reach the top of the age pyramid and birthrates fall (I have included a diagram of the changing age pyramid from 1980 to 2020 in the notes at the bottom of this investigative report for those not familiar with how Canada is "aging out"***). 

    In figure 31, COVID stands out as a bad flu year, not as a generational pandemic. It looks virtually indistinguishable from previous bad flu years. Measuring from the centerline (dotted line) to the peaks, even the deadly 1st wave of COVID is approximately the same as the scale of the 2012/13, the 2014/15, and the 2017/18 winter flu peaks. And the second wave, when we spent winter in near endless lockdowns, including curfews in Quebec, endless business closures, and the arrest of multiple pastors across Canada who refused to limit church attendance, that second wave barely counts as a moderate winter season. Overwhelmed hospitals were a complete lie (documented in my previous article here), not because some didn't reach near 100% capacity, but because they do so every year. The last 15 months have been significantly less than usual; for the first time in years no-one was practicing any hallway medicine in Canada. But cancer patients had their treatments cancelled and surgeries delayed. They may pay the ultimate price for the panic.

    One of the "mysteries" of the COVID pandemic has been the disappearance of the winter flu. COVID is now playing the role that influenza used to play - flu deaths have been displaced by COVID deaths. The chart in figure 31 makes that rather obvious. And the insight we gained from the outbreak data, demonstrating that 75% of all deaths are in institutional environments, makes it quite clear that the most vulnerable to COVID are the very same vulnerable people, hanging out in the very same settings, which would have been at risk of severe outcomes from influenza. Anyone can catch it, but the Grim Reaper stalks the vulnerable. A coronavirus playing the role that influenza used to play.

    Health authorities, including Dr. Tam herself, have given the impression that the flu has disappeared because of the effectiveness of masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. That's rubbish. If masks and social distancing and lockdowns can keep other respiratory viruses at bay, why not COVID? COVID and influenza are almost identical in size and are spread via virtually identical mechanisms. Health authorities are taking credit for a natural phenomenon called viral interference and displacement, where a dominant virus suppresses the activity of other viruses. This phenomenon was well-known long before COVID, but they are misusing the fact that the public doesn't know about this phenomenon to validate their health measures. You can learn more about viral interference and displacement in this article

    Another natural phenomenon being used to lie about the supposed effectiveness of lockdowns is that of seasonality. The previous chart in figure 31 showed the natural rises and falls in deaths every winter. The magnitude may change, but the waves are as predictable as winter snow in Canada. Figure 32, from Ontario Public Health, shows the seasonality of the other coronaviruses (at least 4), which circulate in the community and in long-term care facilities every winter as part of cold and flu season. Just because most members of the public hadn't heard about coronaviruses before doesn't change that they have been around for a long time and a lot is known about them. 

    Figure 32: Normal seasonality of all coronaviruses in Canada. COVID-19 is merely the most recent addition. COVID arrived in Canada midway through the 2019/20 winter season (black line), and then tracked the other coronaviruses almost perfectly. And in the 2020/21 season (dark blue), it again appears to be tracking the other coronavirus waves from previous years. There are at least 4 other coronaviruses that have long been part of the regular annual smorgasbord of over 200 respiratory viruses that cause colds and flus every year (source). Chart annotations are mine.


    Bear in mind that the chart in figure 32 was published by our own health officials - they're even the ones who added the COVID numbers! Yet after every wave of COVID, health officials all around the world persist in taking credit for the natural seasonal downturn in virus activity - a natural and predictable phenomenon. It's like taking credit for the sun rising in the East. 

    Figure 33: Dr. Tam giving public health measures (and compliance) credit for the natural seasonal variability of coronaviruses (source).

    No, Dr. Tam, we did not do that. Seasonality did.

    A remarkable article published in the Telegraph on May 14th, 2021, reports that a group of scientists have admitted to using of fear to control people's behaviour during the COVID pandemic. Abir Ballan of Pandata.org, which has been compiling epidemiology data from around the world to provide the transparency that our governments have abandoned, reported on the article on Twitter. I encourage you to read her full thread - it is eye-opening, to say the least.
    Figure 34: Partial thread by Abir Ballan on Twitter discussing the breaking story in the Telegraph of scientists admitting to using fear to control people's behaviour. I encourage you to read her full thread.

    What these health officials and scientific advisory boards have done is not just shameless exploitation. It is scientific fraud, with real, serious, and deadly consequences for all those whose lives are being destroyed by lockdowns. This fear-driven public messaging reinforces the idea that if you want to save grandma, you must control the behaviour of people living out in the community, outside of institutional walls. It reinforces the myth that lockdowns work. That lockdowns save lives. That masks and social distancing and well-behaved pastors and hairdressers are the key to keeping everyone safe. 

    This idea is not just false. This strategy is actually killing people. And I don't just mean deaths caused by collateral damage from lockdowns. I also mean COVID deaths themselves, because lockdowns drag out the length of the pandemic, leading to thousands of unnecessary and entirely preventable deaths from COVID among the most vulnerable. Added together across the world, this could easily stretch into millions of preventable COVID deaths by the time this madness ends. This may sound like an extreme claim; let me walk you through it. We have reached the part of the story where their gross criminal negligence is laid bare in its rawest form.

    VI - Exposing the Fantasy: How Lockdowns, Masks, and Fear Made the Dying Much Worse



    The fantasy of lockdowns is that they flatten the curve:
    Figure 35: The fantasy behind flattening the curve.

    That is just plain wrong. You saw the real-world data with your own eyes. Death from respiratory viruses follow a cyclical seasonal pattern. You can't stretch the season. You can only blunt the top of the peak by transferring infections to the next season. COVID, like all other coronaviruses and influenza, is seasonal. 

    We used lockdowns to slow the spread of the virus. We now have two whole seasons behind us, but thanks to lockdowns slowing down the spread among the healthy and the least vulnerable, the community at large has still not achieved herd immunity. This means that the vulnerable are still trapped behind locked doors, either in institutions or at home. And they are still at risk of catching the virus from every single community member they encounter, 15 months in and no end in sight. "Flatten the curve" was just a noble-sounding euphemism for "keep the vulnerable at risk for more than 15 months by preventing the community from building a protective ring of natural herd immunity around them."

    Yet if the government had followed the pandemic planning guidelines and provided focused protection for the vulnerable, while allowing the virus to spread among the rest of society as the winter flu does every winter, then the vulnerable would have been able to get back to their lives after 6 to 8 weeks of carefully guarding their doors.

    Figure 36: Lockdowns create wave after wave of smaller seasonal waves, thus condemning the vulnerable to be at permanent risk from the rest of society. The longer this process takes, the more of them will be exposed to the virus, despite the best efforts to keep the doors locked, thus increasing death among the vulnerable. Lockdowns mean the dying never ends among the vulnerable because they remain at risk from the community around them.

    Remember the chart in figure 3, at the beginning of this investigative report, showing the waves of deaths in Canada? The second wave is extremely important to understand the impact of lockdowns:
    Figure 37: Canada's COVID waves (not much of a third wave either), showing the date of BC's first death of anyone under the age of 30. (Source; World in Data)

    As you know, the overwhelming majority of deaths occurred among the extremely vulnerable, particularly among those living in long-term care and among patients going to hospitals to seek treatment for other conditions, just like the infant in Dr. Henry's propaganda story. If the government had not imposed lockdowns, herd immunity would have been achieved in the broader community by the end of the first wave. Thus, there would have been very few symptomatic infections circulating in the broader community by the time this infant was admitted to the BC Children's Hospital. Which means there would also have been far fewer patients bringing the virus into the hospital and far less risk of this infant with pre-existing conditions getting exposed to it. Without lockdowns, there may not have been a virus waiting to take down this infant by the time it arrived at the BC Children's Hospital 14 months after COVID arrived in Canada.

    The key to protecting the vulnerable is to dry up the virus outside. The gross negligence of abandoning pandemic planning guidelines has ensured that it is still there. Gross negligence may be the reason why this infant's death was entirely preventable. It most certainly caused the death of countless others because it created the conditions to sustain a pandemic without end. A very large portion of the second wave of deaths (and beyond) were entirely preventable if the vulnerable inside institutions had been given focused protection during the first wave while the virus was allowed to circulate freely outside among the healthy community. In other words, much of the second wave of dying was preventable if the pandemic planning guidelines had not been ignored. DIY pandemic management means these health officials and politicians have millions of deaths on their consciences. And they will need to answer for them in a court of law once the hysteria subsides.

    And it doesn't stop there. The number of vulnerable citizens is not a fixed population. Even as some gain immunity and others die of natural causes, their numbers are constantly being replenished with newcomers who join the ranks of the vulnerable. If the virus had been allowed to circulate freely in the community without lockdowns (focused protection only), there would only have been a 6 to 8 week period during which the vulnerable would have needed focused protection (bolted doors), but by extending this period over 15 months, thousands of people who were not vulnerable during the 1st wave have now been added to the ranks of the vulnerable, perhaps because they became ill with cancer, or leukemia, or heart disease. 

