Connect with us

COVID-19

The COVID Cure Was Far Worse Than the Disease

Published

2 months ago

4 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

After the first of two weeks to flatten the curve of COVID-19 cases, President Donald Trump said, “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” He was right, yet that ill fate prevailed in the U.S., Canada, and much of the world.

An important paper released July 19 by 3 Canadian academics Denis Rancourt, Joseph Hickey, and Christian Linard in Correlation Research proved this when looking at how many more people died than usual (excess mortality)  in 125 countries with a total of 2.7 billion people.

The researchers found “essentially no excess mortality[1] , in any country, prior to the 11 March 2020 WHO declaration of a pandemic.” Yet, deaths spiked significantly in 26 countries before the end of the month, including the U.S. and Canada.

Elsewhere, a small rise occurred in 11 countries and none happened in 88 others. Was this a pandemic or a damned panic?

Although a virus doesn’t stop at a political border, patterns of excess death varied significantly, even between adjacent countries. The only continuity was higher death rates among the old and poor.

Many countries had “various large peaks and periods of excess-all cause mortality” from 2020 to 2023, the paper explains, ones that defy seasonal patterns and what a pandemic alone would suggest.

Such findings were “incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death,” the researchers concluded.[2]  In other words, the excess deaths were not caused by the virus.

If a virus didn’t do it, what did? The researchers laid out three plausible mechanisms, stated here verbatim:

  1. Biological (including psychological) stress from mandates such as lockdowns and associated socio-economic structural changes
  2. Non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions such as mechanical ventilators and drugs (including denial of treatment with antibiotics)
  3. COVID-19 vaccine injection rollouts, including repeated rollouts on the same populations.

That’s right. Governments propagandized and coerced populations around the world into taking shots that did more harm than good.

The researchers explained, “Many countries have no excess mortality until the vaccines are rolled out. Several countries show temporal associations between vaccine rollouts and peaks or increases in all-cause mortality.”

Astonishingly, in other words, 16.9 million excess deaths worldwide were associated with COVID-19 vaccinations. Overall, the 3 years in view (2020 – 2022) saw 29.8 million excess deaths, a number more than 4.2 times what the WHO reported as COVID-19 deaths.

“Generally speaking, excess all-cause mortality… often persists to the end of 2022, and most often returns to small or near-zero values in 2023,” the researchers found. “Nonetheless, there are some notable examples in which excess all-cause mortality is large in 2023, and many countries in which there is apparent moderate but sustained excess all-cause mortality into 2023.”

These 32 countries of continued excess deaths at rates of 5% to 15% include Canada and the U.S. Why?

Of 76 countries with statistically reliable data, nine had virtually no excess mortality for more than one year into the pandemic. That’s curious, too.

Among 93 countries with reliable data, researchers found a 0.38 per cent excess mortality rate. India, which was excluded from the study, had just 0.26 per cent excess deaths, while Greenland had none.

Questions remain, but too few for the researchers to reach a stunning conclusion:

“We are compelled to state that the public health establishment and its agents fundamentally caused all the excess mortality in the Covid period, via assaults on populations, harmful medical interventions and COVID-19 vaccine rollouts.”

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 1 hour ago

Union Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Biden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds

Energy / 5 hours ago

US LNG uncertainty is a reminder of lost Canadian opportunities

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on September 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X