Oct 292024
Sandra Finley
Oct 272024
A speech by The Prince of Wales on the 150th Anniversary …
The Royal Family
https://www.royal.uk › clarencehouse › speech › speech-…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Jul 5, 1991 — We will build a better future for the mentally ill because we know what ‘better’ means, and it means radical change in society’s assumptions.
. . . forcing yourselves to listen to me. However, I can only assume that if your professional reputation is anything to go by, I should at least be guaranteed the best audience I have ever had!
Personally, I think I need my head examined for coming all the way to Brighton merely to reveal my lamentable ignorance about the complex problems with which you have to deal in your professional lives. By the time I have finished this morning, I dare say it shouldn’t be too difficult to diagnose what is wrong with me, and no doubt you will then all argue furiously over the course of treatment to be prescribed. My guess is that you will recommend complete rest for another two weeks accompanied by a total abstinence from stress-inducing speeches…!
Talking of stress-inducing speeches, I am afraid I don’t have a very good record when it comes to the 150th anniversaries of professional bodies. The British Medical Association and then the Royal Institute of British Architects discovered, too late, the folly of their invitation to such an unreliable speaker! I can only imagine you have invited me under the delusion that you can actually cure me! Whatever the case, please know that I come here today as someone who is honoured to be your Patron, who brings you heartfelt congratulations on the achievement of such a distinguished anniversary and who makes no pretence of speaking in any other capacity than as a layman. But you must forgive me if I speak from time to time from the heart – it is a congenital defect!
In this spirit I want you to know how much I sympathise with you in what must be, at times, a literally soul-destroying task. As a profession your calling is to try and bring a measure of healing and comfort to the mental anguish and suffering of countless numbers of people. And yet you have to operate in an environment which I suspect most people who consider themselves sane and ‘normal’ (whatever that is!) prefer to shun or make jokes about. Not only that, but you are also working within the confines of current society, whose attitude and outlook must necessarily colour your approach.
I know that there have been many debates both within and without psychiatry as to what is a helpful definition of mental health, but as yet no proposal has won general agreement. I can imagine, therefore, that psychiatrists are often left with having to respond to people with acutely disturbed behaviour and to try to offer treatment that will lessen or eliminate the extreme behaviour presented – for the person and those around them.
I know, too, of the countless debates there have been within the profession regarding the nature of the task you have set yourselves in the last 150 years – in particular the arguments about psychotherapy and psychiatry, the latter having grown out of a branch of general medicine and which therefore is concerned with finding a physical basis for the major psychiatric disorders.
A hundred and fifty years ago, people had very limited, but nevertheless clear and important, definitions of madness. They had little idea or understanding of the causes but were quite clear that madness was to do with unacceptable behaviour. The term described certain forms of violence, and unacceptable responses to social situations. It constituted a failure to relate to other human beings. In some respects this is a definition from which we have not advanced, but during that time generations of psychiatrists have made major progress towards understanding and treating mental illness. It is, therefore, perhaps disappointing that society’s understanding and acceptance of mental illness has developed so little during the same period, and that there is still somewhat of a social stigma attached to it.
A stigma is ‘a distinguishing mark of social disgrace’, and ultimately comes from a Greek word meaning ‘to tattoo’. This appropriately conveys the image, for the mentally image person, of being branded; perhaps the one who causes a disturbance on the Underground, or someone whose unacceptable behaviour embarrasses family and friends. The quiet, unobtrusive sufferer from depression understandably fears being tarred with the same brush. As a result he dares not admit to symptoms and so does not receive treatment until he or she has suffered greatly for an unnecessarily long time. This stigma makes the whole of life even more difficult for both the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped; it affects the patients themselves, their relatives and all who deal with them. This tends to include mental health professionals, who themselves can become subtly tainted.
I know that the Royal College of Psychiatrists aims to try and remove this stigma altogether and is working to lessen its effect. Providing the facts for the general public about the different mental illnesses is helpful, and efforts in public education such as the College’s ‘Beat Depression’ campaign can certainly help. The media obviously have an important part to play in the process and there are shining examples of what can be done, such as the series of articles by Marjorie Wallace in The Times which not only aid the foundation of contemporary understanding of schizophrenia, but also led directly to the formation of a charity called SANE, of which I am Patron. As Professor Anthony Clare said in his keynote speech two weeks ago, at the start of your celebrations: ‘What SANE has done is to strip back the curtains surrounding mental illness, so that the condition is no longer so mystifying. As a result sufferers and families no longer need to feel so neglected and isolated.’
There are, is has to be said, sections of the media which do not take such an enlightened view and (perhaps reflecting the views and prejudices of their readers) will go to great lengths to avoid any serious discussion of mental illness. I believe that the difficulty sufferers have in talking about their illness and treatment, and the secrecy surrounding it, gives an added responsibility to professionals like yourselves to speak up, and in terms that everyone can understand. Heart by-pass operations and transplant surgery attract enormous interest, and there is no shortage of ex-patients to testify to the success of the techniques. But disorders such as severe depression and schizophrenia are largely ignored and opportunities for us all to learn anything about their nature and treatment are virtually non-existent.
This same taboo on the public discussion of what are, afterall, common illnesses has led, I believe, to a general undervaluing of the work of psychiatrists. Not unnaturally, the brilliant work of our best surgeons attracts a certain sort of glamour. We marvel at, and are grateful for, their successes and share their sorrow when a patient cannot be saved. But psychiatry remains largely unsung – perhaps because it is also, inevitably, unseen. Its triumphs are, almost by definition, private; invisible to the public eye. And when there are significant failures how often does anyone register the impact they have on the psychiatrists who have done their best? On the contrary, the public perception is all too often negative, driven by the same stigma which attaches to their patients and, quite possibly, to people who are rash enough to make speeches about the subject!
It is sad that society does not generally seem to recognise what it asks of its psychiatrists. Of all the areas of specialist medicine, you cover perhaps the broadest range of disorders, only outdone by the GP, who also has a key role in the identification and treatment of mental illness. You certainly deal with what is by far the most complex organ in the body. In the absence of anyone else, we would like you to solve all the problems of society. We confront you with the most complex problems, part biological, part psychological, part social and part spiritual, and expect you to unravel them, treat all the parts that belong to psychiatry and at the same time somehow make better all the parts that don’t belong to psychiatry.
I am sure it would be helpful if more people understood that a psychiatrist’s first problem is to decide how to reach out to a patient, how to make them feel understood, cared for, and safe. Frequently, patients are frightened, not only by their pain, suffering or madness, but also by the image of psychiatry which they may have gained from films or highly biased sources. I am told that a recent film ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ portrays psychiatrists in a quite terrifying manner, which is no doubt a help at the box office, but is none at all to the psychiatrists – or to those in need of their help.
In our contemporary society there is every incentive to believe that suffering can be banished, avoided or at worst postponed. Psychiatrists have to confront the evidence to the contrary every single day. Just being with a patient who is frightened or frightening must be incredibly difficult and takes immense courage and dedication; the human contact can awaken shadows in the doctor’s own psyche, testing that inner strength which has the most profound influence on the patient. To listen and share in someone’s pain takes great bravery and it deserves recognition.
In a day’s work psychiatrists and psychotherapists will doubtless hear many dark and terrible stories; of loneliness, isolation, poverty and bereavement. Despite the best efforts of social services, and other caring agencies, children do suffer at the hands of their parents, guardians or other adults. Physical and mental abuse are not uncommon and tend to be perpetuated from one generation to the next. Other children and adults suffer not through the deliberate will of others, but through misfortune, accident, bereavement or other crisis.
Many people are somehow able to re-direct this neurotic energy into creativity, perhaps at work, or through various forms of artistic expression, or in spiritual understanding and healing. But for reasons that you and your colleagues are only slowly unravelling there are also people for whom suffering leads to pain, anxiety, depression, drug abuse and other forms of mental illness.
Between these two groups are a great many other people who respond to medication, and yet at the same time are influenced by the amount of stress or suffering to which they are exposed. I am told that before modern drugs were available patients with schizophrenia were routinely admitted to hospital and for some of them their symptoms would be ameliorated by providing a structured, peaceful and caring environment. Similarly, it is now known that schizophrenia patients receiving medication need more medication if they are in a family environment which is highly stressed and less in a family which is supportive, and yet accepting, and where there is understanding of the illness.
As I said at the beginning of my lecture, it is not surprising that there has been a lot of discussion about the relative merits of the biological and psychosocial approaches to problems of the psyche. One school of thought claims that mental illness is in the last resort a physical disorder to be treated by physical means. New drugs make this a powerful and effective approach, which has certainly led to a dramatic relief of symptoms and greatly reduced periods of hospitalisation. At the same time the power of the technique is such that a psychiatrist faced with a distressed or unhappy person, and probably in a crisis situation, may have to resort to a ‘chemical cosh’ too readily, in order to calm someone quickly – substituting drugs (which can lead to dependence) for the time and understanding which could conceivably rescue the patient from his predicament.