    And, because many of these once healthy but now sick individuals did not acquire herd immunity while they were still healthy during the first wave, they do not bring any immunity with them to long-term care homes and hospitals, and they do not have the necessary immunity to fight off COVID if they catch it now that they are weak. By denying them the chance to get exposed to the virus while they were strong, they now face a significantly higher risk of death if they are exposed to it while they are weak. 

    For example, the infant in the Dr. Henry's propaganda story may or may not have already had pre-existing conditions during the first wave. Perhaps it only developed these vulnerabilities after the second wave. Had the virus been allowed to circulate freely in the community during the first wave, there would have been a lot lower risk of the virus being present in the hospital when the infant arrived for treatment. And perhaps, if schools and daycares and workplaces had not been shuttered during the first wave, the infant may already have acquired immunity to the virus during the first wave, which would have prevented it from dying when it caught COVID after arriving at the BC Children's Hospital. 

    And consider long-term care home populations. This article from the US show that the average length of stay in a long-term care facility before death is 13.7 months, while the median length of stay is only 5 months. This means that half of all long-term care residents live less than 5 months in long-term care. They don't have time for a year-long lockdown. Three separate "crops" of long-term care patients have come and gone since COVID began. And yet there is still no safety to be found inside these institutions because the virus still hasn't been allowed to burn itself out outside.

    Lockdowns have stretched out the isolation so long that many of these patients have been robbed of the last precious months with family members and were left to face death in isolation, without the dignity and comfort of being surrounded by loved ones during their most difficult moments. It breaks my heart. Some, like Nancy Russell, chose euthanasia rather than face the isolation of another lockdown.

    And yet our health officials had the all the information needed to prevent this from happening and demonstrated knowledge of those pandemic planning guidelines before they abandoned them. 
    Figure 38: Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    And they didn't just ignore guidelines. They systematically and knowingly violated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is meant to act as the ultimate buffer against this kind of DIY rulemaking. Section 1 of the Charter places the burden of proof on the government to justify any limits put on our rights and freedoms - in a court of law - before it has the right to impose those limits. I have reproduced Section 1 of our Charter for you in Figure 38. It is an obligation placed on government to provide the burden of proof before it can limit our rights and freedoms. Section 1 gives us our right to demand transparency and public debate. It specifically denies government the arbitrary right to decide when some "greater good" is sufficiently important for government to unilaterally suspend our rights and freedoms.

    Thanks to these inalienable individual rights, health orders can only be recommendations, not mandatory orders, unless they pass the burden of proof (in a court of law) as required by Section 1 of our Charter. Thus, even if health officials and politicians were too incompetent or too uninformed to follow the pandemic planning guidelines, all they should have been able to do is make stupid and ill-advised recommendations. Our constitutional rights should have prevented them from imposing mandatory lockdowns and other measures to "flatten the curve", which have dragged out this pandemic for more than 15 months and counting. It would have eliminated the government's ability to control the community, yet everyone would have retained the right to bolt their own doors (and therefore assure their own safety while the virus raged outside), and the government's responsibility to defend the doors of institutions would have remained unchanged, with the exact same tools available to them as have been available during lockdowns.

    The legal process required for the government to pass this burden of proof is called the Oakes Test. It is meant to force politicians, health officials, and scientists through a gauntlet of debate and evidence-based discussion and stop them from engaging in ad-hoc rulemaking. This never happened. And because every other country is doing it too, it normalized the idea that our inalienable individual rights have been downgraded to conditional individual rights. But they are not.

    Lockdowns are an experiment that has never been done before. A type of medieval medical experiment, involving billions of lives, without a shred of evidence to support it, despite clear guidelines not to do it, and despite human rights meant to prevent it. Lockdowns are illegal. Every single health official and politician that imposed them must stand trial for human rights violations once the panic subsides and people come to their senses, because that is the legal term for when mass violations of human rights occurs, and when large numbers of deaths happen as a result.

    Sadly, that is not the only thing they will have to answer for in a court of law. The game they have been playing to use fear to control people's behaviour has also had lethal consequences, on top of those already caused by lockdowns. That's the next chapter of this scandal. And as usual, it is the vulnerable inside institutions that are paying the price, with their lives, for the direct consequences of the panic that was intentionally provoked by our government.

    Exhibit M: The price of fear.

    Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal. The fear whipped up by health care officials, politicians and media during COVID is the medical equivalent of this crime. Fear combined with a disregard for our constitutional rights and freedom produced an especially toxic and deadly combination. It focused the full force of human creativity on a singular mission to control other people "for safety" in a hysterical "anything goes" free-for-all that was released from the limiting restraints provided by individual rights, unshackled from the brakes of democratic norms, and exempt from the need to provide transparent evidence and engage in debate, which are essential for science to function properly.

    I shall begin with the fear caused by face masks, whose effectiveness has no demonstrable basis in science, but which have served to create a constant visual reminder of danger and heighten the public's sense of fear. The consequences of relying on face masks, and the fear that was unleashed by them, play a huge role in explaining why the tiny population of only 292,000 citizens living in institutions suffered more than 75% of all deaths in Canada.

    Here's what the WHO has to say about face masks in their 2019 pandemic planning guidelines:

    Figure 39: Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard to test if a measure works. It was well-known before COVID that face masks have no effect on the spread of respiratory viruses (Source: the WHO's 2019 pandemic planning guidelines).

    I have previously written about the scientific explanation for why face masks don't work and the consequences of trying to protect the vulnerable with what ultimately amounts to a placebo. I will briefly summarize the key takeaways relevant to the discussion in this investigative report. The study of droplets and aerosols shows that coughing and sneezing produces droplets that are predominantly larger than 5 microns in diameter (the virus itself is around 0.12 microns in diameter). Any droplet larger than 5 microns will quickly settle out of the air because of gravity. So, unless a drop settles on your finger and then you pick your nose, it is difficult to introduce these droplets into your respiratory system. That's why hand washing works. 

    But regular breathing produces aerosols of around 0.07 microns and congested breathing (i.e. from symptomatic people) produces aerosols of 0.2 to 0.5 microns. These are small enough to stay suspended in the air for a long time, to get sucked through ventilation ductwork, to get inhaled, and to go through N95 masks and HEPA filters. N95 masks and HEPA filters only reliably catch particles down to 0.3 microns in size, so they mostly catch what gravity solves anyway. A 0.12-micron virus inside a 0.2-micron aerosol passes right through. This knowledge about aerosol sizes explains the results of the randomized controlled studies. Masks are pointless for stopping respiratory viruses, even though they are useful for larger particles like bacteria, dust, and pollen. 

    In the early days of the pandemic, every single health authority all around the world told us that face masks don't work and that we should not wear them. They were correct. This message in the early days of the pandemic demonstrates a clear knowledge of the WHO pandemic planning guidelines and the established science on masks:

    Figure 40: March 30th, 2020 - Dr Tam in the news: mixed messaging ignited fear among the public. Dr. Tam was right in both statements, but without context it unleashed unbridled panic. 

    Health authorities also told the public that frontline healthcare workers do need them (also correct), but without telling them why (to protect against bacteria and to protect health care workers from splashes of contaminated liquids (i.e cough splatter, urine, etc) while on the job). This mixed messaging created the impression that the government was downplaying the risks because the context for why health care workers and long-term care staff do need masks was so poorly communicated.

    The government didn't fix its inept wording to explain the nuanced details between these seemingly contradictory messages. Fear increased and mask shortages increased. Care home staff were left short and scared because they felt unprotected. Many fled, leading to countless unnecessary care home deaths around the world among patients who were abandoned in their beds (example from Dorval, Quebec). The analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater is remarkably apt.

    At this point it was obvious that the public had latched onto a false idea of safety and was winding itself into a knot of fear. But instead of recognizing what was happening and working to try to allay those fears, the government capitulated to those fears and gave the public (or at least the noisy voices in click-hungry media) what it wanted - a mask recommendation - thereby reinforcing the sense of danger with a permanent visible symbol that reminds everyone that everyone else is to be feared. 

    They made this switch without offering a single new randomized controlled study - it was pure theory pulled out of thin air (in my article series about face masks, I also documented the source of the sudden about-face on masks - political lobbying, not science). Now, instead of just fearing those who cough, sneeze, and wheeze, fear increased to include everyone who breathed. This started the snowball rolling towards mandatory mask laws, mandatory social distancing, PCR testing of asymptomatic people, and mandatory lockdowns, because once everyone was wearing a mask, everyone looks dangerous. And if everyone is dangerous, then everyone's survival depends on controlling the movements and even the breathing of others. Fear is not rational. That is why public health officials must work so hard to prevent it. They must never give in to impulses that promote it, much less use it as a tool to shape behaviour, because these forces are not controllable once they are unleashed. And the unintended consequences are deadly.

    Figure 41: The Public Health Agency of Canada's stance on masks in March of 2020. "Wearing a mask when you are not ill may give a false sense of security." 

    The first of these unintended deadly consequences is that masks provide a false sense of security for those who are vulnerable. While most of us should have carried on living our lives, as blissfully unaware as possible, those who are vulnerable should be educated to keep a heavy door between themselves and the rest of society while the viral wave passes. But a mask gives a false sense of security, encouraging them to mingle when mingling poses a mortal risk. Real world outbreaks, like the outbreak at Tönnies meat packing plant in Germany, show that a symptomatic worker infected fellow co-workers as far as 26 feet away, despite everyone in the facility wearing a mask, including the symptomatic spreader. So much for social distancing. So much for masks.

