The Dystopian Future of Canada, Part 2-Corona Virus Testing Cause or Curse?

Tim Lasiuta

Published

4 years ago

10 minute read

Pandemic Elements 1: PCR Testing-

During this ‘pandemic,’ world citizens have been subjected to a daily dose of case numbers from provincial or federal health ministers both sides of the border that have the power to paralyze or to set communities and citizens free from constraining governmental measures.

Decreasing ‘numbers’ spread hope that the curve is flattening while increasing ‘positives’ send frightened citizens and companies into a tailspin.

At the heart of the debate is the PCR test which magnifies RNA strands anywhere from 30 to 40 times to create the reaction necessary for a ‘conclusive’ test. Yet according to medical professionals forensic technicians only use a magnification of 17 in their quest for trace compounds during investigations.

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles are “miniscule,” yet the Alberta Government relies on such testing levels (35) to determine the severity of the Covid 19 infection. Other groups such as the Ontario Government, the FDA, the CDC and the World Health Organization recommend 40 to 45 cycles.

REF: Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The PCR test was developed in 1985 by Dr. Kary Mullis for a primary application in biomedical research and criminal forensics yet it has become the foremost tool for Covid 19 detection. (see end of article for video)

In a 2019 interview, Mullis noted that it was never intended for detecting disease he felt that ‘Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it.’

Further research into PCR testing has yielded interesting results.

In addition to the inaccuracy of cycles above 17 which provide 100 % accuracy which drops to 20% with 33-34 cycles according to Dr. Mercola, the spectre of exactly what the test is searching for is raised.

With more than one Covid 19 test available, RNA (PCR), rapid (Antigen) or Serology (Antibody) there are also claims from the CDC that they do not have a sample of Covid 19 that they can produce to create a test from!

With numbers in the range that the Province of Alberta is reporting, the ‘pandemic,’ if PCR testing is performed with 17 cycles, would drop to a mere 8500 and across Canada, to 63,000. Looking at deaths, 11, 265 deaths have been attributed to Covid 19, yet according to many statistics 10% of deaths can only be attributed directly TO Covid 19 with the remainder being linked with co-morbidities. A comparison of death rates across Canada shows that from January to September 2018, 2019 and 2020 are nearly identical in total numbers despite our ‘pandemic.’

Another suspicious fact is that Dr. Hinshaw stated recently that there have been NO cases of the Flu reported (Global News November 13, 2020). If this is a flu season, where are the sick people? Could they have been tagged as Covid patients?

On November 18, 2020 Dr. Roger Hodgkinson, Hodkinson, Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta and Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company that sells Covid 19 tests addressed Edmonton City Council and passionately chastised the government response to the ‘pandemic.’

The video can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEo3rnU12jw

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. This is nothing more than a bad flu season. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game. There is no action needed,” he said. “Masks are utterly useless!”

“Positive testing results do NOT indicate clinical infection. It is simply driving public hysteria and ALL testing should STOP immediately,” he added. “The scale of the response is utterly ridiculous…all kinds of business closures, suicides …. you’re being led down the garden path by the Health Minister of this province.”

There is another side to danger of PCR testing; fraud.

Reports of positive tests results have been reported with NO testing done by labs in Red Deer on patients who registered to test but left before any test could be performed. From anecdotal evidence, there are at least 4 cases the writer has heard of the week of November 15^th! I can imagine that there Legally speaking, if 4 false cases have been reported in addition to a 20% accuracy rate, then the government response is incredibly over the top and lockdowns, mask bylaws and cohort regulations are unwarranted.

During an October 24, 2020 rally in Edmonton (a, retired Dr. Lorna Levesque called on provincial and federal politicians to let ‘teachers teach instead of playing doctor,’ and to ‘stop testing and give our rights and freedoms back.’

The video can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2FA9BW3_8k&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0JmvG5uE-btPhkHcOKXp0MKoagBTFyOZS84LJRqEaggli-XZsvN8QRVE4

She also represented the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/), signed by close to 50,000 doctors and 640,000 citizens which calls on governments to stop lockdowns and mandatory masks. A short summary of the declaration follows:

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. “

“Why are my colleagues silent,” she asked. “When we took our Hippocratic Oath we swore to ‘do no harm,’ and yet here we are silent while our government mandate masks which are bacteria factories if not sterile and decrease oxygen into our lungs while increasing carbon dioxide. I am stunned by your silence!”