The other school of thought believes, as you all know better than me, that mental illness is primarily a behavioural malaise, to be treated by methods appropriate to such a disorder. It uses drugs and physical techniques as sparingly as possible, and relies on reaching a close rapport with the patient, helping him or her by psychological analysis in depth to integrate apparently conflicting emotional drives. This view, too, has its undeniable quota of success, but is difficult to apply on a large scale, if only because of the prohibitive cost in time and medical manpower.
Having made my own views on over-reliance on medication known to the British Medical Association some years ago, and having spent time since then in encouraging what I prefer to call complementary practice, it will not surprise you to hear that I am concerned, for what it is worth, that the psychological approach to mental illness should not be forgotten or discounted.
I know that this College recommends the lowest possible dosage of drugs and encourages the use, wherever possible, of psychological techniques, but all the enquiries I have been able to make have suggested that the training of psychiatrists is heavily weighted towards the medical approach. This may be a reflection of a society which some people would say is overly materialistic, with the emphasis too much on doing and changing, and not enough on being and accepting. The power of the medical techniques is undeniable. They have brought real benefits and no-one would wish to deny that. But I would have thought that over-emphasis on drugs can also enable us as a society to lose sight of problems which have their roots in the way we treat each other.
A teenager with hallucinations and strange beliefs may be diagnosed as schizophrenic and be provided with the extensive help and support he or she needs. But another similar teenager may have other serious difficulties – perhaps an inability to form stable relationships, a tendency to violence or to take overdoses during outbursts of uncontrollable rage. Both teenagers need care. The schizophrenic fits neatly into the medical model, whilst the other may be labelled as ‘delinquent’ or assessed as having a personality disorder. Both conditions are treatable and both require a great deal of time and resources, not only from psychiatrists. One is understandable in terms of illness, the other only in much broader terms, which may involve facing unpleasant realities about our society. No doubt there are people who would say that the patient with a personality problem is not the concern of the psychiatrist. But without proper help and discretion such adolescents may go on to deprive and, perhaps, even abuse their own children.
The medically trained psychiatrist could be forgiven for feeling at a loss when faced with a disturbing and frightening young person who neither needs nor responds to medication. I believe there is a need for training which emphasises to psychiatrists that there will be times when they will feel overwhelmed when faced with people who have suffered greatly; that there will be times when it is important to remain with and be with and comfort such a person in their suffering. Psychiatrists rightly emphasise the importance of communicating clearly and skilfully, and I welcome the growing importance being given to listening and counselling skills in all branches of medicine. Sometimes there is a need for doing, but equally there are times for being with, for waiting, for being patient and for allowing spiritual healing to occur. There is a sense, too, in which suffering, if handled sensitively, can be transmuted into a positively redeeming process. I was talking recently to the wife of a Church of Scotland Minister who told me that as often as not she and her husband are left to pick up the pieces with people who have failed to respond to psychiatric treatment. She told me that she has only witnessed a true transformation in such people when they finally discover within themselves that transfiguring dimension we define (or perhaps I should say that some of us define!) as God. Above all, perhaps, students need to be taught that growth and healing are natural processes. Science can accelerate them, but it can also retard or prevent them.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was interested to observe that the motto of your College is ‘Let wisdom guide’. For what it is worth, I believe we need to be reminded occasionally that wisdom has a far more profound meaning than just the acquisition of knowledge in the modern scientific-materialist sense. Should we not be asking ourselves pretty carefully where scientific materialism has been leading us – and, indeed, what kind of society it has been creating? Is there not an imbalance that needs correcting; an abandoned element that requires rehabilitation? It is perhaps worth recalling that Jung himself told one of his associates that he did not want anybody to be ‘Jungian’. “I want people above all to be themselves. As for ‘isms’, they are the viruses of our day, and responsible for greater disasters than any medieval plague or pest has ever been. Should I be found one day only to have created another ‘ism’ then I will have failed in all I tried to do.”
At the risk of being controversial, (which at least has the advantage of providing a useful source of conversation over lunch!) I would like to pose a few thoughts to you.
In Ancient Greece, sickness of the soul or psyche needed not the care of ancient medicine or a physician, but exclusively a god or saviour named Asclepius. The reason for this was that classical man saw sickness as the effect of a diving action, which could be cured only by a god or another divine action. Thus a clear-form of homoeopathy was practised, where the divine sickness was cast out by divine remedy. “When the sickness is vested with such dignity, it has the inestimable advantage that it can be vested with healing power.” Thus said CA Meier in his ‘Healing Dream and Ritual’.
Such explanations, of course, run totally counter to ‘modern’ explanations of mental illness. The modernist will doubtless accuse the proponents of theocentric views of wanting to tip psychiatry back into the dark ages, and bring back ghouls and ghosts and other irrational explanations that muddy our scientific understanding. But perhaps, then, we can ask for an explanation as to how and why such illness does arise? Although it may be categorised and its manifestations damped down, I would suggest it is very hard to explain its intrinsic cause.
Is it not because the irrational forces of the universe have been ignored so completely for so long that they can come with such power into the lives of people who have no conception of what is happening? Without experienced people who work in those worlds, containment, transformation and healing are surely very difficult.
It seems to me that the meaning that illness has for us is, to a large extent, conditioned by our view about the purpose and goal of the life we are given on this planet. In other words, for the materialist, enlightened self-interest would lead us to see illness as of no value and with no meaning, whereas someone with a religious view of Creation will need to think about it in a much larger frame than merely the restriction of the individual’s ability to do all that he or she could. If wisdom is to be your guide then Shakespeare makes a few salient points when Macbeth speaks to the doctor about Lady Macbeth, thus –
‘Canst thou not minster to a mind diseased, Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow, Raze out the written troubles of the brain, And with some sweet oblivious antidote Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff which weighs upon the heart?’
The conclusion of the matter was ‘more needs she the divine than the physician’. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I believe that the most urgent need for Western man is to rediscover that divine element in his being, without which there never can be any possible hope or meaning to our existence in this Earthly realm. As Wordsworth wrote with such profound insight –
‘And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of the setting suns And the round Ocean and the living air, And the blue sky and in the mind of man; A motion and a spirit that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, and rolls through all things.’
At the heart of many religious, psychological and psychiatric writings is a recognition of the importance of the way in which all the members of our society are inter-connected and inter-dependent, and the need to look at the whole person in the whole society. This, of course, runs directly contrary to our natural instinct to attempt to deal with the complexities of contemporary life by breaking it down into different components. Yet experience shows that if we do not address the whole of a person’s needs within the whole of the society in which that person lives, treatment will fail.
I do believe that we are in danger of cutting ourselves off into a world that recognises only mind and body. But in the treatment of mental illness we must surely recognise the importance of understanding and respecting the culture and beliefs of the individuals concerned and of those close to them. When – as is too often the case in our generation – there seem to be no beliefs, but simply a spiritual vacuum, there are no foundations on which to build an acceptance of our own weakness, respect for the unique worth of others, and a reconciliation between those classed as mentally ill and the society in which we must all live.
To take just one example, I believe that one of the conditions most commonly encountered by psychiatrists is depression and anxiety. One of the main causes seems to be the lack of acceptance of suffering in a society which focuses on immediate gratification. We find it hard to accept that there is a need to adapt to loss, and to grieve, and we are intolerant of people who are emotionally distressed. Often their distress is made worse because they do not have the inner resources and spiritual development which would enable them to see that there is a meaning beyond themselves.
Treating the whole person within the whole society should perhaps be easier to achieve under the policy of community-based care, with local services designed to help people live as fully and productively as possible, despite their problems or disabilities. I know there are problems and challenges in making the new system work properly, but it does seem that the debate about whether community-based services (in which the role of the hospital is clearly defined) are right in principle, is over. The challenge now is to put those locally-based services in place in every district, in keeping with the need for them.
At this point and at the risk of repeating what you already know only too well, it may be worth reminding ourselves of the scale of the problem of mental illness. Quite apart from the cost in terms of human misery, the Mental Health Foundation has calculated that in 1989 no less than 71 million working days were lost in the United Kingdom because of mental illness; this represented 17% of all sickness absences from work, and cost this country nearly £4 billion in lost working days. Other research has shown that in every thousand people, 250 will suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. Of those 250, 17 will go to a psychiatrist and six will subsequently enter hospital. That is perhaps a salutary reminder of how much larger the problem is than even you encounter, and I have no doubt at all that some of those you do not see are just as ill as those you do.
But what sort of service do the mentally ill want, what do their relatives want? As you know, most want to live at home, to live their separate lives as far as possible like the rest of society. Patients tell me that they do not wish to go to hospital, and yet relatives tell the most awful stories of the deprivation, suffering and terror that they endure in trying to help their loved ones through their illness at home. It seems to me that if community-based care is really going to provide proper support we will need to find ways of giving greater strength, solidity and dependability to local services. But there must also be proper provision for those patients whose overriding need is for refuge and asylum. There will always be people who need a place of sanctuary where they can work through their pain and suffering, with professional support available 24 hours a day, and learn to adjust to their illness and all that it means in terms of loss of ability and potential. To recognise this would be a useful step forward in national policy.
