Sandra Finley

Mar 232024
 

Many thanks to the JCCF.

Professor terminated after advocating for principle of informed consent

Dr. Francis Christian v. Saskatchewan Health Authority, the College of Medicine, et. al.

A Statement of Claim was filed on June 24, 2002, on behalf of Dr. Francis Christian, formerly a Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) and a now retired surgeon in Saskatoon. A year ago, the Justice Centre reported that Dr. Christian was called into a meeting where he was suspended from all teaching responsibilities, and terminated from his position with the U of S as of September 2021. Dr. Christian had advocated for the precautionary principle of informed consent, and drew attention to the risks of Covid vaccines for children. On the same day, Dr. Christian was also terminated from his surgical position with the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA). A recording of the meeting was previously made available by the Justice Centre.

Dr. Christian is challenging his suspension and termination, contending that the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine (the College), and SHA breached his rights of expression and conscience protected under the Charter, and that the College also breached his right to academic freedom.

Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018. He co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program, with a professional responsibility for patient safety. Dr. Christian was also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.

On June 17, 2021, Dr. Christian released a statement to the press and to over 200 doctors, which contained his concerns regarding the administration of Covid vaccines to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine and that he did not represent any group, the SHA, or the U of S. “I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being,” he stated. Dr. Christian pointed out that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”

“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans… before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of m-RNA vaccines,” Dr. Christian stated. He further expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who had, in his view, been adequately informed” about Covid vaccines for children.

Dr. Christian added there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said, physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”

The lawsuit alleges that leading up to Dr. Christian’s suspension and termination, he was publicly defamed by the SHA, by its (then) president and CEO Scott Livingstone, and by the Dean of the College of Medicine, Dr. Preston Smith. This public defamation contributed towards Dr. Christian’s early retirement in 2022. Dr. Christian has also advanced a separate defamation claim against the SHA, Mr. Livingstone and Dean Smith, with which the Justice Centre has no involvement.

An application to the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench to amend the amended statement of claim has commenced. The Parties will then return to completing their affidavit of documents and will then proceed to questioning. 

Mar 232024
 

I would put a different title on this podcast.   “More War” is not the point.  How about:  The CIA curriculum will give you an Edge in Life!  Truly.  The CIA has plumbed the depths of human behaviors.  Andrew Bustamante was a great student;  he is a great teacher. 

The CIA curriculum reminds me:

Nothing IS,  but the THINKING makes it so.   Shakespeare (Hamlet) figured it out.

And so,  I have a strategic advantage the better I understand HOW you think.  Right?

The CIA Curriculum is practical – – you win by being absolutely anchored in REALITY.  Don’t dupe yourself. You’ll get into trouble;  the stakes are high.  I think that’s AA principles,:  the wisdom to know the difference.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and   
Bustamante knows who and who not to recruit – – the wisdom to know the difference.   ASSESS;  there are some people whose minds you will not change.  Don’t waste time on them.  Have the wisdom to know the difference
If I withhold this video  (maybe I shouldn’t send it to you?  It might be kinda radical.)
If I did, it would be like withholding introductory economics and introductory philosophy from high school students.  How do you expect them to function in the world if they don’t have some basics about how the world works?  Would YOU like to get dumped into a jungle country without some orientation – how does the local economy work?  What do local people think about life and affairs?
The video is lengthy.  You may not have time to listen to the end.  Not to worry.  You will learn the thinking before you get to the end.

I think it is  APPLIED thinking – – –  talking about in the REAL world

     APPLIED economics

     APPLIED philosophy

 

TO ME THIS MEDIUM, A PODCAST, IS a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar

to distract the watchdog of the mind (using the words of MARSHALL MCLUHAN)  

 Our Mediums (print, radio, film, TV, internet, . . ).

Concerning the title of his book, Marshall McLuhan wrote (thanks to Wikipedia):

The title “The Medium Is the Massage” is a teaser—a way of getting attention. There’s a wonderful sign hanging in a Toronto junkyard which reads, ‘Help Beautify Junkyards. Throw Something Lovely Away Today.’ This is a very effective way of getting people to notice a lot of things. And so the title is intended to draw attention to the fact that a medium is not something neutral—it does something to people. It takes hold of them. It rubs them off, it massages them and bumps them around, chiropractically, as it were, and the general roughing up that any new society gets from a medium, especially a new medium, is what is intended in that title“.[9]

. . .   McLuhan argues that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs”.[10]

. . . the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself (the content), and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner.[12]

In Understanding Media (published in 1964), McLuhan describes the “content” of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.[11] This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but

in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As society’s values, norms, and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions that we are not aware of.[12]

Oh Dear!  There are lots of people (including politicians, apparatchiks, police, judges, . . ) whose “real people” come through the television set in sound bytes.