She also noted that ‘we cannot control the virus but Vitamin D helps build immunity just as Zinc does.’

The big question asked by citizens across Alberta is WHY are we using a flawed test procedure to decide the future of our economic, social and spiritual futures? Why do citizens have NO say in how we respond as a society?

In my November 18^th piece, I answer that question. (https://www.todayville.com/the-dystopian-future-of-canada-part-i/)

“The pandemic gives us an opportunity to reshape society…” Justin Trudeau said in his UN speech.

Further information from Dr. Mullis is below: (language warning)

A late addition to this piece is the following letter from Dr. Stephen Malthouse to the BC Minister of Health, due to the length of the piece, I include a link but add this short excerpt:

“Why are you still using PCR testing? The Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Health in Ontario has publicly stated that the PCR test yields over 50% false positives. A New York Times investigative report found that PCR testing yields up to 90% false positives due to excessive amplification beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer. The PCR test was never designed, intended or validated to be used as a diagnostic tool. Even the Alberta Health Services COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group has stated “clinical sensitivity and specificity values have not been determined for lab developed RT-PCR testing in Canada”.⁸ Despite expert consensus, you continue to use this inappropriate and inaccurate test to report so-called “cases” and justify your decisions.^9-18“

Footnotes in original letter.

https://www.pandemicdebate.com/post/letter-by-dr-stephen-malthouse-md-to-dr-bonnie-henry-b-c-provincial-health-officer

If you have any comments, please contact me through comments OR via email at [email protected]

Be awake, aware and alert for our enemy the devil seeks to destroy, deceive and create confusion….

Tim Lasiuta

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Penhold Flight Instructor Releases Updated Instruction Manual For the 21st Century

#RedDeerStrong / 4 years ago

Hope, Faith and Love: the Music Ministry of Gerard Renaud

COVID-19 / 4 years ago

Part IV: Clerical Errors Affect Real People!

armed forces

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Morgan Murphy

With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.

It is a start.

But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.

Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.

The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.

In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.

Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.

What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics

The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.

Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”

Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.

How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”

Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.

Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.

Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.

Business

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In case you haven’t heard, Chrystia Freeland resigned from cabinet on Monday. Reportedly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan to send all Canadians earning up to $150,000 a onetime $250 tax “rebate.” In her resignation letter, Freeland seemingly took aim at this ill-advised waste of money by noting “costly political gimmicks.” She could not have been more right, as my colleagues and I have written here, here and elsewhere.

Indeed, Freeland was right to excoriate the government for a onetime rebate cheque that would do nothing to help Canada’s long-term economic growth prospects, but her reasoning was curious given her record in office. She wrote that such gimmicks were unwise because Canada must keep its “fiscal powder dry” given the possibility of trade disputes with the United States.

Again, to a large extent Freeland’s logic is sound. Emergencies come up from time to time, and governments should be particularly frugal with public dollars during non-emergency periods so money is available when hard times come.

For example, the federal government’s generally restrained approach to spending during the 1990s and 2000s was an important reason Canada went into the pandemic with its books in better shape than most other countries. This is an example of how keeping “fiscal powder dry” can help a government be ready when emergencies strike.

However, much of the sentiment in Freeland’s resignation letter does not match her record as finance minister.

Of course, during the pandemic and its immediate aftermath, it’s understandable that the federal government ran large deficits. However, several years have now past and the Trudeau government has run large continuous deficits. This year, the government forecasts a $48.3 billion deficit, which is larger than the $40 billion target the government had previously set.

A finance minister committed to keeping Canada’s fiscal powder dry would have pushed for balanced budgets so Ottawa could start shrinking the massive debt burden accumulated during COVID. Instead, deficits persisted and debt has continued to climb. As a result, federal debt may spike beyond levels reached during the pandemic if another emergency strikes.

Minister Freeland’s reported decision to oppose the planned $250 onetime tax rebates is commendable. But we should be cautious not to rewrite history. Despite Freeland’s stated desire to keep Canada’s “fiscal powder dry,” this was not the story of her tenure as finance minister. Instead, the story is one of continuous deficits and growing debt, which have hurt Canada’s capacity to withstand the next fiscal emergency whenever it does arrive.