    This video from Dr. Theodore Noel's video demonstrates how little masks affect the aerosols released by exhaling (you can see more of his videos on his YouTube channel here):

    Asymptomatic people will have little or no virus particles inside the aerosols they exhale. But the aerosols exhaled by symptomatic people will be saturated with virus particles. The big drops that are expelled by coughs and sneezes quickly end up on the floor. But the tiny particles exhaled during normal congested breathing will be floating around the room and get sucked through heating ducts, just as they did on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

    As the video demonstrates, if the vulnerable go into a room with other masked individuals, they will not be protected against virus-containing aerosols expelled by breathing. How many vulnerable people living outside of government institutions died because of the false sense of security provided by masks? While the rest of us should have been mingling, they should have been getting their groceries delivered to the door. But why worry, with masks to protect them, right?

    But the biggest sin was what happened in long-term care homes. Again, the endless list of catastrophes just don't end for nursing home residents. Because the government appears to have believed its own bullshit. Who needs science-based policies when you have a recommendation from someone with fancy credentials and a lab coat?

    The default attitude when randomized controlled trials don't show any evidence of a mask working is to create policies that err on the side of them not working, not to assume that they do. Trust the pandemic planning guidelines, not a political recommendation used to pander to a frightened public. But instead of focusing on ventilation to exhaust contaminated air and adopting strategies to divide residents into separate air spaces without ventilation ducts connecting them in order to minimize mixing of aerosols between patients, masks and air filtration took the lead with their false promise to protect staff and residents from infection.

    Up to 44% of deaths could have been prevented by eliminating staff cross-traffic between nursing homes. But why worry, there's little risk if staff and residents are protected by masks, right?

    Asking staff to live inside nursing homes with residents while doors remained sealed shut is a proven effective strategy to protect the vulnerable while the viral wave passes outside. Few nursing homes used it. Everyone's wearing a mask, so why worry, right?

    The experience of the COVID outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in February of 2020 showed rather clearly, long before COVID arrived in Canada, that the virus could spread effectively through ventilation ductwork. But why worry if masks and air filters work, right? Why trust real world experience as shown by the Diamond Princess petri dish, when you have a lab coat-endorsed recommendation?

    This article published on Aerosol and Air Quality Research discusses the spread through the ventilation system on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Princess Cruises has "confirmed that the HVAC filtration system on the Diamond Princess ship is comparable to those used by land-based hotels, resorts and casinos". The authors go on to explain that "HVAC systems in commercial setting have a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 5–8, in which MERV refer to the effectiveness of air filters in HVAC. And even in superior residential, commercial, and industrial spaces HVAC systems usually have a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 9–12."

    Isolating mask-wearing long-term care residents in their rooms achieved little as long as there was ductwork throughout the building. Even a HEPA filter is not much different than a mask - aerosols might not be able to go around a filter like they can around a mask, but they can still pass straight through. A 0.12-micron virus particle inside a 0.2-micron aerosol fits through 0.3-micron hole as easily as a mosquito through a chain-link fence. The default assumption based on both real-world experience and all the randomized controlled trials should have been that ducts and air filtration are not the solution to protecting the vulnerable in institutions. Opening windows would have achieved far more. 

    And no, electrostatic forces are NOT a solution to stopping a virus with a HEPA filter. Here are a couple of quotes from a research article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which sums up the issue better than I can:

    "While US hospital construction standards require a minimum of MERV 13 or MERV 14 filtration for both fresh and recirculated air, this level of filtration is not capable of reliably removing viral particles.[author's note: HEPA grade filters start at a MERV rating of 13]

    "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that hospitalized persons be placed in a single person room with the door kept closed, and that an airborne infection isolation room (AIIR), also known as a negative pressure room, be used for such patients who may require an aerosol generating procedure in an effort to contain potentially infectious aerosols from patients known or suspected of an active infection due to SARS-CoV-2."

    "Beyond acute care hospitals, nursing facilities typically have little to no capacity to provide an AIIR for patients. Instead, nursing facilities tend to transfer patients suspected of an infectious disease transmitted by small particle aerosols to a hospital for care and isolation in an AIIR for the duration of the period the patient may be contagious."

    The inability of air filtration to stop virus particles is a known fact in hospital construction. They know electrostatic forces are not able to reliably overcome the size differential between a 0.2-micron aerosol and a 0.3-micron hole. Virus containment requires a negative pressure room to stop the spread despite HEPA filtration. Thus, the default position is to build policies around long-established research that filtration is not "capable of reliably removing viral particles" and NOT to suddenly believe they work.

    Even the filter manufacturers are very careful to avoid making definitive legal claims that their filters are able to do anything reliably below the 0.3 micron range, despite glowing discussions about electrostatic forces being able to attract some smaller particles. These marketing claims are not backed up with hard numbers about any particles sizes being reliably stopped below 0.3 microns, much less what percentage of the sub-0.3 micron particles are trapped by these electrostatic forces. It is also well-known that chemical aerosols are able to pass straight through, despite also being below 0.3 microns - these tiny chemical aerosols need activated carbon filters to stop them so it would be very bizarre is similarly small virus-containing aerosols would follow different physical laws. Electrostatic forces are extremely weak forces. 

    Here are two quotes taken from the Vaniman website, a manufacturer of HEPA filters, about the inability to reliably filter viruses with HEPA filters: 

    "The sad truth is that some viruses will inevitably pass through any HEPA filter."

    "Overtime, with enough volume or use, particles will eventually separate and penetrate the filter due to their sub-micron size."

    Yet despite everything that the health care industry knows about viruses, negative pressure rooms, and the limitations of air filtration, health officials nonetheless convinced themselves that it would be a good idea to transfer COVID-19 infected patients from hospitals into long-term care wards in order to free up hospital beds. If anything, transfers should have been going in the opposite direction to get infected patients out of long-term care before they infect the other vulnerable residents. But hey, everyone's wearing masks, and there's air filtration in the ducts. No problem, right? And this deadly practice didn't just happen once. Even New York's disaster didn't stop the practice. Ontario was still transferring other hospital patients into long term care to free up beds in late April of 2021, after 15 months of evidence stacking up to show how dangerous this practice is!?! All it takes is one infected patient to introduce it into the entire building. 

    While they were gambling with the lives of the nursing home residents, they were lecturing us about delaying haircuts. Those stupid naughty plebs, why won't they listen to their enlightened lab coats? Children, don't even think about going to see your friends, you might kill grandma! All that collateral damage... if only pastors wouldn't open their churches so we could reach COVID-Zero! Some lessons are never learned because hubris gets in the way. The scale of our health officials' incompetence is staggering.

    Meanwhile, many hotels stood empty, with tourism essentially on hold. Why weren't these used to make sure the hospital patients were kept as far away as possible from the vulnerable inside long term care facilities? Instead, hotels are now being used to quarantine the healthy when they come over the border, in direct violation of the pandemic planning guidelines.

    How many extra lives have been lost in Canada due to these horrific decisions and as a result of the horrific fear mongering? I don't know. Many. The dying hasn't stopped. The next wave will probably begin as flu season returns this fall. All because lockdowns have ensured that there still isn't enough herd immunity among the healthy low-risk members of the community to protect the vulnerable. But that's where the vaccine comes in, right? That's were we're going next in this scandal of endless preventable dying. Another sacred cow is on its way to slaughter...

    I am left to wonder if we subtracted all the preventable COVID deaths from the totals, along with all the misattributed deaths, how many would be left? Would this pandemic stand out as anything unusual next to all the previous flu seasons? Because the healthy would not have died in larger numbers without lockdowns. But the vulnerable would have died in far fewer numbers without lockdowns. The epidemiological data and the lessons learned from the outbreak data set makes that quite clear - those at risk of death are a very specific vulnerable population. The more perspective we get, the more clear it becomes that this was largely a wave of dying caused by gross negligence on the part of the government.

    The collateral damage caused by panic and by stretching this out over 15 months (and counting) has been enormous. If life had carried on as per the WHO pandemic planning guidelines, life would have gotten back to normal about 12 months ago, with far fewer deaths. 

    And the collateral damage caused by the lockdowns in the community are spiralling. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario is overwhelmed by so many children with mental health crises (caused by lockdowns) that it is on the verge of transferring patients to adult hospitals. Overdose deaths are soaring. Hundreds of thousands of medical treatments, surgeries, and diagnostic tests for serious high-risk high-mortality diseases, like cancer, were delayed or cancelled all around the country, priming us for an upcoming wave of additional unnecessary deaths because these patients didn't get the care they needed in the early stages of their diseases. And millions around the world have been pushed into poverty and starvation. All these lives matter too. Pinning our hopes on vaccines as an exit strategy has been exceedingly costly, a price paid in many many lives.

    Evaluating the vaccine as an exit strategy

    Exhibit N: The opportunity cost of waiting for a vaccine and ignoring pandemic planning guidelines.

    The government and much of the public has embraced vaccination as the exit strategy for this crisis. 