Andrew Bustamante,  broadcasting chapters from the CIA Curriculum with clarity, comes through a medium that is IN-DEPTH – – what are the social implications of  that?   I’ll leave to you!   /Sandra

 

 

 

Mar 222024
 

Thank Goodness someone is covering these failures of democracy in the U.S.

Seems like we’re in a contest between Canada and the U.S.:  who has the best police state?

Glenn Beck
@glennbeck
The FBI has ARRESTED Blaze Media investigative journalist

on 4 misdemeanor charges: – Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority (So, will they arrest the NYT journalist who entered BEFORE Steve through a broken window?) – Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds (Didn’t happen) – Disorderly conduct in a Capitol building (Didn’t happen) – Parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building (Didn’t happen)

0:00 / 1:08
619.6K

Views

 

 

Mar 212024
 

Dr Kulldorff speaks to the seriousness of censorship (which he experienced in more than one way),

his disbelief that it could happen as it did in the U.S.,

speaks of the necessity of people to understand what is happening – –

the loss of  rights enshrined by the First Amendment (American Constitution):

it protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Kulldorff was fired by Harvard.

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/harvard-professor-fired/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id=20240320

 

Mar 122024
 
       (INSERT:  Let the world know how NOT-great Keele University is.)
Food Additive in Pizza, Pancakes Linked to Lower Sperm Counts

(INSERT:  the “food additive” is a compound of aluminum. widespread use of sodium aluminum phosphate in everyday food products)

Mar 092024
 

Featured Opinions and Columns

by John Carpay – Western Standard

It would take a dozen columns to address properly all of the threats to free expression that are contained in the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), introduced in the House of Commons on Monday February 26. Here follow some of the worst aspects, in the limited space allotted.

It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred. However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Perhaps police need more resources to go after people who are committing crimes?

Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Section 264(1) prohibits criminal harassment, which captures serious bullying. Section 319(1) prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics, but not vaccination status in case you were wondering.

Section 59 (1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Last but not least, Criminal Code section 22 already prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence,” with guilt found if the person who received the counsel goes on to commit the offence.

Section 464 takes this a step further, criminalizing counseling an offence even if that offence is not committed.

Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain clearly why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.

If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet, without any input from Parliament. Using their new regulatory powers, Mr. Trudeau and his colleagues will be able to control and censor every “social media service” in Canada, setting out what cannot be said, and what must be said.

A new army of Digital Safety Commission bureaucrats will enforce new restrictions on speech, with the federal cabinet having the power to set out what penalties apply to what offences.

The Online Harms Act would add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, empowering a complainant to assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hatred or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can immediately require the accused citizen to do any or all of the following: wear an ankle bracelet; obey a curfew and stay at home; abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both; provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol; refrain from communicating with certain designated persons; not go to certain places; and surrender her or his legally owned and legally required firearms.

In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to court-ordered restrictions on her liberty, just because someone fears that she might commit a “speech” crime in future. A person’s failure to agree to these restrictions could result in a prison term up to two years.

For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment.

When pro-Palestinian demonstrators chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” are they advocating for the genocide of Jews? Some say yes, others say no. Estonia, Germany, and the Czech Republic have designated this phrase to be criminal speech. The Dutch Supreme Court said the phrase is OK.

A man in Calgary was charged by police for using this phrase, but the charges were later stayed.

Do we really want government to use its coercive powers to decide whether polemical political slogans are actually calls for genocide, and then punish citizens accordingly? Considering the inherent difficulty and subjectivity in determining whether or not a person actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for the crime of speaking the wrong words.

The Online Harms Act would give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.”

The Online Harms Act will provide endless opportunities for a new army of deeply offended busybodies to file thousands of complaints, including anonymous complaints, against their ideological opponents or other fellow citizens. Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person designated as the victim of the speech crime. The victim need not demonstrate having suffered any loss or damage, other than feeling offended by the alleged “hate.”

All of the above will have a massive chilling effect on free expression by Canadians. Many citizens will self- censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who practice courage by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression will see many of their opinions removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms, as these operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations, which will be enforced by the Digital Safety Commission.

Let’s hope that enough Canadians choose freedom over fear, to get us through this present darkness.

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).