I realise how difficult it must be to make such a complex and far-reaching change in the system as the current move to a community-based service. Though the mental hospitals could be stultifying and disabling, they must have been easier to manage than a network of smaller, sometimes almost invisible, local services. Developing and coordinating all these different community services is difficult, too, in part because many of the critical variables are outside the direct control of mental health professionals, planners or managers. Housing, for example, is a vital ingredient which regrettably is often lacking at present, causing all sorts of problems for individuals and for those who are trying to provide the service. It must be very depressing and de-motivating for psychiatrists to do their best for their patients and then be unable to discharge them to decent housing and the prospect of work. At the moment I know there are times when some of you have to discharge patients into poor accommodation, without supervision, often in a deprived area, and without the knowledge that this is going to aggravate their illnesses and result in their return to hospital. Clearly we need to forge new partnerships, not only between health and social services, but also involving housing authorities and housing associations.
What is also frustrating is how confusing the reports on all this tend to be. No one seems to know on a national basis what is really happening to people being diverted or discharged from mental hospitals. Studies of those resettled from hospital are generally very encouraging, but we know much less about those who have fallen through the cracks and those who might have been hospitalised in a previous era. I believe there is a need to monitor what is happening more carefully in order to get the national picture into focus. As a BBC Panorama programme earlier this week illustrated, there are undoubtedly people appearing in the accident departments, the courts and the prisons who represent the casualties from current policies.
These problems should not lead us to suggest, however, that we abandon the idea of locally-based care. But we do need to find a constructive middle path between over-protection in institutions and abandonment to uncaring communities, impoverished lives and, at worst, homelessness or incarceration.
I am told that good examples of such progress can already be seen here in Brighton, , but also in such places as North Lincolnshire, Exeter, Torbay, central Birmingham, Nottingham, Bath and Newcastle. The need now is to speed the spread of this good practice throughout the country.
I realise that accomplishing all this in a time of financial stringency is far from easy. But I do think it is important for all the key players to come together in a variety of ways at national, regional and local levels to clarify what needs to be done and how best to do it. This will require a general spirit of collaboration that cuts across old territorial boundaries – never, I realise, an easy thing to achieve.
In this connection I very much welcome the setting up of the Centre for Mental Health Services Development as part of the Institute of Health at King’s College London. I understand that this is supported enthusiastically by both the Mental Health Foundation and the Department of Health and that its Advisory Board is graced by the presence of your President.
So far as money is concerned, the re-shaping of the mental hospitals really does release a lot of money, on which the first call, I suspect, ought to be funding community care for the mentally ill. At present, I understand that over half of the £1.5 billion spent on hospital and community services supports just 40,000 patients in the remaining large hospitals. Less than half supports many hundreds of thousands of patients in the community, many of whom are at least as disabled by their illness as those in hospital.
I believe it is also important sometimes to listen to those who actually use the mental health services. I have been impressed by what I have heard about what is known as the ‘self-advocacy’ movement. In a previous era no one would have believed that people diagnosed as schizophrenic or manic depressive could eventually be capable of providing advice on policy and planning. But this is just what is now happening. Clearly, even people with very real illnesses and disturbances don’t remain so all the time. And some get very much better and can become an inspiration for others. It is therefore encouraging to learn that the College has already set up a Patients’ Liaison Group.
Another group with a major contribution to make is the General Practitioners. Very many people with psychological symptoms consult their family doctor, but in about half of all cases the GP does not recognise the condition as a psychiatric disorder, and even where the condition is regarded as psychiatric it may go untended. This is hardly surprising as it is still possible to enter general practice as a Principal with as little as eight weeks experience of studying psychiatry. I would have thought that there was an urgent need for training for GPs in psychiatry, both in the identification of mental illnesses and in their effective treatment. Since I am about to become next year’s President of the Royal College of general Practitioners (they need their heads examining as well!), I was interested to learn about an exciting development in community psychiatry which aims to foster close working ties between these two groups of professionals. The Liaison in Community Psychiatry programme (known as LINC-UP) begins with a nationwide survey of all psychiatrists at this conference, and I hope you will all be able to give it your support.
Another area which I hope you will support and encourage is the perhaps somewhat undervalued task of research. This country has a proud reputation in this area, and I know that biological researchers in psychiatry and allied fields are currently beginning to make significant inroads into our understanding of the functioning of the brain. Of course such research is expensive, and last month SANE asked me to launch an appeal to enable the founding of an International Schizophrenia Research Centre in this country. It was the most wonderful start to be able to announce immediately that no less than £1.75 million has been pledged to the Centre by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The task now is to match this most generous contribution from other sources.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to end by suggesting that any vision of a better future for people who are afflicted by mental illness must have its roots in a better understanding of mind and body, and in values that go far beyond the material. We will build a better future for the mentally ill because we know what ‘better’ means, and it means radical change in society’s assumptions.
It is terrible to have made you sit here for so long (you will all end up with bad backs before I’ve finished!) but there are just three main points that I would like to leave you with. Firstly, my encouragement and admiration for your intensely difficult, undervalued work with the large group of people who bear the stigma of mental illness.
Secondly, it is clear that the current national and international policies in psychiatry are moving firmly away from the large closed institutions. That is understandable, but we still need places of sanctuary and we must make community care work. There are now good models of success; projects where community care is working really well. But we have a long way to go before those models of excellence are the universal pattern. That is the challenge in our generation.
Finally, my feeling that there is a need for greater recognition, even among such an enlightened group as yourselves, that mental and physical health are not simply about medical repairs. We are not just machines, whatever modern science may claim is the case on the evidence of what is purely visible and tangible in this world. mental and physical health also have a spiritual base. caring for people who are ill, restoring them to health when that is possible, and comforting them always, even when it is not, are spiritual tasks. Training people for your profession and maintaining your professional skills are not simply about understanding and administering the latest drugs but about therapy; in the original Greek sense of healing – physical, mental and spiritual, and also about wisdom, in the ancient sense of understanding the true nature of our existence enabling those who are ‘seeing through a glass darkly’ then to see face to face. If you lose that foundation as a profession, I believe there is a danger you will ultimately lose your way.”
Oct 272024
ASIDE: HHS = The United States Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal government created to protect the health of the U.S. people and providing essential human services. Its motto is “Improving the health, safety, and well-being of America”. Wikipedia
Founded: April 11, 1953
Founder: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Annual budget: $1.631 trillion (2022)
Employees: 83,202
– – – – – – – – – – – –
The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating.
The Biden administration pushed falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks.
Thanks to Dan for submitting. He writes: Hind sight is 20/20. But the damage is done.
– – – – – – – –
Sandra speaking: Brownstone text is copied below, in case the link does not work.
Page 85 of the actual Report. My SURVEILLANCE RADAR picked this paragraph up in skimming. (Confession: I didn’t really read all the 113 pages! – – Brownstone did that, but using different radar.)
The scale of the public relations campaign raises serious questions over further entrenching
Big Tech’s role in surveilling Americans and in seeking to influence public opinion. Without more
answers from Google and HHS, it is unclear whether personally identifiable information was in
any way used by Google in the development of the Campaign for the custom search dashboard,
and to what extent children’s viewing habits were involved in the Campaign. Google, like other
Big Tech companies, has been able to bury in their privacy policies what they do with Americans’
information in the absence of a federal data privacy and security standard. Current data privacy
protections have been limited to just minors under the age of 13. Even with that limited privacy
protection, Google and other Big Tech companies have been dogged for not doing enough . . .
The Most Devastating Report So Far ⋆ Brownstone Institute
🔗 https://brownstone.org/articles/the-most-devastating-report-so-far/
The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating. The Biden administration spent almost $1 billion to push falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks on the American people. If a pharma company had run the campaign, it would have been fined out of existence.
HHS engaged a PR firm, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), for the propaganda campaign. The main goal was to increase Covid vax uptake. The strategy: 1. Exaggerate Covid mortality risk 2. Downplay the fact that there was no good evidence that the Covid vax stops transmission.
The propaganda campaign extended beyond vax uptake and included exaggerating mask efficacy and pushing for social distancing and school closures.
Ultimately, since the messaging did not match reality, the campaign collapsed public trust in public health.
The PR firm (FMG) drew most of its faulty science from the CDC’s “guidance,” which ignored the FDA’s findings on the vaccine’s limitations, as well as scientific findings from other countries that contradicted CDC groupthink.
The report details the CDC’s mask flip-flopping through the years. It’s especially infuriating to recall the CDC’s weird, anti-scientific, anti-human focus on masking toddlers with cloth masks into 2022.
President Biden’s Covid advisor Ashish K. Jha waited until Dec. 2022 (right after leaving government service) to tell the country that “[t]here is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.” What took him so long?
In 2021, former CDC director, Rochelle Walensky rewrote CDC guidance on social distancing at the behest of the national teachers’ union, guaranteeing that schools would remain closed to in-person learning for many months.
During this period, the PR firm FMG put out ads telling parents that schools would close unless kids masked up, stayed away from friends, and got Covid-vaccinated.
In March 2021, even as the CDC told the American people that the vaxxed did not need to mask, the PR firm ran ads saying that masks were still needed, even for the vaxxed. “It’s not time to ease up” we were told, in the absence of evidence any of that did any good.