    Figure 42: Government of Ontario reopening plan.

    The logistical problems of rolling out a vaccine were inevitable. It was clear from the start that it would take more than a year to develop, manufacture and distribute a vaccine, perhaps longer. A gamble without a guarantee of achieving a safe or effective vaccine. And despite the rollout being underway, there are still no long-term safety trials (obviously), since they are still ongoing (they finish in 2024). That is why these vaccines required emergency use authorisation. We are the long-term trial. 

    Coercion is being used to force compliance, which is a violation under the Nuremberg Code. (full text available in the notes at the bottom of this investigative report****). And we are on the cusp of introducing vaccine passports - a Chinese-style social credit score system for government-approved behavior, promoted under the guise of "safety" and introduced as a precondition to participating in normal life. It's Orwellian in the extreme.

    But neither the 12+ month delay of waiting under lockdown for vaccines to arrive, nor the gamble about their safety, nor the threat to our civil liberties were ever necessary if we had just followed the pandemic planning guidelines. Vaccination increased deaths even before they arrived because, by pinning our hopes on them, we suffered through 15 months of lockdowns and an additional second wave instead of going through a single 6-to-8-week wave with focused protection for the vulnerable, as we would every year for a normal winter flu. It may be the deadliest vaccine in history, not because of the vaccine itself, but because of the terrible cost of maintaining endless lockdowns while we waited for them to arrive.

    The alleged benefits of the vaccine are being sold as being a comparison between COVID deaths vs deaths caused by the vaccine. It is a false comparison. The real comparison is to compare the number of deaths caused by COVID if the pandemic guidelines had been followed versus all the extra deaths caused by lockdowns, flattening the curve, collateral damage, plus vaccine side effects. The real comparison is between all the time (and deaths) caused by waiting for a vaccine (plus its side effects) versus ripping off the band-aid as fast as possible by continuing to live a normal life while providing focused protection for the vulnerable. That is the real side-by-side choice that our health officials and politicians made for us. 

    So, the horror of using vaccines as an exit strategy from this crisis is that the hope they promised held the vulnerable hostage inside their homes and institutions, at risk from every member of the community they encounter, for over 15 months and counting. By pinning our hopes on the horizon, we prevented a ring of natural immunity from forming around the pockets of vulnerable. All because pandemic planning guidelines were ignored, because everyone else in the community was prevented from living their lives, and because those with essentially zero risk from this virus were whipped into such a state of hysteria that they became afraid to live their lives without getting a jab.

    Exhibit O: Is informed consent even possible for people who already have herd immunity? Implications of the Nuremberg Code.

    And now that vaccines are here, guess who is bearing the brunt of the majority of adverse side effects? The vulnerable of course. The majority of injuries, permanent disabilities and deaths are among the elderly, although there are also many young and middle-aged people with no history of pre-existing conditions who have also been injured or died. Dig into the case reports on VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the US CDC) - the case reports are eye opening and do not make for pleasant reading.  

    The US is approximately halfway to its vaccination goals; here are where their injuries and deaths linked to vaccination stand to date.

    Figure 43: Summary of VAERS COVID reports (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System maintained by the US CDC - US data only). Every country has its own system. This data only covers vaccinations performed in the United States.

    Figure 44: VAERS Search : COVID Vaccine Deaths

    Figure 45: VAERS Search : COVID Vaccine Reports - All Events

    Over 4200 deaths, and the US is still only 1/2 way to its goal. And none of these vaccine-linked injuries, permanent disabilities, or deaths would be happening if we had followed the pandemic planning guidelines. So, these are all injuries and deaths on top of the unnecessary deaths caused by "flattening the curve". These injuries and deaths are not inconsequential. These are real people, not numbers on a screen. 

    Vaccination is never a guaranteed zero-risk medical procedure, regardless of its benefits. So why are people who have already had COVID not being excluded from vaccination in order to shield them from exposure to this demonstrable risk? Over 20% of US blood donors already show they have antibodies to COVID. Why aren't antibody tests being used to exclude people with antibodies from the vaccination rollout? And what about those who have cross-reactive immunity from previous exposure to one of the other coronaviruses that have been circulating in our communities long before COVID arrived? Any death or permanent disability among these people is not collateral damage - they were fooled into taking a completely unneeded risk. That is not "justifiable risk". 

    All of these people already have immunity, so they had no risk to offset by further exposing themselves to the potential risks of immunization.  People with pre-existing immunity are not a small percentage of the population. Up to 80% of people in Germany already have this pre-existing cross-reactive immunity, though it varies greatly from country to country. In other words, vaccination (and its associated risks) could be reduced by up to 80%, simply by doing antibody testing and testing for cross-reactive immunity. And that's on top of the millions who have already had COVID and recovered. Back in October of 2020, before the 2nd wave, the WHO already estimated that over 750 million people world-wide had already been infected!

    Encouraging anyone to expose themselves to a known risk, however small it may be, when that person has no risk whatsoever to offset is a criminal offence under the principles laid out by the Nuremberg Code. This demonstrates yet again the sheer recklessness and lack of nuance in the government's actions during this crisis. The goal is not to "get as many jabs into as many arms as possible".  No matter how we look at this, every injury or death from this vaccine in a person who has already had COVID, or has antibodies, or has pre-existing immunity is unacceptable. 

    This should serve as a warning to those who administer the vaccine. If someone with pre-existing immunity is injured or dies from this vaccine, they can be held personally and criminally liable for that injury or death, as outlined by the Nuremberg Code****, because we knew beforehand that this category of people exists, that it is possible to identify and sort them from the rest of the population, and that the vaccine offers no benefits that they didn't already have. They had no risk to offset. The only thing the vaccine accomplished for them was to expose them to a new and entirely unnecessary risk, however small, of a vaccine-caused injury or death.

    Anyone being offered this vaccine without being fully informed of its emergency use authorization (EUA), the unknown risks that go along with an EUA designation, the lack of long-term studies, a personalized risk/benefit calculation, the pointlessness of it if you already have immunity, and the small number of injuries and deaths documented on VAERS is a victim of coercion. Informed consent requires all of this knowledge, along with the context to understand it. Anything less is a violation of the Nuremberg Code.

    And why is the government even offering the vaccine to children when they have the statistical equivalent of zero risk from this virus? As we learned from Dr. Henry's propaganda story, as of April 19th, 2021, only a single individual under the age of 30 had died with or from COVID in British Columbia. And that infant had pre-existing conditions. So, a single vaccine-linked death in British Columbia of a healthy individual without pre-existing conditions under the age of 30 would make the vaccine more lethal than the virus to those under 30s in British Columbia. Are these facts being shared as part of "informed consent"? 

    Every vaccine, like all medical interventions, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Every person will have a different calculus depending on their age, pre-existing conditions, and by the risk posed by where they live and the nuanced details of how they live their lives. One-size-fits-all risk assessment is silly. Yet the government has not disclosed how many people have pre-existing health conditions in each of the COVID death age categories. Vaccination of the healthy only makes sense if the healthy are being bowled over in large numbers by this virus. Everything in this investigative report shows that is not the case. The outbreak data discussed earlier provided a much-needed glimpse into how badly our sense of personal risk from this virus has been distorted and how tone-deaf the government policies are. Context matters, and there is an awful lot of missing context in the story provided by the government, without which informed consent is simply not possible for anyone. Misrepresenting risk is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. 

    In a free society, it's not up to someone else to decide what risks you should be forced to take. And it is not acceptable to coerce anyone into a personal medical decision. We are not cattle to be shepherded into compliance. Yet health officials have worked very hard to ensure that the complete picture has been absent and now they expect us to accept vaccination based on the incomplete and distorted perception of risk they have created. That does not lead to informed consent. 

    In a rational world, until there is a vaccine available that can offer individual protection to the vulnerable, the goal is to create a ring of immune individuals around the pockets of vulnerable living among us. Lockdowns prevented that from happening. But once individual immunity became available through the pointy end of a syringe, the need to create a ring of herd immunity around the vulnerable dissolves because the vaccine gives everyone, including the vulnerable, the option to acquire individual protection, completely irrespective of what their neighbors do.


    The obsession with this vaccine as the way to end the crisis has reached the point where the government is pushing to vaccinate children as young as 12, and allowing them to do so without parental consent. This opens the door to educators and health officials being able to pressure kids at school into taking it without their parents' consent (figure 46 and 47) or even their parents' knowledge (figure 48). 
    Figure 46: Vaccination of children aged 12 to 17 does not require parental consent for vaccination with an emergency-authorized vaccine (source)

    And so it goes all around the country:
    Figure 47: City of Toronto (source)

    Figure 48: Parents will not be informed of a child's vaccination without the child's consent. Infants Act, Mature Minor Consent and Immunization, HealthLink BC.

    Are 12-year-olds mature enough to make those kinds of decisions without any parental input? Considering how one-sided the government's information campaign has been and how it has systematically avoided engaging in meaningful two-way public debate with critics, I even question whether most adults know the right questions to ask to be able to adequately inform themselves of their personal risks and benefits if they take this vaccine. If you were surprised by anything you read in this investigative report (I certainly ran across quite a few surprises while researching it), then you did not have all the information needed to give informed consent. Yet we're supposed to pretend that children have enough background knowledge to tease out all these nuanced details and know what questions to ask when figures of authority - teachers and health officials - are pushing them to make the "right" choice? 