Mar 092024
 

Lawyers from Rath and Company have launched a class action lawsuit against both the federal government and province of Alberta on behalf of those harmed by COVID-19 vaccines, alleging misinformation, negligence and malfeasance of office.

In early 2020, the government championed unprecedented lockdowns and societal shuttering while hailing vaccines as the only escape from the pandemic’s grip, repeatedly emphasizing “The New Normal.” Once available, the vaccine was hailed as “safe and effective.”

But as vaccine-related casualties mount, one Canadian law firm has launched a class action lawsuit against the very authorities that regurgitated the “safe and effective” mantra.

The novel COVID-19 vaccines were expedited through an interim order granting them emergency use authorization in December 2020 and are now responsible for almost 500 deaths and nearly 60,000 adverse events across Canada.

 

 

In one such case, the government is on the hook for $10.5 million in damages for injured Albertan Carrie Sakamoto, whose lawyers have now filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government and Alberta’s provincial government on behalf of those harmed by COVID-19 vaccines.

Lawyers Jeffrey Rath and Eva Chipiuk from Rath and Company have based their claim around “unlawful, negligent, inadequate, improper, unfair and deceptive practices by the government in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the COVID vaccines.”

 

 

From the onset, Rath was convinced the data presented in Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application hinted at a looming class action lawsuit, especially Table 14 which outlined adverse events.

The lack of discontinuation of a product shown to cause harm is part of the lawsuit claim, but Rath and Chipiuk are also disturbed by the lack of disclosure of vaccine contracts by the government to the public at large, something discussed by Liberal MP Anthony Housefather in a standing committee on public accounts in early 2023.

 

 

Rath says law firm intends to make an application to have these contracts disclosed in the name of public interest.

“I think it would be highly relevant to the population at large to know that the vaccine manufacturers would not warrant these products for safety,” Rath details. “That’s a major piece of information that the government of Canada has been withholding from the public and instead hiding behind this bogus safe and effective narrative.”

A big part of this entire process was the interim order used to authorize these novel products in an expedited manner and their subsequent injection into the arms of millions of Canadians without adequate informed consent.

 

 

Chipiuk highlights the subjective nature of Canada’s regulatory review process throughout the interim order, empasizing the lack of objective testing to determine if benefits outweighed risks or harms.

Rath also points out the shifting goalposts from the onset of the COVID hysteria, noting that when the shots did not live up to their efficacious claims (that is, to prevent infection or spread), the new narrative became how the jabs prevented hospitalization or death.

Well now we know that was not true. The whole way through we’ve been told one lie after another by these so called public health officials and now they’re terrified about a measles outbreak because parents don’t trust them anymore and don’t want to get their kids vaccinated. Surprise, surprise! Nobody trusts these people anymore.

Roth explains the importance of naming those involved with the safe and effective mantra in the public record, while Chipiuk stresses the psychological factor that happened alongside the physical injuries suffered by countless Canadians.

 

 

“I think we all know it’s there,” she says, “but it just hasn’t had enough attention. The damage from the fear and the coercion and the enticing individuals to take a shot and tell on your neighbours, this was all that transpired and will all be part of the claim.”

Rath wants to remind Canadians how the government’s vaccine injury and otherwise numbers are very likely to be grossly underestimated, as acknowledged by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, that “adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than one percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration.”

I’ve seen material from doctors that have tried to file vaccine injury reports and the reports are routinely rejected. [Doctors] have to fight tooth and nail to have the reports accepted. The entire system in Canada, unlike the very system in the United States where people report and they take the data as a signal, the system in Canada is designed to prevent doctors from making reports.

What kind of doctor has the time to sit down and fill out an hour long application form to apply to have one of those patients considered to be vaccinated, let alone have to fight after it’s rejected as if he’s involved in some sort of court proceeding?

The system is deliberately designed to protect the government from claims and to protect politicians and public health officials from being held accountable for some of the most negligent decision-making that’s been made in the history of Canadian public health.

 

 

Rath urges citizens to get involved by writing their elected officials while stressing the importance of figuring out how to compensate people for the way that Alberta’s former chief medical officer of health, Deena Hinshaw, misled the public.

“They need to figure out how they’re going to pay for all of the horrible things that Hinshaw and all of the other vaccine cultists visited upon the citizens of Alberta through all of the coercion programs that they implemented, through all of the misinformation that they promulgated.”

While legal action cannot undue the suffering caused by COVID-19 vaccine injuries, it is essential for the justice system to hold accountable those responsible for such misleading claims, and prevent similar injustices in the future.