In 2021, to support the Biden/Harris administration’s push for vax mandates, the PR firm pushed the false idea that the vax stopped Covid transmission. When people started getting “breakthrough” infections, public trust in public health collapsed.
Later, when the FDA approved the vax for 12 to 15-year-old kids, the PR firm told parents that schools could open in fall 2021 only if they got their kids vaccinated. These ads never mentioned side effects like myocarditis due to the vax.
HHS has scrubbed the propaganda ads from this era from its web pages. It’s easy to see why. They are embarrassing. They tell kids, in effect, that they should treat other kids like biohazards unless they are vaccinated.
When the Delta variant arrived, the PR firm doubled down on fear-mongering, masking, and social distancing.
In September 2021, CDC director Walensky overruled the agency’s external experts to recommend the booster to all adults rather than just the elderly. The director’s action was “highly unusual” and went beyond the FDA’s approval of the booster for only the elderly.
The PR campaign and the CDC persistently overestimated the mortality risk of Covid infection in kids to scare parents into vaccinating their children with the Covid vax.
In Aug. 2021, the military imposed its Covid vax mandate, leading to 8,300 servicemen being discharged. Since 2023, the DOD has been trying to get the discharged servicemen to reenlist. What harm has been done to American national security by the vax mandate?
The Biden/Harris administration imposed the OSHA, CMS, and military vax mandates, even though the CDC knew that the Delta variant evaded vaccine immunity. The PR campaign studiously avoided informing Americans about waning vaccine efficacy in the face of variants.
The propaganda campaign hired celebrities and influencers to “persuade” children to get the Covid vax.
I think if a celebrity is paid to advertise a faulty product, that celebrity should be partially liable if the product harms some people.
In the absence of evidence, the propaganda campaign ran ads telling parents that the vaccine would prevent their kids from getting Long Covid.
With the collapse in public trust in the CDC, parents have begun to question all CDC advice. Predictably, the HHS propaganda campaign has led to a decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccines.
The report makes several recommendations, including formally defining the CDC’s core mission to focus on disease prevention, forcing HHS propaganda to abide by the FDA’s product labeling rules, and revamping the process of evaluating vaccine safety.
Probably the most important recommendation: HHS should never again adopt a policy of silencing dissenting scientists in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus in favor of CDC groupthink.
You can find a copy of the full House report here. The HHS must take its findings seriously if there is any hope for public health to regain public.
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
Author
Oct 222024
A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. Other defendants include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.
00:00/06:05
A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the seven “corona skeptics” sued Gates last year, along with former Dutch prime minister and newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and “several members” of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 “Outbreak Management Team.”
Other defendants include Albert Bourla, Ph.D., CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.
“Because Bill Gates’ foundation was involved in combating the corona pandemic, he has also been summoned,” De Telegraaf reported.
According to Dutch independent news outlet Zebra Inspiratie, the plaintiffs allege that Gates, through his representatives, deliberately misled them about the safety of the COVID-19 shots, despite knowing “that these injections were not safe and effective.”
Dutch independent journalist Erica Krikke told The Defender that the seven plaintiffs — whose names are redacted in the lawsuit’s publicly available documents — “are ordinary Dutch people, and they have been jabbed and after the jabs they got sick.”
Krikke said that of the seven original plaintiffs, one has since died, leaving the other six plaintiffs to continue the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Leeuwarden. According to De Telegraaf, “Gates had objected because, according to him, the judges did not have jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the court first “had to rule in the so-called incident procedure,” De Andere Krant reported.
Zebra Inspiratie reported that the hearing in this “incident procedure” took place on Sept. 18 and that Gates’ representatives disputed jurisdiction, but not the claim.
According to De Andere Krant, Gates was represented by the Pels Rijcken law firm, based in The Hague, described as “the largest and the premier litigation law firm in the Netherlands.” Gates did not appear at the Sept. 18 hearing, but attorneys for Gates argued that the court “had no jurisdiction over him because he lives in the United States.”
However, in its Oct. 16 ruling, the Leeuwarden court ruled it does have jurisdiction over Gates. De Andere Krant reported that the court found “sufficient evidence” that the claims against Gates and the other defendants are “connected” and based on the same “complex of facts.”
Other defendants who reside outside of the Netherlands, including Bourla, did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
The court ruled Gates must pay attorneys’ fees and additional legal costs totaling 1,406 euros (approximately $1,520). A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 27.
‘Even if … your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court’
In remarks shared with De Andere Krant, Arno van Kessel, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, welcomed the ruling. “In its verdict, the court has clearly recorded the basis of our conclusions of claim,” van Kessel said.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender it is “quite interesting” that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Leeuwarden instead of The Hague, where normally, all cases against the government related to COVID-19 are filed.
“In general, COVID-19 court cases have been very unsuccessful in the Netherlands,” Terhorst said. “There is a slim chance it will be successful.”
She added:
“I think most judges support the COVID-19 vaccination agenda and will find it hard to believe the vaccinations have caused injuries. So, we have a long way to go, regardless of the case.”
Krikke shared a more optimistic outlook, saying that the court sent a message that “even if you are rich and your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court.”
New Zealand-based independent journalist Penny Marie, who has closely followed the proceedings in this case, told The Defender she hopes the Oct. 16 ruling “will hopefully set a precedent and help plaintiffs in similar cases around the world regarding jurisdiction,” in cases “where the defendant does not reside in the country of the plaintiff.”
“For parties who make claims against those involved in the implementation of the Great Reset and other international actions, such as the COVID-19 emergency response initiated by the WEF [World Economic Forum] and imposed on all U.N. member nations, I hope that this ruling provides an opportunity for others to follow suit,” Marie added.
Father of vaccine-injured plaintiff made ‘emotional plea’ to the court
At the Sept. 18 hearing, plaintiffs also delivered statements. According to Zebra Inspiratie, “One of the victims, who is very ill, was also given the opportunity to make a plea. She was no longer able to speak and was represented by her father. It was an emotional plea.”
Krikke said the plaintiff’s father told the court that his daughter, who was previously healthy, fell ill after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and could no longer speak, telling the judge that he “would really like to speak to Bill Gates directly” to ask him what happened to his daughter.
“After that, the judge was really quiet,” Krikke said.
The Oct. 18 ruling also addressed the plaintiffs’ claims about Gates’ role in the WEF’s “Great Reset” project.
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also affiliated with the World Economic Forum … an international organization whose statutory objective is to unite ‘leaders from business, governments, academia and society at large into a global community committed to improving the state of the world,’” the ruling states, adding:
“This is a project aimed at the total reorganization of societies in all countries that are members of the United Nations … as described by [WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab] in his book Covid-19: The Great Reset. …
“Characteristic of this political ideology is that this forced and planned change is presented as justified by pretending that the world is suffering from major crises that can only be solved by centralized, hard global intervention. One of these pretended major crises concerns the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The ruling also states, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is affiliated with ‘Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance‘ … an international partnership in the field of vaccinations between various public and private entities.”
Oct 222024
PREVIOUS WAS: For Your Selection October 02
For Your Selection OCTOBER 23, 2024
COVID
- *** 2024-10-16 Covid – VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU WATCH. Could a new class-action lawsuit offer justice for COVID-19 vaccine victims? (Carrie Sakamoto case and others) Tamara Ugolini, Rebel News***
-
2024-09-24 Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces province will amend Bill of Rights to include vaccine refusal. Legislation will be tabled in the coming weeks. Video’d press conference.
UPDATE: By the end of October the draft legislation was tabled and in public debate.
TYRANNY
(There is an update on this case. I’ll find and get it posted.)
We are all warriors.
Sandra
Oct 222024
Important to watch AND forward to others. /S
A new class-action lawsuit is providing Albertans injured by the “safe and effective” COVID shots with renewed hope for justice.
Marking the legacy of the so-called pandemic was the widespread suspension of our civil liberties and the establishment of a bio-security nanny state that forcefully pushed mass vaccinations on every man, woman and child to the benefit of Big Pharma and their bureaucratic accomplices inside all levels of government.
The fevered push to get shots into arms saw the government change regulatory due process and rush these novel products to market. As a result, an untold number of people were left injured or dead and entirely forgotten by the system.
At the heart of this lawsuit is Carrie Sakamoto, a young mother from Lethbridge whose personal $10.5 million vaccine injury lawsuit pivoted into a class action, representing potentially thousands of Albertans facing debilitating, long-term effects from the widely promoted but highly controversial COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
Lawyers Jeff Rath and Eva Chipiuk from the firm Rath and Co. are the lawyers behind this massive lawsuit. They recently joined me for an interview to explain how the Alberta government took part in “unlawful, negligent, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices” to convince people to put their health, safety, and employment on the line under the guise of the greater good.
Click here to watch.
Rath pointed out that the government of Alberta, including Health Officer Deena Hinshaw, ignored important safety data before the rollout of these shots:
“[Pfizer] clearly demonstrated that if you put these shots into the arms of children, that the vaccines themselves would kill more children than COVID.”
This lawsuit is more than just a legal battle — it’s an urgent call for accountability and a potential precedent for future public health responses. As legal action unfolds, will this be Canadians’ only hope for the government to take responsibility for the widespread harm caused by their hasty vaccine rollout?