    A child reaching a conclusion desired by an adult in a position of authority is not evidence that this child followed the same independent thought processes that an adult would in order to reach those conclusions, especially when the potential for coercive pressure exists. Children are not fully mature little adults with mature brains and a long history of life experiences to draw upon. They are easily influenced, impulsive, impatient, and often blind to the long-term ramifications of their actions. It's part of growing up. 

    Parental guardianship is meant give them an advocate to fill in the gaps, both to protect them and to help them acquire the perspective and maturity they will need in order to navigate the adult world. Society recognizes this fundamental concept of growing into maturity through our alcohol and drug consumption laws, sexual consent laws, voting age, military service age, and even in criminal law when prosecuting under-age offenders. Yet we are being asked to participate in a collective mass delusion by pretending that vaccination, with potentially life-changing or life-ending consequences (as shown by the VAERS data) is somehow different when it comes to children being able to understand the far-reaching ramifications of their decisions.

    Figure 49: Parents will not be informed of a child's vaccination without the child's consent. Infants Act, Mature Minor Consent and Immunization, HealthLink BC.

    And we're supposed to also buy into the collective fantasy that government will not use coercion to pursue an agenda, and that the power imbalance between children and teachers/health officials will not influence their decisions. It does not require an intention to coerce on the part of the adults - the goal may be perfectly well-meaning. But the power imbalance should, at a minimum, require the child to have another adult advocate on their side to counterbalance that one-sided relationship. The parent would seem like the most ideally suited, least likely to have their own agenda, and most likely to know the individual circumstances of the child's medical risks and have their best interests at heart.

    Does this information campaign distributed to children in Saskatchewan look like coercion to you?

    Figure 50: Vaccination details for youths 12+ being distributed by the Government of Saskatchewan. Is this coercion?

    It's rather ironic really; the recent MeToo movement went as far as compelling society to question whether consent can be given freely in sexual encounters between adults when one of those adults is in a position of authority over the other. Yet we're supposed to pretend that there is no risk of coercion or abuse of authority  (intentional or otherwise) when teachers and health officials are encouraging children as young as 12 to get vaccinated, particularly in a school environment where these figures of authority are able to have these conversations with children away from the oversight of their parents and where peer pressure from their friends is highly likely to influence their decisions.

    Parental guardianship is a foundational legal concept in a free society to protect children from themselves and to protect children from other people with an agenda. The parent is the most likely member of society that will act in a child's best interests. Not all parents are perfect, but the alternative of allowing the government to erase this concept of parental guardianship and assume that role for children is far more dangerous. If ever there was a slippery slope, this is it. It doesn't take rocket science to understand all the other areas in which parental consent might interfere with a government's agenda or where a government bureaucrat might invest less time than parents would invest into studying what's right for each individual child. 

    Parental guardianship recognizes that children and teenagers are not yet legally responsible for themselves but remain under the umbrella of their legal guardian. But whose child is it?  What is being done under the guise of public health is essentially reassigning guardianship from the parent to the government. This sets an extremely dangerous legal precedent, and it has being pushed on society without public consultation, without public debate, and without parliamentary transparency. The repercussions of this re-imaging of boundaries within society will be with us long after the virus fades out of sight. 

    Section 1 of the  Nuremberg Code**** explicitly states that: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

    Teachers and health care workers administering these vaccinations should pay attention. The Nuremberg Code also explicitly states: "The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity." As long as these vaccines remain under emergency use authorization, and as long as we wait for long-term safety trials to be completed, these vaccines are, by definition, an experimental vaccine. The people administering these vaccines and those engaging in coercion, intentionally or not, can each be held personally accountable for human rights violations for their roles in this experiment. The take-home lesson from the Nuremberg Trials in the aftermath of World War II was that accountability for human rights violations do not stop with those giving the orders; accountability also extends to those carrying them out.

    Exhibit Q: When government goes "all-in" on one strategy, all others are pushed aside. The sorry tale of Ivermectin and its unpopular friends.

    The moment the government committed to the vaccine another deadly snowball was set in motion. An emergency use authorization is not allowed if there are other treatment options available. Here is the US Food & Drug Administration explaining the issue:

    Figure 51: The US FDA's rules for emergency use authorization. Canada's rules are a little different, but the underlying principle is the same.

    There are hundreds of promising studies published on Ivermectin, bromhexine, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and countless others, both for treatment and to use as a prophylaxis to prevent COVID. Off-label repurposing of drugs is a common practice, and safety testing is far easier and faster than developing new treatments. You only need to demonstrate effectiveness because their long-term side effects are already known. Yet government delays, arbitrary rules, and other restrictions are blocking these alternatives or hamstringing them with red tape at every turn. If they do work (and many show a lot of promise), the vaccine would lose its emergency use authorization. 

    But here's the multi-billion-dollar question: what if there was no known alternative when the emergency use authorization was proposed as a way to speed up vaccine development, but alternatives emerged shortly afterwards when the vaccine was already in development? Would the emergency use authorization be withdrawn? How would you compensate the vaccine makers if they have to abandon ship mid-way into development or distribution? We'll never find out because all these alternatives are being stonewalled by our government. Perhaps the paperwork will come through the day after the last vaccine is divvyed out. Or perhaps not, since they're already talking about annual booster shots, ad infinitum.

    It would be an embarrassment of incalculable proportions if a 40-year-old repurposed out-of-patent drug like Ivermectin, on the WHO's list of essential medicines and costing only a few dollars per dose, were to turn out to be as effective as the vaccine. So, in the interests of informed consent, here is a screengrab of a meta-analysis of 56 studies evaluating Ivermectin for COVID use - early treatment, late treatment, and for preventative (prophylaxis) treatment. Food for thought. If it is as effective as the numbers promise, every vaccination is illegal and every death caused by them is a crime, regardless of whether they signed the consent form or not. 
    Figure 52: Meta analysis of Ivermectin for COVID 19. Additional sources: Remdesivir policy in CanadaRemdesivir cost per treatmentIvermectin policy on the BC CDC websiteCost of Ivermectin per dose.

    Figure 53: Ivermectin adoption by country (source).

    This bizarre denial of any other possible ways of reducing risk to COVID even extends to Vitamin D. One of our Members of Parliament recently raised a question about the 75 peer-reviewed scientific studies showing the strong correlation between low vitamin D levels and severe outcomes from COVID. Our Minister of Health refused to address the essence of his question and instead simply condemned all these studies as "fake news". Yet it is a long-established fact that topping up Vitamin D levels reduces severe outcomes if you catch the flu. Britain went as far as supplementing its most vulnerable with Vitamin D during the pandemic. What did they have to lose? 

    How many more of our most vulnerable, prevented from going out into the sun during their forced isolation in nursing homes during COVID, could have been saved if everyone had been encouraged to take vitamin D supplements throughout the last two winters. It would have cost pennies per dose and there are unlikely to be side effects from a Vitamin D top-up (certainly none as severe as the vaccine!). But with everything riding on the vaccines (and lockdowns), most especially the reputations of the politicians and health officials who began promoting them, there really isn't room for anything else. Politics and special interests appear to be taking priority over "doing everything we can to keep you safe."

    Summary & Closing Statements

    The deliberate fear being spread by our health officials, politicians, and media is a vicious and irresponsible misrepresentation of risk. Not all outbreaks are created equal. Not all cases pose equal risk. The underlying vulnerability of individuals matters. Context matters. 

    Most vulnerable people are found in very specific settings: long-term care & hospitals. Society-wide lockdowns don't work because the overwhelming majority of people at risk from this virus are already segregated from society. Lockdowns don't add anything the vulnerable don't already have. 

    On the contrary, in addition to the deadly collateral damage caused by lockdowns, lockdowns also hold the vulnerable hostage to low rates of herd immunity in their communities, leaving them trapped in indefinite isolation and at risk of everyone they encounter. Many of the most vulnerable don't have 15 months to wait. Most long-term care residents have less than 5 months to live once they move into these government institutions. Instead of battening down the hatches for a single 6-to-8-week wave, these vulnerable are now forced to die in isolation, without the support of their loved ones to help them through the last difficult months of their lives. It is a cruel, terrifying, and undignified end. And it was entirely preventable if our government had just followed the protocols laid out in the pandemic planning guidelines and respected the constitutional rights and freedoms of their citizens. Pinning our hopes on a vaccine only stretched this nightmare out even longer, with deadly consequences. This adventure in DIY pandemic management needs to stop, now.

    The vulnerable need focused protection and strong doors until this madness ends. The false promise of masks and social distancing is merely an illusion of safety; policies that rely on them to protect the vulnerable are worse than doing nothing at all.

    The rest of us need to set aside our fears, look at the government's own official numbers, stop listening to these propaganda artists, and remind ourselves that life is never risk-free. There are many other risks far worse than COVID, starting with the risk of being afraid to live our lives. It is time to start living again in a free and open society. The sooner we do, the sooner the vulnerable can do the same.

    And what about the vaccines? We never should have held society hostage while we waited for them to arrive, but should they at least still be offered as a voluntary coercion-free option to those who want them?

    The problem is this: the abhorrent absence of context, incomplete data, and intentionally distorted sense of risk cultivated by public health officials and by many in the scientific community over the past 15 months, along with the systematic vilification of critics who tried to raise serious and credible concerns, as well as the absence of long-term safety trials to rule out the critics' worst fears, all these factors come together to raise doubts about whether anyone, including the most vulnerable, is able to fully understand and quantify their individual risks from COVID and is able to objectively weigh those risks against the benefits and risks of vaccination. Informed consent is not possible against this backdrop. 

    And sadly, it is also questionable whether science in its current sorry state is even capable of answering the most basic questions about the safety of the vaccine. Everything we have witnessed over the past 15 months signals that our scientific institutions and many of those inside them have abandoned all the core principles that make science work. Their behaviour has had far more in common with the slander, smears, shaming, and cancel culture tactics of an out-of-control kindergarten than with the distinguished forebearers of their professions upon whose shoulders they stand. These institutions are rotten to the core. 

    Are the vaccines safe? The mechanism that can lead us to an objective, nuanced, and robust answer to that question is broken. We must not allow ourselves to fall for the sunk cost fallacy and plow still further into the unknown when we do not yet know the long-term consequences of the uncharted territories into which we are throwing ourselves. Which leaves us right back where we started. The pandemic planning guidelines. Because it's never too late to do the right thing.

    ~

    I hope this guided tour through the pandemic and through the endless string of deadly scandals that the government has created has given you a sense of perspective and cleared a path through the fog of the past 15 months. The task now falls on each of us to help our fellow citizens climb down from their fear. 

    We need their voices to join ours, not only to regain our lives, but also to rekindle the appetite for a functioning democracy rooted in accountability, transparency, honest debate, and respect for individual rights. We also need to send a clear message to our leaders that the technical expertise of those working in scientific fields should never be confused with the broader process of scientific inquiry. As the experience of the past 15 months has shown, science ceases to function as a tool for revealing objective truth when society allows people in lab coats to use credentials and the illusion of consensus to silence their critics and to avoid transparency, evidence, context, and the gauntlet of debate.

    So please share this report with friends, family members, neighbors, and co-workers to help them gain perspective over the nightmare we have all been living for the past 15 months. This ends only when the government loses the support of the crowd. This only ends when your neighbors are no longer afraid to come over for a BBQ, when your friends and family members are no longer afraid to give you a hug, and when the doctors, lawyers, and policemen, who are also members of our communities, recognize the gravity of the scandal that they have been drawn into. And so, in that vein, please also send this to every lawyer, policeman, elected representative, city councillor, judge, and journalist that you know. This nightmare world of fabricated lies only ends when communities stand up together and say, "Enough!" 

    ~

    I have made harsh calls for accountability throughout this long text. Human rights violations on this scale and with such a vast global death toll cannot be shrugged off. "We didn't know" is only true for the members of the public caught up in the panic. The science, the protocols, and our rights were never in doubt and, as I have demonstrated, those in charge were well aware of them from day 1. Do not let the magicians use the fog they created to escape into the night. We owe it to their victims, and we owe it to future generations to make sure that the evil that happened on our watch is rooted out so it can never happen again. Just because the media has ignored it does not reduce the enormity of the profound suffering and unnecessary dying that our leaders have caused.

    The familiar faces that have held us hostage for the past 15 months may not look like monsters in jackboots, but it is important to remember that behind all the sterile numbers are real people. Those numbers represent children, grandparents, fathers, and mothers whose lives were cut short by these monsters' blatant lies, willful manipulation, reckless disregard for protocols, utter disrespect for human rights, and flagrant contempt for the principles of science and democracy, to which they are sworn in their professional roles. The numbers represent real people who leave behind real grieving loved ones. No CERB cheque can replace them. Nothing can bring them back. 

    Figure 54: You may be in an abusive relationship if...

    Despite the air of caring radiating from Dr. Henry's seemingly empathetic concern for our well being, she was nonetheless willing to knowingly reduce the infant in her story to a mere propaganda tool. She hijacked the tragedy of its death to tell a lie that was the complete opposite of the lessons that should have been given to the public based on the actual facts surrounding its death. 

    And she is just one of thousands of health officials, scientists, and politicians across this country and across the world that have knowingly played this despicable game of deception. It is one thing to be swept up in mass hysteria. It is quite another to knowingly play chess with the truth and gamble with other people's lives in order to intentionally fuel hysteria to engineer some alleged "greater good". It is the height of hubris to be so certain of the righteousness of their cause that even the truth was merely an obstacle in their path.

    These are not the actions of people with real empathy for their fellow citizens and an honest commitment to objective truth. Their patronizing lies of "good intentions" reveal the extent to which they view us as cattle to be herded into compliance and not as fellow equals in a free and open society. Those who abandon the principles of transparency, evidence, honest debate, and respect for the individual autonomy of their fellow citizens have abandoned the core principles that make science and democracy work. Without them, all that remains is tyranny over the bodies and minds of their subjects, all legitimized by an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. No-one has the right to manage their individual risk by controlling the lives of others. Those who are so certain that they know best that they are willing to strong-arm others along for the ride are a threat to the very essence of what it means to live in a free and open society.

    Dr. Henry's government, along with every other government at every level of politics, participated in a ruthless global social engineering experiment that may well have cost the life of the infant in Dr. Henry's propaganda story, and most certainly cost the lives of thousands (if not millions) all around the world who paid the ultimate price for governmental hubris and medical adventurism. 

    Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that those who have their fingerprints on this disaster are so eager to blame the actions of ordinary citizens trying desperately to live their lives. The lonely pastor, the restauranteur, and the hairdresser are easy targets when the machinery of government grinds into action in the interests of self preservation in order to give the public an alternate scapegoat for 15 months of government-engineered Hell. By now it must be painfully obvious to these self-righteous monsters, no matter how much they allowed themselves to get swept up in the virtuous delusions of their own propaganda, that they are inching towards accountability in front of a human rights tribunal. The world is waking up. They can no longer prevent it. 

    The most horrendous crimes are often well hidden in a fog of confusion, disguised from its victims behind a shroud of good intentions and noble ideals. Most monsters don't fit the mold of what we imagine monsters to be. Most are loved by the very people they hurt. Most are driven by good intentions, a heightened sense of superiority, and an incapacity for self-reflection. Most are gradually transformed into monsters when they experience the heady intoxication of being given responsibility and control over the lives of others. Most are fueled by the thirst of adoration from a receptive crowd. And most are so convinced of the righteous of their actions and the need to sacrifice for the good of the herd that there is no stack of bodies too tall to climb over to achieve their "virtuous" goals.

    But monsters do not appear out of a vacuum. They are created by an absence of limits when a permissive society exempts them from transparency, debate, and checks and balances. Monsters inevitably emerge when liberal democracy and the scientific process of inquiry cease to impose limits on a chosen elite living among us. Science and democracy are those limits. They are the processes that keep our darkest illiberal impulses in check. The past 15 months gave us a window into what a pre-Enlightenment worldview looks like, with modern technology at its fingertips and without the checks and balances imposed by scientific inquiry and liberal democracy. So it is time to hold these monsters to account, not only in pursuit of justice for those they have hurt, but also to pull back the curtain to show society the illiberal world that it has been sleepwalking into.

    I'm going to end this report with the face of Nancy Russell. She chose to end her life through euthanasia rather than endure the forced isolation of a second lockdown. Never forget.

    Figure 55: Facing another retirement home lockdown, 90-year-old chooses medically assisted death. CTV News, November 19th, 2020.

    ~

    If you found this investigative report useful, please consider leaving a little something in my Tip Jar to support my independent writing. 

    Julius Ruechel's Tip Jar

    And I invite you to subscribe to my free email notifications to receive my latest articles in your inbox. I write about many things, but always with the goal of answering questions essential to science and democracy, and always in the hope of teasing a broader perspective from the mind-numbing noise.

    Subscribe for free email notifications for new articles:


    Further reading:

    ➤ "Why Can’t They Just Attend Church Over Zoom?" - Sacrificing Essential Liberty to Purchase a Little Temporary Safety - This never was a fight about church attendance, or masks, or open businesses. From the moment the government issued its first public health order, this was a cultural battle about whether we are still willing to defend the principles that are essential to a healthy liberal democracy, or whether we want to let the government close the door on the Enlightenment and open a different and altogether darker chapter to something else. - May 3rd, 2021

    ➤ Who's in Charge? The Rule Makers, Power Brokers, and Influencers of Lockdown Wonderland - Who has the authority to make this lockdown nightmare stop? The answers will surprise you. Nothing in this Lockdown Wonderland is quite as it seems. (also available on Youtube) - April 14th, 2021

    ➤ STOP THE LOCKDOWN: Interview w/ Retired Police Inspector Len Faul (Police On Guard For Thee) - Len Faul is a retired former Inspector with the Toronto Police. He agreed to sit down with me for an interview to talk about how he and a group of active and former police officers are working to end these unconstitutional public health measures and how we can work together to stop what our politicians and health authorities are doing to us. - March 2nd, 2021

    ➤ Bystander at the Switch: The Moral Case Against COVID Lockdowns - Do you remember the moral dilemma taught in grade school called the "Bystander at the Switch"? COVID lockdowns pose the identical dilemma, only this time it's not a game and it's played with real lives. When humanity invented universal human rights, they were meant to stop us from pulling the switch. - January 25th, 2021 (Video version - February 7th, 2021)

    ➤ Open letter to our health authorities regarding COVID measures - Request for a public debate about the public health response to COVID-19 (lockdowns, masks, PCR testing, vaccine rollout, etc.). - January 22nd, 2021

    ➤ Face Masks: A Placebo With Harmful Side Effects - a five part series exploring the science, psychology, and unintended consequences of COVID-19 face masks. - September 29th, 2020

    ➤ COVID-19 Lockdown: The Epidemiological Data Shows it is Unnecessary, Extremely Risky, and Harmful to Those Most in Need of Protection - April 20, 2020


    Notes:

    Calculations for Figure 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17:

    Calculations for Figure 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Using data from Figure 8.