You can find updates on this lawsuit and our other facts-based reports on this issue at NoMoreShots.ca.
On that website, we’ve also set up a petition you can sign demanding our government immediately revoke market authorization for these shots.
Yours truly,
Tamara Ugolini
P.S. In response to the government’s “safe and effective” narrative, we’ve launched a campaign at NoMoreShots.ca where you can find credible and well-researched reports on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and sign our petition to revoke market authorization of these shots before more people are hurt.
Oct 212024
In an interview with The Defender, Naomi Wolf, journalist and CEO of Daily Clout, detailed the serious vaccine-related injuries that Pfizer and the FDA knew of by early 2021, but tried to hide from the public.
Listen to this article
00:00/10:53
Pfizer knew about the inadequacies of its COVID-19 vaccine trials and the vaccine’s many serious adverse effects, and so did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But the FDA promoted the vaccines anyway — and later tried to hide the data from the public, according to Naomi Wolf, editor of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity.”
In an interview with The Defender, Wolf detailed the serious vaccine-related injuries that Pfizer and the FDA knew of by early 2021, based on the data from Pfizer’s clinical trials and post-marketing studies.
To produce “The Pfizer Papers,” Wolf, a journalist and CEO of Daily Clout, and Daily Clout Chief Operations Officer Amy Kelly convened thousands of volunteer scientists and doctors to analyze Pfizer data and supplementary data from other public reporting systems to capture the full scope of the vaccines’ effects. They
Wolf and Kelly obtained the data from the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of more than 30 medical professionals and scientists who sued the FDA in 2021 to force the agency to release the data, after the FDA refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request.
A federal court in 2022 ordered the agency to release 450,000 internal documents pertaining to the licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
No journalist could take on the ‘Pfizer Papers’ alone
Wolf worked for decades as a journalist in liberal legacy media. In 2020, as she watched the rights to free assembly and other liberties suspended under the guise of emergency declarations, she became a vocal critic of the constitutional violations imposed on Americans, she told The Defender.
Wolf was equally critical of the COVID-19 vaccines and alarmed by the widespread use of incentives to get people to take the emergency use authorized shots. “I’m not a medical doctor, I’m not a scientist,” she said. “I was an English major and even I know how dangerous that is. It’s madness.”
In June 2021, Wolf tweeted her concern that there were widespread reports women were suffering menstrual dysregulation after taking the shots. She called for more investigation.
“Immediately the next day, I was deplatformed from every social media platform,” she said. “And simultaneous hit pieces that were nearly identical were launched in pretty much every major news outlet” — including outlets for which she had been a columnist.
“All over the world and in every language I was turned into an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist overnight,” she said.
Wolf was exiled from legacy media, but new doors opened. “Steve Bannon invited me on ‘The War Room’ and gave me a platform,” she said. There, she discussed the challenge of sifting through the Pfizer documents released by the FDA.
The data release was monumental and the documents were highly technical and scientific. “No journalist could have the bandwidth to go through them all,” Wolf said.
Bannon suggested she organize a volunteer team of scientists to take up the charge. Wolf put out a call and 3,250 highly credentialed scientists responded. Kelly organized them into working groups that have systematically issued key reports about what Wolf said, “turns out to be the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history.”
“The Pfizer documents are a stunning revelation of corporate greed and dishonesty, with utter disregard for the law, and Americans’ actual health,” Bannon wrote in his introduction to the book.
Your support helps fund this work, and CHD’s related advocacy, education and scientific research.
A ‘crime against humanity’
Wolf told The Defender that because her grandparents lost eight siblings in the Holocaust, she didn’t use the language “crime against humanity” lightly. However, she said, the reports make clear that given what Pfizer knew about the damage to human health caused by the mRNA COVID-19 shots, “There’s no way to avoid concluding that this is not carelessness, it’s not greed, it’s not sloppiness at the manufacturing plant.”
“As they say in tech, ‘it’s not a bug, it’s a feature,’” she said. “In other words, damaging humans in very specific ways, very early on, was obviously a result of these injections. And instead of stopping, or pulling them off the market, Pfizer doubled down, the FDA doubled down and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] doubled down.”
Wolf said Pfizer, the FDA and CDC made those decisions knowing that 1,223 people died from the shots in the first three months. They did it knowing that the vaccine didn’t stop infection, that it caused a long list of serious side effects in tens of thousands of people, she said.
Pfizer also manipulated data to get the FDA to sign off on the emergency use authorization (EUA), she said. In what Wolf called “one of the most damning reports in this book,” Australian anesthesiologist Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan’s team found that Pfizer delayed recording deaths so they did not have to be included as part of its EUA data filing.
The researchers concluded that if Pfizer had recorded and reported the deaths in a timely manner, the FDA wouldn’t have been able to grant an EUA for the vaccine.
42,000 serious adverse events in three months, mostly in women
The “Pfizer Papers” analysts found over 42,000 case reports detailing 158,893 adverse events reported to Pfizer in the first three months following the December 2020 EUA. To process the large volume of reports, the company added 600 additional employees, the documents showed, with plans to hire a total of 1,800 people by June 2021.
Wolf said:
“These are tens of thousands of blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, neurological disorders, epilepsies, dementia, Alzheimer’s, bell’s palsy, tremors, convulsions, liver damage, kidney damage, stroke, so many kinds of skin eruptions, eye damage, blindness, respiratory illness.”
The most common side effect was myalgia or muscle pain and the second-most common side effect was joint pain, which people often don’t realize is related to the injection, she said. The third most common side effect was COVID-19 because the vaccine didn’t stop transmission.
However, “the centerpiece” of “The Pfizer Papers” is Pfizer’s experimentation on human reproduction, Wolf said. The papers reveal that Pfizer knew early on that the shots were causing menstrual damage at scale, she said.
The company reported to the FDA that 72% of the recorded adverse events were in women. Of those, about 16% involved reproductive disorders and functions.
The papers show that in the clinical trials, thousands of women experienced daily bleeding, hemorrhaging, and passing of tissue, and thousands of women reported that their menstrual cycle stopped completely.
“They knew they were ruining women,” she said.
Pfizer even told vaccinated men not to have intercourse with women of childbearing age, and if they did, to use two reliable forms of contraception, she added.
Effects on babies ‘will chill your soul’
Pfizer was aware that lipid nanoparticles from the shots accumulated in the ovaries and crossed the placental barrier, compromising the placenta and keeping nutrients from the baby in utero, Wolf said.
Babies had to be delivered early, she said, and women were hemorrhaging in childbirth.
That also means that the particles entered the amniotic sac, and the membranes around the testes of baby boys, according to the papers. The future effects on those baby boys are unknown.
One of the most disturbing reports in the papers, she said, is the pregnancy lactation report, “that will chill your soul.” The report describes the effects on nursing babies of recently vaccinated mothers. The list includes fever, vomiting and edema, or swollen tissue, among many other issues.
“One baby convulsed and died in the hospital of multi-organ failure,” Wolf said. “These babies were inconsolable. They [Pfizer] knew they were poisoning breast milk, and to this day they haven’t told vaccinated moms not to breastfeed.”
The report also includes a description of two babies who died in utero, she said, which Pfizer concluded was due to maternal exposure to the vaccine.
Pfizer sent the pregnancy and lactation report detailing the vaccine’s effects on women and babies to the FDA on April 20, 2021. Two days later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky gave a White House press conference, during which she told women there was no bad time to get a COVID-19 shot — before, during or after pregnancy.
‘What’s the point of legacy media if they won’t cover the story?’
In a Google search for “The Pfizer Papers,” the first unsponsored search result is a Pfizer webpage titled Fighting Harmful Effects of Covid Vaccine Misinformation, followed by a Lancet article on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness.
Wolf said she’s been fighting this type of censorship since she was first deplatformed.
“As a journalist, what is so devastatingly upsetting to me is that this is the biggest story of the 21st century, and The New York Times and The Washington Post have done nothing about it,” even though Wolf publicly offered to share her materials with them.
“The only coverage has been from alternative media, which is just heartbreaking,” she said. “What’s the point of legacy media if they won’t cover the story?”
Wolf said that because the reports in “The Pfizer Papers” are summaries of Pfizer data that link to primary source documents, they can’t be dismissed. They’re not interpretive, she said. They are not scientists’ and doctors’ opinions.
‘These scientists and doctors have done a service to humanity’
Wolf said in the midst of this “depressing overview of a horrible crime,” “The Pfizer Papers” also offered some hope for the vaccine-injured.
In many cases, the expert analysis provided a detailed explanation of how the vaccine caused the damage. Understanding how the damage occurred, said Wolf, “helps us to begin to understand how to treat this kind of damage.”
Inflammatory conditions can be mitigated through changing diet and other practices, she said. For all of the people facing blood clotting and other blood issues, there are also ways to support healthy blood flow.
These may be examples, she said, of “very crude initial responses to a very sophisticated assault on the human body. But to me, they’re very hopeful because people are desperate and they feel like ticking time bombs.”
She added:
“These scientists and doctors have done such a service to humanity because they’ve really deeply analyzed how this bioweapon so delicately hurt every single system of the human body.
“And by truly understanding that, you see how to begin to — I don’t want to say unwind or undo the damage. I don’t know if that’s possible —but how to help the body to support its own healing.”
Oct 212024
Wrongful death. Umar Sheikh is the lawyer whose research led to the opening for suing in Canada: Canadian law doesn’t afford Big Pharma immunity from lawsuits.
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1DXxydVAlWZJM
Jason Lavigne
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Lawyer Umar Sheikh explains the fight for justice against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and the Canadian government. After the tragic loss of Dan Hartman’s son Sean, following a COVID-19 vaccination, they are taking on a wrongful death lawsuit, seeking accountability. Umar provides insights into the legal battle and the challenges of going up against one of the largest companies in the world.
The fight for justice is not just for Sean but for countless others who have been affected by similar vaccine injuries. Multiple lawsuits have been filed, including against the Canadian government for fraud and deceit.
Topics covered:
– Sean Hartman’s story and the lawsuit against Pfizer
– The legal battle against the Canadian government
– Vaccine injury cases and legal strategies
– Fighting for justice in a system stacked against them
Jason Lavigne’s Substack is free today. If you enjoy this post, you can tell Jason Lavigne’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
Oct 212024
From LifeSiteNews
The Government attempted to bring charges against individuals and companies who allegedly had equipment parked on and near the highway during the Coutts Freedom Convoy protest.
Some 50 truckers who protested COVID mandates by participating in the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired blockade protests at the Canadian-U.S. border with have seen their tickets dropped, the freedom-orientated legal group representing them has said.
In a press release, The Democracy Fund (TDF) announced that in partnership with Williamson Law (WL) it was able to successfully “defend against tickets” issued under Canada’s Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation and other regulatory statutes, for some 50 or so truckers who protested at the Coutts, Alberta border with the U.S. State of Montana in 2022.
“WL lawyers requested disclosure and held multiple discussions with the Crown, resulting in the withdrawal of tickets for all but 11 cases,” noted TDF.
As for the remaining 11 cases, the Crown was “determined to proceed” with them, so TDF with WL’s help “sought subpoenas for the Alberta Premier’s Office, Alberta Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Criminal Intelligence Service Alberta (CISA), and Provincial Security and Intelligence Office (PSIO) to give evidence in respect of disclosure issues.”
TDF observed that because of seeking the subpoenas, along with additional “discussions” with the defense counsel, it was able to “resolve” the 11 remaining tickets for only “$1 each.”
“As a result, no client was convicted at trial and all matters were successfully resolved,” noted TDF.
Lawyer Chad Williamson of WL reacted to the results saying it “represents an outstanding victory for civil liberty clients of The Democracy Fund.”
“The Government attempted to bring charges against individuals and companies who allegedly had equipment parked on and near the highway during the Coutts Freedom Convoy protest. In the face of a robust and steadfast defence, we were successful in having close to 50 charges withdrawn immediately,” he said.
Williamson added that when the Crown sought to “prosecute the remaining 11 truckers, we sought subpoenas for parties we believed had relevant knowledge of the underlying events.”
“At that point, the Crown agreed that the remaining charges should be resolved for $1 each,” he noted.
“These cases show that a strong and vigorous defence is the best protection against charges levied by the Government against peaceful protestors.”
While many Canadians who fought COVID fines, charges, and rules were successful in getting them overturned, others have not been successful.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Trudeau-appointed judge recently sentenced two men involved in the same 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta, to six years in prison.
Also, Canada’s Supreme Court recently decided it will not hear appeals to two high-profile cases brought forth by People’s Party of Canada (PPC) leader Maxime Bernier and former Premier of Newfoundland Brian Peckford. The pair had alleged their “Charter rights” were violated because of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government’s COVID jab travel mandates, which banned the vaccine-free from flying.
COVID vaccine mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
Oct 132024
This reply to Request for a signature was followed by a response from Johnson Springs.
My Rebuttal to their response is included below.
July 28, 2024
Hello Doreen,
RE your email of June 27: . . . this form is consent to receive support “…including all and any support and resources required to support my care, including but not limited to; receiving medication, assistance with daily living activities, day programming and/or any medical care required (Dr., calling ambulance, OT/PT, dentist, other medical care)…”
REPLY: Christopher’s needs are not the same as some other of the residents. I do not know what you (Johnson Springs) are attempting to do with this form, in its application to Christopher.
Partly because he lived with me until age 35 and was not on assistance, he is one of the more independent-minded residents.
I don’t like to react hastily. I’ve had time to think about the proposed form, and elicit input from Christopher. I checked out my conclusions with a lawyer, to see if I misunderstand something. I do not.
Out of respect, the following is a comprehensive explanation of why I cannot sign the Consent form; it includes Christopher’s understanding of how the Consent Form impacts him. I trust you will know that this has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with the rights of people in a democracy.
The Form reminds me of absurdities that arise in George Orwell’s work:
Christopher came to live at Johnson Springs Ten Years Ago.
The Terms of the Support for Christopher were established Ten Years Ago, and on an on-going basis since then.
Of course he consents to the support; he would not be living at Johnson Springs if he did not.
WHY I CANNOT SIGN THE CONSENT FORM
- The Consent Form, if signed, would serve no purpose other than to take away rights. The Consent Form is not legal. The Consent form is the Rule of Law in a state of disintegration.
- The Requirement to CONSENT IN ADVANCE to indeterminate occurrences would be thrown out by a court of law. Specifics are required.
- You cannot coerce someone to sign a form by telling them all the bad things that might happen, if they do not sign.
- RE your: “As an organization we need to ensure that Christopher has informed refusal.” . . . “If he chooses not to sign, then Rebecca and I would talk with C about what that would mean for him.”
No, you would not, not without legal guardianship, or a lawyer of Christopher’s choosing, present at the meeting.
“Informed refusal?”. Refusal is the opposite of Consent. “I do not consent” MEANS “I refuse”. The law frames the issue in terms of Consent. There is no such thing in the law as “Informed refusal”. It is a classic example of Orwellian new speak.
- If you are recommending something for my medical care, I have the right to informed consent. Yes. But. There’s
- Full, Unbiased (e. no conflicts-of-interest) Disclosure and
- Free (i.e. no manipulations) Informed Consent and then there’s
- What someone else thinks is right for me to do, be damned my Constitutional protections. Johnson Springs should not be asking me or influencing Christopher to sign away Constitutional Rights. Fools sign away their rights.
It would be highly irresponsible of me to do that to Christopher.
- RE your: If there is any emergency and C needs medical attention, we have an obligation to call an ambulance. When they arrive they would ask to see his consent form to receive support. If he does not have a consent signed, they would decide on supports based on the severity of C’s condition. I imagine they have their own set of regulations of how to determine when to provide support, etc.
No sense pussyfooting around: the preceding is fiction.
Yes, in case of emergency, of course, Johnson Springs would call an ambulance. Persons would be negligent not to do so. The law would stand behind a complaint if Johnson Springs did not do that. A signed consent form is not required.
Additionally, even if there was a signed consent form, emergency / ambulance workers, as you correctly suggested, have their own regulations that govern their response to the situation. A signed consent form is irrelevant to them.
- – – – – – – – – – –
The addition of a WITNESS to the signatures on the Consent form is a SHAM to make the form appear to be a legal document. It’s bogus.
As are the numerous citations from a document created by CARP. CARP has NO JURISDICTION.
- Beyond the questions of legality, rights, farce and fraud; and beyond the multitudinous different expressions of medical care, is the ASSUMPTION that there are staff at Johnson Springs who are QUALIFIED to make informed and objective decisions about medical treatments for the individual who is 44-year-old Christopher Luckwell. The assumption is invalid. There’s the example of the easily-identifiable bladder infection, overlooked. Also, the rotation of new house parents and staff from vastly different backgrounds.
Who is the doctor? Not Johnson Springs and not CLBC. (Ref: #2)
Johnson Springs requires definition of the limits on its financial responsibilities. The Consent form signed by Christopher in 2022 has that at its root. (Ref: 8. (2024-07-19) From Doreen Copy of Consent form signed by Christopher 2022-12-15.) This new consent form is a completely different, not benign, animal.
CHRISTOPHER SAYS: I DON’T WANT TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORM
Note: Christopher sometimes anticipates a migraine; he then carries his cell phone with him. If a migraine develops, he can call his House and get back to his room quickly before his vision is completely gone. (Ref: #9)
Christopher says: I am the one who makes the yes and no decisions about my health. I can explain it this way.
- THE CELL PHONE EXAMPLE
The rule of having no cell phones at workshop does not work for me due to when I have a migraine I need one. I worked out with Johnson Springs (Ref: 2023-06-07 Christopher ISP, p. 9, para 1) that I deal with my own migraines because I know what to do, and I have to stop the migraine as fast as I can.
It gets in my way if I have to wait for the Workshop Master’s attention, and then for them to call the house, and then to wait for the House Parents. I can call the House myself, faster. I autodial. So, I call – – not the workshop master. (also described as “I stand there waiting for 10 minutes while every minute the migraine is getting worse.)
The rule changed from before. I found out the last time I had a migraine (July 2024). I was stopped from calling my House. I had my cell phone with me, because I knew in the morning that a migraine was likely coming. It made me angry that I couldn’t call by myself, the way I had been doing for a long time. There were never any problems or delays when I did it.
(Antonia (mother) speaking): Christopher likes to please people. He did not display his anger. By establishing a rigid chain-of-command where none is needed, and where the chain-of-command increases the likelihood that he won’t be able to get to the remedies he needs BEFORE he is without vision, he was angry. If you don’t deal with the anger, it will worsen, and it will worsen each time he is prevented from doing what he can do, FOR NO GOOD REASON other than chain-of- command. Johnson Springs is not a military institution. There is NOTHING CURATIVE about THE NEW RULE.
I did not understand why Christopher insists that the July 2024 migraine incident be included in the reply to the Consent Form. The key phrase to understanding why he insists is the Workshop Master’s direction to Christopher, “It’s MY job to call your House Parents. Not yours.” i.e. I do it for you. (Like it’s a good thing – – I am looking after you. . . . reality – no you aren’t.)
Christopher (correctly, I think) understands that the new rule IS connected to the Consent Form: if Christopher can only stand and wait for the Workshop master to act, while time ticks by, the migraine worsens. Understandably, he does not want to sign the Consent Form: Other people would be making decisions FOR him; they are not necessarily the right decisions, in his interest and for his health. There is no mal intent, only chain-of-command / control issues.
- SOMEONE ELSE IS SPENDING, I’M PAYING. IF MY BANK ACCOUNT IS OVERDRAWN THEN I’M TO BLAME, NOT THE OTHER PERSON (continuation of Christopher says . . .)
The Consent Form would be like when Helen was making arrangements for foot care.
IF other people were making decisions about money that comes out of my bank account:
(Background from my Mother, Antonia): Christopher has a small bank account that he has learned to manage responsibly by himself. He started years before going to Johnson Springs. Lesson #1 was what happens when you spend more money than you have. During the ten years he has been at Johnson Springs he has not mismanaged his account – – he has maintained his established reliability.
Christopher makes financial decisions for his account based on whether he can afford an added expense. He pays attention to costs, as do most people who have a limited income, which is the large majority of people. Christopher is no different.)
– – – – –
Cont. Christopher says
Johnson Springs wants me to sign a “Consent to receive Support” form. If I sign, then my bank account would get all mixed up.
(Christopher manages his bank account in his head and not like you would manage your account. He knows that he could not figure it out if it got “all mixed up”.)
TWO EXAMPLES: (Antonia writing)
- FOOTCARE Helen knows this one from firsthand experience: A new undertaking, a woman from Dixston provides footcare to a group of residents at Johnson Springs. Christopher was told it would include him. He had to pay by e-transfer. He said “No. I don’t do e-transfers.”
Behind it all: the cost was more than Christopher was willing to pay. I tried to find more information for him. He knew nothing about the service being offered; the amount he would pay seemed to fluctuate. From the internet: medical care workers could go to the lady offering the service, pay $2,999, be trained and receive certification to be a footcare worker. Christopher was intransigent; Nope, that footcare was not for him.
- SUPPLEMENTS: It’s black-and-white. If you try to force him, he digs in and does not forget the injustice. His position on Supplements is simple and clear: “If it costs more at the Pharmacy (the one engaged by CLBC), I’m not buying it.” And he won’t, just like he wouldn’t sign up for the footcare.
If his bank account was overdrawn, it would be “his fault”, no one else’s. – – But it would NOT REALLY be his fault. He would have been pressured into it, except that he is resistant to being pressured into actions he doesn’t agree with.
And no, he doesn’t need help managing his bank account. He has managed it successfully for about 15 YEARS. He needs fairness. He has a POA.
Look at the Consent form this way: Christopher, You, and I all have autonomy over our own bodies. We have a Constitutional Right to decide which medical treatments we will take.
(A recent Canadian lawsuit, decision appealed, ruling of the higher court judge: covid mandates wrongly forced citizens to put a PCR test up into their nasal cavity. Constitutional Law gives us bodily autonomy. We cannot be forced, tricked, or coerced, to put stuff into our bodies.
From my perspective, the decision is sound: there is a long history, not only from the World Wars, of medical experimentation on orphans, disadvantaged/disabled persons, institutionalized people, poor people who need some money. Not only our ogre enemies do it; we do it. The USA has a repugnant history of such experimentation. Then there’s Pfizer’s out-of-court (i.e. no public disclosure) settlement with the Govt of Nigeria after 100 kids were killed by an experimental injection of Pfizer’s (round about the year 2000).
CONCLUSION: The thin lie underneath the Consent Form, as it applies to Christopher, is “You cannot do things on your own. Ipso facto, we have to have oversight of you. Sign over your Rights to us. We will make decisions FOR YOU. We have to.”
HOWEVER, Christopher is certified to be competent. He has demonstrated competence over 15 years. He has his own POA and Will, drawn up in 2015, a set of legal documents that control what happens in the event of adversity. Johnson Springs was advised, they know this.
There is no reason for him to sign away his rights.
REFERENCES
From previous communications to Johnson Springs, all of which Christopher concurred with, and still does.
- (Jan 20, 2024) Christopher has a good grasp of rights and laws behind them. As I have told Johnson Springs before: through the International Conference in Berlin he went to a Nazi Work Camp. It was a huge, graphic lesson on what happens when the Rule of Law disintegrates. Also, a travelling exhibit, “The Diaries of Anne Frank”, came to town. Christopher was fascinated. Ever since, when he comes across literature about Anne Frank, he checks it out. The Consent form is the Rule of Law in a state of disintegration.
- (2023-03-13) Email from Antonia. Arises from earlier problems with infringements of rights:
. . . Christopher asked me to explain this. He knows it, but it’s a bit complicated.
(2015) Christopher is certified by a lawyer to be competent to make decisions. (PWD – person-with-disability – – status does not make a person incompetent. Nor does it remove the protection of Law.)
There are legal documents required if you wish to take away privacy and other rights accorded to persons in a democracy.
. . . A lawyer had to determine whether Christopher understands what various, selected legal concepts mean. I was not allowed to be present in the room during this process.
The Outcome: as stated, Christopher is certified as competent. He understands the consequence of legal documents he signed.
NOTE: Christopher has a set of personal legal documents that reinforce his constitutional rights. (POA, Representation Agreement (health care decisions), Will, Executor (Trustee)). Johnson Springs has known since about 2015 that Christopher has a POA and Will drawn up by a lawyer.
- Jan 15, 2024: WHY WOULD CHRISTOPHER BE RATTLED BY THE NEWS: “YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE GOALS”? (under Attitude)
- To: Johnson Springs From Antonia:
People with disabilities are routinely disempowered by statements that infer they can’t think for themselves. Someone else has to do their thinking and make their decisions FOR them.
This is not a true statement. It is expedient, but not true.
- (Jan 20, 2024, 2nd Quarter Interim, page 2-3) Henry offered a reasonable response to allergies. I responded with factors he would not know about. (re Qualifications to make medical decisions for Christopher.)
- (2023-06-14) TO Helen. From Antonia. Subject: F/U to ISP, re medications.
. . . Through the years numerous doctors have been consulted about the migraines, including neurologists. Christopher has not only 30 years of personal experience with migraine, but also that of friends.
Information is exchanged – – what worked for you? What didn’t? For how long? Side effects? Even stories of serious conflicts-of-interest between the developer of a migraine drug and its doctor promoters. The decisions made about his healthcare have been carefully considered and continue to be. . . . Few people have time to read or remember the documents. . . . If more paperwork from Christopher’s health practitioners is being required by Johnson Springs, you are over-stepping jurisdictional boundaries:
- Who is the doctor? Not Johnson Springs and not CLBC
- Privacy: The relationship between a doctor and patient is private; the state (the government) has no right of access to medical records without making a court application. (The relationship between a lawyer and client is similarly protected under the Law.)
- . . . the word Medication has been re-defined to include Supplements. Which is to say that Doctors prescribe both. Which is NOT the case.) . . .
Christopher is well-acquainted with allergies, and the search for “removal of cause”. He is 44 years old. He has absorbed a lot of information. You cannot dismiss what he knows.
- The “We Unify” Conference in Victoria, June 23 to June 25, 2024. Umar Sheikh was one of the presenters. Court cases won.
- (2024-07-19) Copy of Consent form signed by Christopher, 2022-12-15.
- From: Antonia Sent: August 10, 2022 7:42 PM
Subject: Request for info from Henry, re Christopher & migraines
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
REBUTTAL
Dear – -,
I appreciate the work that has gone into your reply to me (August 7, 2024). It is helpful to know the Act that governs Johnson Springs
essentially says that every adult in a care facility who is capable of giving consent has the right to consent or refuse medical care, the right to select their preferred type of health care, the right to revoke consent, the right to expect their decision will be respected, and the right to be involved in planning and decision making. As a general rule, a health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult living in a care facility without the adult’s consent.
The preceding summary is fine.
The most helpful I can be is to explain the reason that the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act is not a panacea for the Consent to Receive Support Form.
You may not know: I was in and out of various levels of Courts for 5 years, in defence of Charter Rights. I am not a lawyer; I was the defendant. When defending yourself in Court against the Federal Government, even with the assistance of a lawyer, you have to be well-prepared. You learn a lot. I also helped other people defend themselves on the same issue of Charter Rights – – the Right to Privacy of Personal Information.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates.
“Charter” (also called “Constitutional”) Rights sit at the apex of our laws and regulations. They are the King of the Castle.
If actions arising from clauses in Provincial legislation, regulations, etc. run afoul of a Charter Right, the Charter Right prevails. I am talking about actions arising from this part of your reply, for example:
As per the act, a health care provider may provide health care without consent in these exceptions:
- If a personal guardian or representative consents to health care
- If a health care professional deems it urgent or emergency health care.
- As per the act, health care professional can conduct a preliminary exam without consent. If the adult indicates they would like treatment, or if in the absence of any indication by the adult, the adult’s spouse, near relative or close friend indicates that the adult’s spouse, near relative or close friend wants the adult to be provided with health care, then that is considered acceptable.
- Support can be provided without consent if a health care professional deems it major medical care. First, they will consult with a representative, spouse, near relative, or close friend. If they deem major medical care to be needed and there is no representative, spouse, near relative, or close friend that can be reached, this is allowed.
- Minor health care can be provided if the health care professional is of the opinion that the adult is not capable of making decisions, if the adult does not have a personal guardian or representative, or if the personal guardian or representative is incapable of giving or refusing consent.
You will understand that it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE INTENTION of the Consent Form is, or of the intention of the time and work expended. Nor does what you want matter, if it infringes Charter Rights.
RE: This form is not meant to diminish C’s ability to self-advocate or express preferences. That is the opposite of the intention – this form is meant for him to be able to clearly express these preferences when it comes to medical care.
Christopher can already, legally, self-advocate and express preferences. He does not need this Consent form for authorization to do so.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) recently launched a legal challenge to Nova Scotia’s Bill 419:
Under this new law, the Nova Scotia government could decide to issue citizens new health ID cards . . . would contain the personal health information of each citizen.
With its new electronic database, the government could then (for the sake of “safety”) create new regulations to restrict freedom of movement and activity. . . .
During the pandemic, personal medical data was used to prevent some individuals from playing team sports, watching their own children play team sports, travelling by plane to visit a dying parent, working out at the gym, eating in restaurants, and watching a movie in a theatre. . . . Special restrictions could be placed on people who drink alcohol, consume cannabis, eat too much junk food, . . . . People who have not taken an annual flu shot could be banned from airports, train stations, or even public transit.
Canadians have already seen and experienced firsthand the dangers of government using private individual medical information to control people.
In the same vein as Nova Scotia’s Bill 419, B.C.’s HPOA (Health Professions and Occupations Act) is under court challenge. 2023-11-15 Doctors warn British Columbians about the province’s tyrannical health care act. As more British Columbians learn about health outcomes from covid shots, the HPOA Act, and a couple of other egregious pieces of legislation, the Government is falling in the polls.
GULLIBILITY
RE: we want C’s preferences and requests to be accurately reflected in C’s consent for medical care.
We can create that together, so if you have any suggestions on how we can make the form more suitable for C, then we can talk about that and create a version that you and C are both happy with and that meets the legislation requirements. In the version I created for C, it indicated a list of things that C does not consent to. I understand your concern about giving consent and not knowing what you are giving consent to. Therefore, we could consider going about it in the opposite way and instead list only the medical care/supports that C is consenting to receive.
. . . We are committed to finding a solution that both meets the regulations and makes you and C feel comfortable.
I “feel”, and I AM highly threatened by the removal of Charter Rights. It is not up to Johnson Springs to make me feel comfortable with a removal.
Surprise. My memory goes back 4 years. Mandates. Safe and effective vaccines.
I keep a partial record of vaccine injuries and deaths, starting with Government-reported data. Then adding some personal stories.
According to the Government of Canada’s own COVID-19 vaccine special interest safety reporting, as of January 5, 2024, there have been a total of 488 reports with an outcome of death following vaccination.
The stories behind the deaths are tragic.
Gullibility isn’t one of my outstanding attributes. You will understand that,
given what is known today about what happened during the covid years, and
given the slickness of the propaganda generators,
Christopher needs the protection of Charter Rights for his personal safety.
I do not think you can argue with the 14 References below (out of thousands of possibilities). Look at JUST ONE; try Item 6. All in all, I have a well-informed basis for my view:
I am completely comfortable with protections provided by Charter Rights. I cannot envision circumstances under which I would sign them away.
From my perspective, there is no problem. Surely, given the sampling below under References, you will understand that, especially as a Mother, I will never sign away Charter Rights.
With that, we can wrap up and all get on with our work. There is no need for signatures on a Consent to Receive Support Form.
Best wishes, . . .
REFERENCES
- (Copied from REFERENCES 2024-07-28 Consent to receive Support. No. Page 6):
Privacy: The relationship between a doctor and patient is private; the state (the government) has no right of access to medical records without making a court application. (The relationship between a lawyer and client is similarly protected under the Law.)
2. 2024-06-26 Covid VISP REPORT #4. Feds compensate $14M to victims of the vaccine campaign.
The Liberal government has paid out multi-millions to the victims of the COVID-19 safe and effective vaccine marketing ploy, representing a small fraction of total claimants who have suffered debilitating injury or death.
- Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada The URL for this one is https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/#specialInterest. If you have time, take a look around the Govt website. It took me quite a long time to figure out that there are at least 3 Govt sites related to vaccine-caused “side effects”, including death.
REPORTED SIDE EFFECTS Cherry-picking by me (this is GOVERNMENT DATA):
-
-
- Overall, most adverse event reports were from females
- Within the youngest age groups (<18 years of age) the reporting rate is similar in males and females
- The higher proportion and rate of adverse event reports for females has been observed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and other countries.
- By age group, the largest number of adverse events are in the 40 to 49 year-olds. The second largest group – 50 to 59 year-olds; third largest age group is 30 to 39 year-olds.
- Deaths from the vaccines – – scroll way, way down. Under heading Safety signals identified and other safety updates, just above Acknowledgements, click on DEATHS:
-
Up to and including January 5, 2024, a total of 488 reports with an outcome of death were reported following vaccination. Although these deaths occurred after being vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, they are not necessarily related to the vaccine.
4. 2024-07-05 Ontario man (Hartman) sues Pfizer & Health Canada for wrongful death of son following COVID vaccination. Hartman sent tissue samples to American pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole. Lawyer Umar Sheikh representing.
5. 2024-07-09 covid: Yes, Pfizer and Moderna can be sued for vaccine injuries — here’s how. B.C. lawyer Umar Sheikh.
- 2023-03-21 Manitoba family files lawsuit against AstraZeneca . Jordan Reimer, 21 yr old son working at Whistler. Got the shot, Brain hemorrhage. Blind. And Worse. Local newspaper reporter, with photos.
7. 2024-07-06 US courts across the board rule against COVID mandates. By Jen Hodgson, Western Standard.
8. 2024-06-25 Bonnie Henry pushed COVID jabs on Canadians after BC CDC withheld vaccine injury data Unannounced to Canadians, newly released FOI documents reveal COVID-19 vaccines caused 16-times more adverse events and 14-times more hospitalizations compared to flu shots in British Columbia.
9. 2024-06-19 Update: Helen Grus trial, w/ Bath-Shéba van den Berg & Dr. James Thorp (Lavigne Show). PLUS July 3rd interview of Lawyer van den Berg by Tamara Ugolini.
10. 2021-05-27 Emergency doctor, Patrick Phillips: They’re rejecting my COVID vax adverse reaction reports. By Tamara Ugolini. PLUS (2) 2023-06-07 ‘Incompetent’ northern Ont. doctor loses his license to practise medicine and fined $6,000. By Darren MacDonald, CTV Northern News. (just 2 of the doctors who tried to tell BC Health that there are very serious problems with covid shots. Their reward for speaking up? The Healthcare system got rid of them.
11. 2022-01-26 Covid: Toronto Board of Health scrubs vaccine reaction story (death) from public archive. Tamara Ugolini
12. 2024-06- 17 Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach accuses Pfizer of misleading vaccine marketing, filed a civil lawsuit against Pfizer. By Grace Hills, the Kansas Reflector.
13. 2024-06-10 Employees Can Sue L.A. Schools Over COVID Vaccine Mandate Because Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission, Appeals Court Rules. From CHD.
14. 2024-05-27 Police Detective Penalized for Investigating Vaccine Status of 9 Sudden Infant Deaths (Helen Grus story continued)
Now the system (Premier Eby and the Govt, down to Island Health, down to CLBC, down to Johnson Springs) wants me to sign a Consent to Receive Support form that gives THEM authority in matters of my son’s health.
Even without the TESTAMENT of the Government’s own data, I have to say, “Ya gotta be kidding.”
It is unconscionable that the Government continues to push the vaccines, given what is known.
HEALTH is a PERSONAL MATTER, FOR GOOD REASON.
We have Charter Rights, for good reason.