    * The world bank estimates that there are 2.52 hospital beds in Canada per 1000, Statistics Canada puts Canada's population at 38 million.

    ** Hospital utilization rates in Ontario during COVID (leaked chart from official sources. The authenticity is unconfirmed, but is supported by publicly available statements about hospital capacity both before and after the pandemic, as I documented in this article.

    Figure 56: Ontario hospital occupancy rates never rose above 90% throughout the pandemic (source: @Milhouse_Van_Ho on Twitter).

    Ontario's bed capacity is also mirrored by official data from the UK's NHS England, which lends additional weight to its credibility.

    Figure 57: NHS daily bed occupancy, general and acute, England, 2017-present (Source: The Uk's response to Covid-19, in facts and figures - http://www.coviddashboard.live)

    *** Canada's Age Pyramid

    Figure 58: Canada's Age Pyramid, by decade, 1980 to 2020. (Source: Statistics Canada - Historical Age Pyramid)


    **** The Nuremberg Code (source): (learn more about the Nuremberg Code, its history, and its impact on international law on Wikipedia.)

    1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

    2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 

    3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

    4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. 

    5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

    6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. 

    7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death. 

    8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 

    9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible. 

    10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.



    COPYRIGHT 2021 JULIUS RUECHEL


    41 comments:

    1. Hi julius, really good and well researched article. I have one correction though.

      I'm a registered occupa hygienist so I know quite a bit about respiratory protection. Your description on the mechanism of hepa filtration is incorrect. Hepa filters can and do filter particles less than 0.3 microns throu electrostatic attraction, which is why these filters must remain dry. A wet filter is useless. The 0.3 micron sized particle is the most challenging size for a hepa filter to capture, hepa filters are 99.97% effective at capturing these 0.3micron sized particles. When testing the efficacy of the hepa filter, the 0.3 micron sized particle is used.

      The 95 in N95 means that those respiratory are 95% effici at capturing particles 0.3 microns in size.

      Hepa filters are very effective at cap particles less than 0.3 microns and are used extensively in contaminated occupational settings such as asbestos, crystalline silica and welding fumes, all of which generate particles far less less than 0.3 microns, especially welding fumes.

      Hope that helps.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. No need for correction, this is a BRILLANT article, well researched that would and should be used in courts to ARREST ALL OUR POLITICIANS FOR THERE decieved information. and PROMOTING OF IRRATIONAL THOUGHTS AND FEAR..and here we were THREATENED NOT TO VIST OUR FAMILY AT CHRISTMAS, THANKSGIVING, we are banned from worship! WE WERE MADE TO FEAR TO HUG, TO LIVE TO see our loved ones..OVER WHAT NOTHING!! there HAS TO BE ARRESTS.. FOR THIS TYPE OF DECIEVERS! Our kids, suffered! no gyms, no schools, no milestones to celebrate, ALL OUR LIVE REMOVED IN ONE Year.. Wedding, and nonesencial RULES, that make us look like idiots..STANDING SIX FEET APART! what absurd logic!! My friend lost a daughter..she ran away somewhere in Toronto, BECAUSE SHE WAS FORCED TO WORK FROM HOME.. she got up in the mornings, WENT TO HER DESK, DAY IN AND DAY OUT.. Prisoner..for what?? she had an active social life, my friend is depressed beyond herself in looking for her daughter.. SHEER LIES..I remember being around neighbours back when we were young and my mother would force us to stay inside when we had sniffles.. THE NEIGHBOUR, who was from Greece told my mohter that they are not to keep children inside when they have a cold, that they should go out! AND HERE WERE ARE INSIDE.. our homes.. The REAL PANDEMIC IS WHEN THEY LET US OUT.. remember, that when Europeans came to Canada...and the natives exposed to Europeans, that their immunity caused many diseases..well we have BEEN OVER SANITIZED.. MUZZLED, in stores, LOCKDOWN.. A PRISON SENTENCE ISN'T EVEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE PLAYERS!

        Delete
      2. @Ted Hi Ted, Thanks for getting in touch. I have added an additional section about HEPA filters that explains why I make this claim. Even hospitals construction guidelines acknowledge that HEPA filters are not a reliable way of stopping respiratory viruses.

        I am aware of the research on diffusion, the collection efficiency curve, and Brownian motion as the mechanism to stop nanoparticles. Yet the hospital info clearly states that the virus is not stopped by HEPA filtration, and the many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on masks also show no statistically significant reduction in transmission rates.

        Both cannot be true at once. Real world virus-stopping results supplied by RCTs and hospital experience trumps the HEPA research, so it would be interesting to get to the bottom of this mystery because they are telling diametrically opposite stories. Is there a difference between lab vs real world installation? Are the lab results a consequence of confirmation bias? Is it that in a controlled lab experiment the electrostatic forces are sufficient, but in real world use the weak electrostatic forces are easily broken as particles stack up over time and turbulence in the airflow dislodges particles back into the airflow? Are the air flows in labs lower, or is the time in lab trials shorter? There are a million variables, but real world vs lab claims are not compatible. I would love to know why. Since a virus causes a detectable infection if it gets through, that's irrefutable confirmation of the filtration not producing meaningful results.

        Perhaps you could get in touch via my Contact Form to discuss in person - it would be great to get to the bottom of this. I would value your insight and experience to try to unravel the source of these contradictions.

        Cheers, Julius

        Delete
      3. Serious piece of work there Julius. Thanks a million.

        From my research a virion is around 20 nanometers or .02 microns or more than a 100 times smaller than what n95 masks filter out. The average mask worn in the world is about a 100 times more porous than the n95.

        The truth is viruses are all around us by the trillions. We breath in and out tens of thousands with every breath even with a mask so to think we are stopping a specific one or group of viruses is insane.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEb33U0hHxM&t=1s&ab_channel=ZachBushMD

        Also the video of the mask leak guy should be removed as he is not even trying to wear the mask correctly and this makes it too easy to dismiss even when the basic info is true.

        No masks are designed for filtering exhale. Even the best fitted masks will lift off the face when exhaling, especially when it gets moist and loaded with particulate. Speaking of moist and loaded with particulate this is exactly what happens on the inside of all masks which makes an optimal breeding ground for bacteria. There have been hundreds of studies done showing how continued mask use seriously increases upper respiratory infection and even pneumonia. 10 Years ago when I was researching my air filtration breathing device I found several studies, images from very old journals, proving that a large % of deaths during Spanish flu were from pneumonia contracted from dirty cloth masks. Now I can not access them.

        Any way I do hope something comes from all your work. I would love for the truth to prevail.

        Cheers!
        jef

        Delete
    2. What emerges is a shocking story of scientific misconduct and breach of trust, which reveals the horrifying - and deadly - consequences of stripping data of context and allowing government to evade transparency. IN A NUTSHELL, this is it ! breach of trust and the stripping of our Freedoms..the nonesencial babble and the introduction of Communism through a red herring! EXCELLENT article..

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Martine! I really hope society wakes up soon to the danger of turning our backs on individual rights and allowing science to degrade into a parody.

        Delete
      2. Much too late Julius. Modern academic science has been degrading for decades, perhaps longer. It is by now indistinguishable (to me) from pseudoscience and quackery. I'm trying to network with competent scientists outside mainstream science, and I like your work.

        Delete
    3. What an excellent article. Thank you. I have shared widely and I will make a donation. Keep up the great work.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you! I really appreciate your support!

        Delete
    4. Amazing collection of data and brilliantly laid out, this mirrors my minor efforts to alert people to what has been happening here in Manitoba.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Blair! I have been watching in horror what is going on in Manitoba. It is insane that every government has fallen into the same trap.

        Delete
    5. I echo all the comments here. Extremely thorough and thoughtful analysis. I wish you were not correct in what you have written, however, I fear that you are and hope you are correct about the Nuremburg Code accountability will be proven. I will also share, have donated, and hope you continue on with your work!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Mallory - I really appreciate all your support and your donation!

        I also hope very much that the Nuremberg accountability will happen, not only to hold them accountable for what they have done, but equally important because the public process of holding them accountable is necessary for society to be able to recognize the danger of abandoning the core principles of science and democracy. With the media not doing its job, I think most people are in for a horrible shock when the curtain gets pulled back.

        The Economist published a piece two weeks ago (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/05/15/there-have-been-7m-13m-excess-deaths-worldwide-during-the-pandemic) showing between 7 and 13 million excess deaths worldwide, but only around 3 million accounted for by COVID - leaving the rest due to lockdown collateral damage. These numbers are mindboggling - that's significantly more than the Khmer Rouge genocide and the Rwandan genocide combined! All caused by the criminal gross negligence of abandoning the pandemic planning guidelines, fueling fear, and ignoring individual rights.

        Delete
    6. Julius, amazing information and logical presentation. I just found your blog but I'll be returning to it often. And, an aside, my uncles were ranchers in S. Alberta (Dewinton and Millerville), were the founders of the Limousin Breeders Association of Canada in the 70's, and imported the first bull (Elephant) to Canada from Avignon France. They were heavily involved with the development of the embryo transplant technology in the 70's. Unfortunately, they got into hotel development in the oil patch in the late 70's which crashed and burned in the early 80's when PET implemented the NEP. The ranches went to Texas and Oregon.
      Anyway, keep up the good old fashioned commonsense thinking and writing.
      RS

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you RS! Welcome to my website - I'm glad you're enjoying it! I love that part of AB - it's a gorgeous area! I've been through there a few times, rather ironically on bullbuying trips to AB for my parent's farm many years ago! I hope we can restore some kind of sanity to our country again soon or the exodus to the US will likely start all over again.
        Cheers, Julius

        Delete
    7. Julius...brilliant expose...I'm a numbers guy who appreciates people who can see through the bunk and articulate the reality behind the curtain

      ReplyDelete
    8. I have just written my homage to you, Julius, and this article. Bravo! https://www.gatheryourwits.com/post/the-big-picture

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Michelle! I just checked it out on your blog - I'm really honored!

        Delete
    9. Julius, this is an amazing piece of writing! Thank you for the huge investment of time this took to bring forth such comprehensive information. I am praying for people to wake up to what is happening and for the house of cards to crumble! Well done! I will be donating.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I am really grateful for your support and feedback! Thank you!

        Delete
    10. Such a great article! Thank you for all the work you have done to put this all together - I just wish that those in charge would also read it and take the information to heart...

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Cheryl! I really hope that too!

        Delete
    11. absolutely brilliant... The truth is out.. We have been locked up for long enough! Let freedom reign!

      ReplyDelete
    12. Great stuff... but I seriously object to referring to a dead child as 'it'. Needs to be changed.

      ReplyDelete
    13. Well done Sir! I can only thank you for the time you spent putting this together. I will forward this to my other Board Members here at Stand Up Canada to help get this work the attention it deserves.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Steven - I really appreciate you sharing it to help get the word out!

        Delete
    14. Hi. I just read the article and i am still "digesting" all is said. Love thhe supportin data, it is very cientific, to say the least. I do want to get through further understanding of the "malevolous intensions" of those who had to made decisions at a social scale. I would aknowledge the reasoning within the data analisys, ok. My question would start with a big WHY?
      I am among those who always question on the basis that every big decision needs to answer the following question: who benefits? Aren't these decision makers as human as we all? My son and I debate on the issue and so far, we ca not agree on a rational aswer. If the "leaders" were all inside a space ship looking down to what would be left of us to then come back and retake the left overs, that could probably be an explanation, but yet, to what end? If fhe King has no people, who is he going to exploit? I would be happy fo discuss with an eye not only on the "evel" behind the "curtain", but mostly with the i tention to understanding why anyone would be so "bad" just for the sake of it.
      The nazis were driven by economic greed, ultimately. Their cause and purpose was clear: to take economic control over millions so they could live the "nazi deam": enslave the other so they could focus on "the elevated spirits of human perfection", whatever that means. It has hapened throut human history all the time! Back to the point, what's to gain for the decison makers, ex ept for total failure, catastrophy and human misery. I just don't get it.

      ReplyDelete
    15. Most is known to "us" informed, but your statistical contribution to "A Tale of Two Populations", the arguments about the vaccine including the "Bypassing parental guardianship", and the articulation in the "Summary & Closing Statements" are brilliant!

      I will share this with everyone I know and some Telegram channels!

      My "question" is: How can people be so ignorant and not willing to "waste" 3-5 days to research this subject of a LIFE importance... It is a rhetorical question, but I still can't understand!

      Thank you!

      PS. I suggest to have "comment as..." by "email address" instead of "Google account"
      contact: nikiearth@protonmail.com

      ReplyDelete
    16. New Zealand joins the land of the living and drags its leftish show pony PM INTO THE DOCK...

      Ardern`s current and previous administration has been actively lying to the New Zealand public through the sin of omission since March 2019 under stated rational` of `countering misinformation`. Its hardly a coincidence the Biden signed up to the Christchurch call to encourage such deceipt when yet more innocent victims of the left need burial...

      ReplyDelete
    17. What a terrifically informative and well researched piece of investigative journalism! Thank you! Wanna hear the latest from my mom’s non-profit nursing home (Toronto)? Every weekly robocall update is a ten minute propaganda lecture for getting the jabs. Telling us that the jabs are proven to be completely effective including against all variants. Telling us that you need it even if you’ve tested positive previously. Telling us only jabbed 2 doses visitors can sit close and hug and touch their loved ones, unjabbed or partially jabbed are forbidden and must stay 2 meters away during indoor visits (yet both types of visitors must wear full PPE indoors). Outdoor visits are now permitted but you must be masked and distanced regardless of whether you have had the jabs.

      So what I glean from these rules is: 1. The jabs don’t work outside. 2. Jabs don’t work inside if you’re not wearing full PPE. 3. PPE does not work inside if you’re not jabbed, which is why you aren’t allowed to get close to your loved one. 4. PPE is not needed outside even if you’re not jabbed. Makes perfect logical scientific sense, eh?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Unreal. I am still in shock that the families of long-term care patients aren't protesting in droves infront of the care facilities about these insane, inhumane, and illogical rules.

        Delete
    18. Thank you so much, Julius for a superb paper. I have made a small donation.

      I particularly liked how you were conservative with your estimates. For example, I probably would have taken the number of 60-64 year-olds with multiple chronic conditions to be more like 60% (see fig. 20),as the 50% figure given was the average for 45-64 year-olds and the older part of that group could be expected to be more troubled. Of course, the calculation does not affect your argument. Whether 6.8 million or 6.9 or 7 million, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of over-60s not been troubled by the virus, rather by the obscene measures taken to 'deal' with it.

      (That comment was pretty inconsequential; I made it mainly to show that I had read the article. Grin.)

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you Dave - I really appreciate your support! You are quite right that I am underestimating the percentage of the 60-64 group living with multiple chronic conditions. No matter how generous I am in giving the government the benefit of the doubt in my numbers, the numbers just refuse to turn in the government's favor! (;

        Delete
    19. Good afternoon sir. I enjoyed your article, but with me, you are preaching to the choir. I am finding it harder and harder to believe anything being spewed by the MSM and our leaders about this "Pandemic".
      One thing is bothering me however: In this article you used 160,000 "Long Term Care" residents as part of the 292,000 number for institutionalized people in Canada. However, in most of the charts and graphs that follow, the heading always includes "Long Term Care & Retirement Homes" which would include probably who knows how many additional beds, but it would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Also, most of these are not "Institutionalized Buildings". I just can't figure out how this skews the 98.6% of the deaths in 292,000 beds and in which direction?
      Thanks, Mr. Bits

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. @Mr.Bits I appeciate your positive feedback on my article!

        I refer to "institutionalized buildings" as facilities in which government controls the regimented life going on inside them. You are quite right that many long-term care homes are privately owned, but the rules they follow and licensing requirements mean that absolutely everything about how life unfolds inside them is guided by protocols designed by the government. If you or I owned a private nursing home, we would not have discretion about masking, PCR testing of staff, whether staff can work at multipe homes, and so on. We could be stricter, but government controls the minimum standards.

        As to the 292,000 number: the government has stated that 69% of ALL deaths (16,837) have been in long-term care only (not including retirement homes), which is 4,296 MORE than the 12,541 outbreak deaths in long-term care & retirement homes. From that we can be certain that the dying is overwhelmingly happening in long-term care and not in retirement homes, so the retirement home category is largely irrelevant to the death toll and can safely be excluded from the "institutionalized" population where most of the dying is happening. Thus I am on safe ground with my guestimate that the overwhelming majority of the dying (>75% of all deaths, close to 98.6% of outbreak-linked deaths) is happening in the tiny population of only 292,000 "institutionalized" people.

        Delete
    20. Julius, thank you for this masterclass in research and writing. I especially appreciate the context and the Canada-specific data. Donated.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Thank you for all your support - I really appreciate it!

        Delete
    21. A person who has brain - before going for vaccination - would be check if he/she already has the natural immunity.....Try to get a test for antibody in BC - not possible)))

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. 100%! It's quite shocking that this isn't being done. Why would anyone unnecessarily expose themselves to a risk if they have nothing to gain in return?

        Delete

    Subscribe for free email notifications for new articles: