Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Mid-Week Post

Your middle-of-the-week spot of cloud ...


Oh, dear:

A 7.1 magnitude earthquake shook Japan 's southern main island of Kyushu on Tuesday, leaving dozens of people injured or missing after part of a shopping center and a huge chimney at a paper factory collapsed, officials said. A tsunami advisory was issued but quickly lifted.

There were fears that at least two people were dead.

In Kashima Town, the quake collapsed the second floor of the Aeon Mall shopping center, trapping an unknown number of people there, according to the fire department in the prefectural capital of Kumamoto.

Four people were pulled out with injuries and taken to a hospital, while 10 others were unaccounted for, the Kumamoto prefectural emergency response team said. It said the extent of the damage was still being investigated as the search and rescue effort continued.

At the Nippon Paper Industries Co.'s Yatsushiro factory, where a chimney collapsed and the building was damaged, 11 people were trapped underneath the debris, the Kumamoto emergency team said. Two of them were later found without vital signs, while the conditions of nine others were unknown, the team said.

The Fire and Disaster Management Agency said more than 260,000 people were advised to evacuate, most of them in Kumamoto prefecture, but also in the neighboring Nagasaki prefecture.

The affected area is about 900 kilometers (540 miles) southwest of Tokyo, the country's capital.

A tsunami advisory for the Ariake and Yatsushiro Seas on the western coasts of Kumamoto prefecture and three neighboring prefectures was lifted within two hours, the Japan Meteorological Agency said.

Japan's Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told journalists that there were reports of damage to roads, bridges and buildings, as well as blackouts and fires, though details were unclear.

The Fire and Disaster Management Agency said major public facilities or infrastructure were not damaged. Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority said no abnormalities were found at three nearby nuclear power plants.

 

 

Rest assured, there will be no new pipeline in Canada:

Among Carney’s major economic goals are:

Doubling Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets in a decade.

Doubling Canada’s residential construction rate to 500,000 new homes per year in a decade.

Catalyzing $1 trillion in new foreign investments in five years, to make up for the more than $1 trillion that fled the country during the Justin Trudeau era from 2015 to 2025, described by RBC in an April report as “the largest capital exodus in Canadian history. For every dollar of inward foreign direct investment, two dollars exited.”

Doubling the capacity of Canada’s electricity grid by 2050.

If any of these targets are to be achieved they will only happen because of the use of fossil fuels, most critically natural gas, in the crucial area of electricity generation.

Anonymous Liberal MPs privately complain that Carney has betrayed his principles from his pre-political life as the UN’s special ambassador for climate change, committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and as the world’s leading corporate spokesman for higher carbon taxes.

They should ask themselves instead how did the Justin Trudeau government they supported for a decade become so divorced from reality that even Carney, a key economic adviser to Trudeau, is now backtracking on some of the signature climate change and energy policies of the Trudeau era.

One reason is that without reliable electricity when demand is rising exponentially because of AI data centres, battery manufacturing, critical mineral supply chains and the electrification of society, including the auto sector, all other efforts to grow our economy will fail.

Companies aren’t going to invest in a country that lacks reliable competitively-priced electricity, just as oil investors aren’t going to be interested in a country where it takes 12 years to build a pipeline from conception to operation, as was the case with TMX, and only then because the federal government bought it.

 

Also – Carney is useless but, then again, he was never installed to fix what the village idiot broke:

In fact, a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows that just 43% now believe Carney can deliver a good deal with the Americans, the thing he promised in the last election, down from 51% in April.

“If it’s not a crisis, you wouldn’t be seeing me,” Carney told a crowd at a Barrie, Ont., pub during the Liberal leadership race last year.

“I’m most useful in a crisis. I’m not that good in peacetime.”

The problem for Carney is that, on issue after issue, his response to pressure has been the same: cave, then spin the retreat as a victory.

We’ve seen it with the Gordie Howe Bridge, with Billy Bishop Airport and with trade talks with Washington.

 

 

Something has to give.

In this case, let it be the high-speed train to nowhere:

Ontario Transport Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria says the federal government conceded to "fringe groups" in rejecting a plan to allow jets to land at Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport.

"If this is how they're going to treat bigger projects, I don't think you'll get much built," he said at a Tuesday news conference in St. Thomas, Ont., while promising to move ahead with the plan.

A source with knowledge of the discussions told CBC News that, in response, Ontario is now rethinking its support for the Alto high-speed rail project.

Several hours after that conversation, 11 MPPs from Ontario put out a statement questioning Alto.

"In the case of Alto, too many questions remain unanswered. Too many voices have been ignored," the statement said.

For the project to proceed, local stakeholders need to see their feedback "reflected in the project's planning, route selection and delivery," the MPPs said.

"The federal government must ensure that any potential future rail project minimizes impacts on farmland and is supported by the people affected."

The 11 MPPs are largely from eastern Ontario ridings and included two cabinet ministers: Minister of Colleges and Universities Nolan Quinn and Labour Minister David Piccini.

The other MPPs attached to the statement are: Steve Clark, Dave Smith, Tyler Allsop, Ric Bresee, John Jordan, George Darouze, Laurie Scott, Stéphane Sarrazin and Billy Denault.

Federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon announced the Billy Bishop decision in a social media post on Friday, saying the government will focus exclusively on "approved safety enhancements" for the downtown airport instead.

He said Ottawa came to the decision following consultations, citing a public survey in which 87 per cent of respondents opposed the move.

But a senior Liberal source says the timing of the decision wasn't a coincidence. The party hopes to hold its seat in the Toronto riding of Beaches-East York in the Aug. 31 byelection announced on Sunday.

The source says the decision to make the announcement was based partially on the knowledge that the NDP opposed the expansion, and would likely campaign on the issue.

But the province was caught off guard by the move, as it contradicts months of talks centred on reciprocal support for Alto and the Billy Bishop expansion, two sources familiar with the discussions told CBC News.

 

 

The nation has never been more secure:

A Canadian intern at NATO has been arrested on suspicions of espionage.

Belgium's Federal Prosecutor's Office said it launched an espionage investigation after NATO's security services tipped off Belgium's military intelligence.

 Authorities then detained "a Canadian citizen of Chinese origin" on Friday, a day after raiding the suspect's home and workplace inside NATO's vast command centre.

(Sidebar: not Canadian.)

Belgium's federal prosecutor said the intern is suspected of spying on behalf of a third country and being a member of a criminal organization.

The Canadian intern had been working at NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, also known as SHAPE, which is located in Mons, a city in southwestern Belgium.

"Following a number of investigative tasks, an operation was carried out on Thursday 23, July, by the Charleroi FJP. Searches were carried out at the suspect's home and at her place of work, at SHAPE," reads the federal prosecutor's statement, released Saturday.

The suspect was arrested Friday.

**

The RCMP says investigators have been reassigned to target foreign interference activities in Ontario. No surveillance subjects were named though public inquiries have documented wrongdoing by agents working out of the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa and Consulate in Toronto: “The RCMP has established dedicated capacity in Ontario.”

 

Also:

It was more than a decade ago that the Ontario government started to worry about its wildland firefighting program.

Back in 2016, a report warned that fire rangers were quitting at an alarming rate, were less experienced than in previous years and were comparatively underpaid.

Those issues have persisted ever since.

Versions of the report repeated the warnings in 2018 and 2019, while an internal memo from 2022 warned of "an increase in the number of people leaving our organization for employment opportunities elsewhere."

In the last few years, several firefighters and the union representing them have pushed the issue again — urgently arguing that without change, Ontario will be caught short when big fires hit.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has pushed for major pay increases, to reclassify wildland firefighters as firefighters, not resource technicians, and more year-round jobs.

As the province faces a record-breaking fire season, with thousands of people evacuated and hundreds of thousands of hectares burned, frustration is growing within the wildland fire service.

Some feel that years of warnings have been ignored.

 "There is a big difference in making emergency dollars available when you have no choice but to do that — what about the preparedness dollars that are needed before the fire season even starts?" one senior, retired wildland firefighter told Global News.

 

 

Yes, Justin – who gave the order?:

The RCMP says it has no records divulging who told police to abruptly cancel a planned criminal investigation of the killings of scores of Canadians in Iran in 2020. Records show the investigation was dropped after then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a friendly meeting with Iran’s foreign minister: ‘There is no evidence RCMP members were motivated by political considerations.’

**

The RCMP must reopen its criminal investigation into the killing of 138 Canadian citizens and permanent residents by Iran, says an Ontario businessman who lost his wife and son in the 2020 terrorist attack. Newly-released records show the Mounties abruptly cancelled their investigation after then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Iranian authorities: “Somebody gave them an order to stop.”

 

 

The government cares more about a Facebook post than any other crime.

But don’t take my word for it:

Canadians are being asked to accept a quiet but profound transformation in the relationship between citizen and state. Under the banners of cyber security, fighting crime, and protecting children from social media harms, Ottawa is assembling new legal powers that expand government reach into private communications, financial records, location data, and online identities.

Three recent federal measures—Bill C-8, Bill C-22, and Bill C-34—show how this architecture is being constructed, one bill at a time. Each is presented as a measured response to genuine threats. Taken together, they form the foundation of an emerging surveillance state that can resemble the “social credit” system that is now in force in communist China.

Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, received Royal Assent on June 15. This new law grants sweeping authority over telecommunications systems and critical cyber infrastructure. Enforcement officials may now access records and systems in the name of national and cyber security, frequently through secret ministerial orders. These orders can compel providers to restrict or remove services from individual Canadians, hand over private information about Canadians, and disconnect individuals from digital networks, often with limited independent oversight and gag provisions that prevent public or media scrutiny. Privacy advocates have warned that the practical effect is a capacity for warrantless intervention and even deplatforming, exercised largely outside the ordinary judicial process.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons on June 18 after being fast-tracked with limited debate. If passed, it will lower the legal threshold for obtaining subscriber information from electronic service providers. Where police once needed “reasonable grounds to believe” that a crime had been or would be committed, the new standard is the weaker “reasonable grounds to suspect.”

Bill C-22, now before the Senate, also authorizes new warrantless demands for certain categories of information and requires service providers to retain Canadians’ metadata (details about who communicates with whom, when, from where, and through which services) for periods of up to six months. Metadata of this kind reveals patterns of association, movement, and daily routine even when the content of messages remains encrypted. Courts in Europe have repeatedly struck down similar mandatory retention regimes as disproportionate interferences with privacy. Canada is now moving in the opposite direction, normalizing the long-term storage of digital trails that map the lives of the vast majority of citizens who have committed no crime.

Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, goes further still. It opens the door to requiring all Canadians to prove their age and identity when accessing social media platforms, leading to increased collection of personal information by social media platforms, AI companies, and perhaps even government institutions. Bill C-34 also creates a new and very powerful super-regulator called the Digital Safety Commission. This Commission will be armed with broad, largely undefined powers to regulate online activity and to impose penalties of up to $10 million, or 3 percent of a company’s global revenues for non-compliance. What constitutes “harmful content,” including the vague category of material that “foments hatred,” will largely be left to the Commission to define and enforce through guidelines and orders after the bill becomes law.

To illustrate the danger of allowing governments to punish “wrong” opinions, Toronto police stopped a Rebel News billboard truck on July 23, 2026, and began investigating an alleged hate crime. The truck was displaying a paid advertisement from Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights stating that “Women and girls deserve safety on the field, privacy and dignity in the locker room, and fairness on the podium” and that “males are invading female sports.”

These newer statutes build upon existing frameworks such as the federal anti-money-laundering regime, which already requires extensive collection and sharing of personal financial information. The Customs Act allows border officials to search smartphones and electronic devices, often without the judicial authorization that would be required elsewhere. The cumulative effect of existing laws and new laws allows for far broader state access to Canadians’ communications, transactions, and online behaviour, justified by the ever-popular cause of “safety and security.”

 **


**

**

**


 


Never forget that Canadians voted for this:

A 23-year-old man from Aurora has been charged after allegedly driving through a playground and walking paths that were packed with children at a park in Ajax earlier this month.

Durham Regional Police said a call came in shortly before 6:30 p.m. on July 18 for a white Toyota sedan that was driving dangerously through Rotary Park on Lake Driveway West.

 “The suspect vehicle drove through the playground, splash pad, and walking paths, which were filled with pedestrians, including young children,” police allege in a news release on Monday.

No injuries were reported.

Officers later found the vehicle three kilometres from the park near Westney Road South and Bayly Street West and tried to stop it.

The driver allegedly fled from police and a short time later, returned to the park, driving along a pedestrian bridge.

Police said they located the suspect in the area of Harwood Avenue South and Bayly Street East, where they attempted to block it from escaping.

“The suspect made efforts to evade police, resulting in the suspect vehicle colliding with an unrelated GMC SUV, before officers took the suspect into custody,” police said.

No one was injured in the collision.

In Monday’s news release, they identified the suspect as 23-year-old Ismail Abrahimzada of Aurora.

He has been charged with dangerous operation and failure to stop for police.


It's a dry run.

 

 

Compare and contrast:

Saskatchewan's health minister says the province's plan to attract new health-care workers is delivering results, with thousands of workers joining since its launch four years ago.

Jeremy Cockrill says over 7,500 health-care professionals, including nurses and doctors, have joined Saskatchewan's workforce as part of the province's Health Human Resources (HHR) Action Plan, launched in 2022, which focuses on accelerating efforts to attract and retain health-care workers.

As part of this plan, the province created the Saskatchewan Healthcare Recruitment Agency (SHRA) to streamline health-care recruitment efforts. Terri Strunk, the agency's CEO, says it has been using targeted advertising campaigns to attract workers from outside the province, helping connect prospective health-care workers with recruiters.

"We have some physicians who notice those ads," said Strunk. "What they do is visit our website, create a profile, and from there, our team notices them and begins working with them."

**

Dr. Kaitlin Stockton has watched far too many patients suffer in overflowing emergency departments.

The Vancouver-based physician has given patients she just met a cancer diagnosis, with little privacy in the middle of a noisy room. She's cared for a man with an intracranial brain bleed on an ambulance stretcher in a hallway. And she can't shake the memory of one patient who had septic shock after spending eight hours in a waiting room, dangerously close to death.

Those kinds of harrowing experiences take a toll on emergency physicians, Stockton said, and there have been too many to count. At least five of her colleagues have left in the last few years.

Now, a new national survey shows the problem goes beyond any one hospital or province.

One out of every 10 emergency physicians in Canada have left their specialty while the vast majority of others are reducing their hours or taking time off to manage burnout, the results suggest.

The findings, part of a study out Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, are based on a 2025 cross-country survey of hundreds of emergency medicine doctors.

"The prevailing theme was that the [health-care] system is broken," wrote co-author Kerstin de Wit, an emergency physician at Kingston Health Sciences Centre and professor at Queen's University, who conducted the research with the Network of Canadian Emergency Researchers.

Nearly half of survey respondents said they've reduced their clinical hours while 20 per cent have taken time off and 10 per cent have left the specialty, the researchers found, with women and younger physicians reporting higher rates of burnout.

High levels of physician burnout can lead to lower-quality care and put patient safety at risk, the researchers concluded, and shouldn't be considered just a "pandemic phenomenon."

The results were based on an online survey of more than 400 doctors, with respondents from every province and territory except Nunavut and Yukon.


You can always euthanise people and take their organs:

A new paper is reviving the idea of “death by organ donation” — retrieving organs from MAID patients while they are sedated and unconscious but still alive.

Current law prohibits it, due to the long-standing dead donor rule, or DDR, which holds that people must be dead before organs can be removed (the “Death Requirement”) and that doctors must not kill a person by means of procuring his or her organs (the “Don’t Kill Rule”).

However, the authors of a new paper published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine say the growing acceptance of voluntary euthanasia complicates the dead donor rule, because people are knowingly consenting to death, and euthanasia laws sanction killing by physicians in “circumscribed situations.”

Death by organ donation might improve the quality of donor organs, they argue, “potentially saving many lives” and allowing donors to maximize their donation.

The idea not only sounds ghoulish, it also risks eroding public trust in MAID and organ donation both, said University of Toronto bioethicist Kerry Bowman, who has spent most of his working life in critical care.

(Sidebar: oh, people have reason to trust the system, do they?)

“I think a lot of the public would be fairly horrified by it.”

The authors of the paper — “Contextualizing the Dead Donor Rule in an Era of Voluntary Euthanasia” — said they are not arguing that the dead donor rule should be abandoned. Rather, the authors say it’s time to reassess the rule as it applies to MAID patients, given the growing acceptance of organ donation after euthanasia.

The rule protects people from being killed for their organs and treated merely as a means to benefit others, and has been preserved to protect public trust, they said.

However, voluntary euthanasia “creates a new ethical context” for the DDR, they wrote.

At least 155 people in Canada have donated their organs and tissues after receiving a doctor-administered lethal injection since the country’s MAID law came into effect in 2016.

The “categorical constraint on physician killing, for its part, is legally and ethically circumvented by voluntary euthanasia,” two Canadian critical care doctors and a Harvard Medical School bioethicist wrote in the journal.

“The current legal reality of voluntary euthanasia provides a new context for interpreting the Don’t Kill Rule.”

MAID organ donors “are not dead yet, but their death is imminent” and will result directly from their voluntary request to have their lives ended by lethal injection, they said. In those cases, it may become “ethically arbitrary” to require a formal declaration of death before organs are retrieved, they wrote.

“In this landscape, the moral significance of strict temporal sequencing (post, not pre-mortem retrieval) is diminished,” they said.

The outcome isn’t altered “by whether death occurs moments before or during organ retrieval.”

Therefore, the ethical focus should “shift away from identifying a precise moment of biologic death and toward respecting patients’ autonomous decisions, ensuring that safeguards against coercion and exploitation are robust and advocating for a transparent and publicly accountable process,” they wrote.

Under guidance developed by the Canadian Blood Services, the decision to receive MAID must precede, and be separate from, the decision to donate, so that people don’t feel pressured to choose either.

However, the possibility of organ donation can be raised once the MAID request has been granted, and increasing numbers of Canadians requesting MAID are asking to donate their organs after death. One study found Canada performs more organ donations after euthanasia than any other country that has legalized the practice. Between 2019, the first year it was available, and 2021, Canada performed 136 organ donations after euthanasia. In 2021, Canada had 41 cases, compared to only 20 in Belgium, The Netherlands and Spain combined.

With organ donation after MAID, the person is taken to a hospital and administered life-ending drugs. Next follows a standard organ donation protocol: blood pressure is monitored via a line inserted into a small artery in the wrist to determine when the person’s heart has stopped beating.

Doctors then wait an additional five minutes — the “no touch” period — to confirm death before the person is transferred to the operating room for organ retrieval.

Death by donation “would look in some ways similar, and in some ways very different,” said first author of the new paper, Dr. Carter Winberg, a Canadian critical care doctor currently completing his masters in bioethics at Harvard Medical School.

The person would be brought to hospital and taken to an operating room, where they would receive the same sedating medications used with euthanasia. Except surgery would commence once the person was fully unconscious. Death would ultimately be caused by removal of vital organs.

**

While being treated for a hip fracture at the Vancouver General Hospital (VGH), a Vancouver priest was offered MAiD twice, despite not being close to dying and going against the priest's beliefs.

Father Larry Holland, 79, was recovering from his hip fracture at VGH back in April after a fall in his bathroom on Christmas Day.

Reported by the BC Catholic, Holland added he was not dying then or now, and was left shocked by the two interactions with healthcare professionals offering him euthanasia at the hospital.

The first push for MAiD came from a doctor who raised the subject because, according to Holland, it was "something they have to discuss with someone who’s been given a terminal diagnosis.”

Holland then told the doctor he was "morally opposed to euthanasia."

The doctor continued, stating, “he just wanted to make sure that, if a [terminal] diagnosis came up or not ... I knew of the different services I had access to," recalled Holland.

A few weeks after the first mention, a nurse offered MAiD to Holland, who, according to the priest, seemed uncomfortable bringing the subject up, doing so out of compassion for the pain he was enduring.

“It’s a false compassion, really,” he stated.

According to Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), which operates VGH, "staff may consider bringing up MAiD based on their clinical judgment, provided they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to do so."

Staff, VCH stated, are also "responsible for answering questions when patients bring up the topic of MAiD."

One Vancouver priest, Father Larry Lynn, was shocked to hear about Holland's case and surprised Canadian euthanasia providers aren't ruling out initiating MAiD discussions with those with religious beliefs, in Holland's case, Roman Catholics.

“This must surely be among the most appalling examples of Canada’s coercive and insensitive euthanasia regime,” commented Lynn on the matter.

**

At the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, Rémi, a man who emerged from a coma following a serious accident, now consistently asserts that he wishes to continue living. However, his doctors consider that the treatments keeping him alive constitute “unreasonable obstinacy” and have initiated proceedings to have them withdrawn. The Council of State has just ruled in their favour, in a decision containing a chilling phrase: “the patient’s will ends with the law.”

The case is emblematic and clashes head-on with the debates of recent weeks on consent to die. Here we are faced with the opposite scenario: when a patient is conscious, clearly expresses a desire to live and has the support of their family, who should have the final say?

Rémi’s story is extraordinary. Following an accident that caused severe neurological damage, he was left in a coma. Against all odds, he woke up but his condition remains extremely serious: he is dependent on life-support treatment and suffers from a severe disability. But he is able to communicate and states unequivocally that he wishes to continue living.

His family shares this wish and refuses to allow treatment to be withdrawn. Doctors at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital nevertheless consider that continuing treatment constitutes unreasonable obstinacy within the meaning of the Claeys-Leonetti Act, which set out the medical and legal framework for patients at the end of life, until the passing of the Act of July 15th on assisted dying. In their view, continuing treatment would merely artificially prolong an existence with no prospect of significant improvement.

This disagreement led the family to launch a legal battle aimed at preventing the medical decision from being carried out. Following internal hospital procedures, the family lodged an urgent appeal with the Council of State to suspend the decision to withdraw treatment.

The appeal challenged the medical assessment that the legal criteria for “unreasonable obstinacy” had been met. In particular, the family argued that Rémi is now capable of expressing his wishes, that he is explicitly asking to live, and that this wish should take precedence.

The Council of State did not accept this argument. It upheld the doctors’ assessment and confirmed that the conditions set out in the Public Health Code had been met to authorise the withdrawal of treatment.

It is in this context that the high court states that “the patient’s wishes are subject to the law,” a phrase that sums up the philosophy adopted: the patient’s expression of will is not, in itself, sufficient if the legal criteria permitting the withdrawal of treatment are deemed to have been met.

This case highlights a paradox rarely mentioned in the debate on end-of-life care.

For months, advocates of the legalisation of euthanasia have emphasised patient autonomy and absolute respect for a patient’s wishes when they wish to die. Yet, in Rémi’s case, the opposite occurs: a patient asks to live, but this wish is not enough to prevent the withdrawal of treatment.

Under French law, the decision does indeed rest with the doctor, following a collegial procedure designed to assess whether treatment has become futile, disproportionate or serves no purpose other than the artificial prolongation of life. The family is consulted, but has no right of veto. Its role consists essentially of bearing witness to the patient’s prior wishes when the patient is no longer able to express them.

The Rémi case thus illustrates the limits of the power of relatives when faced with a medical decision. Even when they unanimously oppose the withdrawal of treatment, their opposition is not sufficient to prevent it from going ahead if the courts consider that the legal procedure has been followed.

The timing gives this decision particular political significance. Just a few days after the passing of the law establishing a right to assisted dying, many opponents are denouncing what they perceive as a growing imbalance in favour of the medical profession. In their view, the Rémi case demonstrates that the safeguards put forward during parliamentary debates do not allay all concerns. A system in which a conscious patient may have their wish to live set aside on the basis of a medical assessment reveals the extent of the power entrusted to doctors in end-of-life decisions.

 

You can have whatever wish you like as long as it aligns with the government’s.

 

 

Fauci is a fantasist and an evil son-of-a-b!#ch:

When the Covid outbreak became widespread, power-hungry government officials treated it as the second coming of the bubonic plague as a pretext to lockdown society. Yet the virus’ risks to the general population were not nearly as deadly as what they were made out to be — a fact Fauci recognized early on.

In an entry dated Feb. 8, 2020, Fauci described a purported phone call he had with Tom Frieden, who served as President Obama’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director. According to Fauci, the two discussed “various aspects of the [Covid] outbreak.”

The then-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director wrote that he and Frieden “are on the same page” in their assessment that the Covid-19 virus “is acting like a bad influenza in its transmissibility and that the denominator” of total diagnosed cases “is much greater than” currently reported figures. Fauci further noted that this would make the “case fatality rate (CFR)” — the proportion of people who die from a disease among the total number infected over a certain period of time — “more like 0.2-0.3 % rather than 2.0%.”

Put another way, the risk of dying from Covid among the general population is not as great as initially feared.

Yet that’s not the tune that Fauci sang to the public in the weeks to come.

During a March 10, 2020, Hannity appearance, Fauci said that the “mortality for seasonal flu is 0.1,” and that the mortality for Covid-19 “is about 2, 2.5 percent.” While he subsequently noted that “[i]t’s probably lower than that” and “probably closer to 1 [percent],” he then stated, “But even if it’s 1, it’s ten times more lethal than the seasonal flu. You got to make sure that people understand that.”

Fauci would regurgitate similar rhetoric when testifying before Congress the following day. Under questioning from Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, the then-NIAID director said that “the seasonal flu that we deal with every year has a mortality of 0.1 percent,” and that “[t]he stated mortality over all of this when you look at all the data including China is about three percent. It first started off as two and now three.”

“I think if you count all the cases of minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, that probably brings the mortality rate down to somewhere around one percent, which means it is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. I think that is something that people can get their arms around and understand,” Fauci said.

**

For years, Dr. Anthony Fauci assured Americans that the COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective. What he never mentioned, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is that he may have suffered one of those "rare" adverse events himself, and he hid it from the country while publicly insisting such injuries weren't happening.

Kennedy appeared on Fox News's The Ingraham Angle to discuss the newly released diary entries that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made public, entries that document Fauci's day-to-day life during the pandemic, on top of his disturbing obsession with himself and the power he wielded during the pandemic. When Laura Ingraham asked whether there would be any accountability for the trillions of dollars lost, the ruined education of America's children, and the shattered reputation of the public health establishment, Kennedy didn't hesitate.

"Yeah, and millions of people injured," Kennedy said. "So he lied about masks, he lied about social distancing, he lied about the transmission, he lied about natural immunity, he lied about the capacity, as you just said, of the vaccine to prevent infection."

Then came the bombshell.

"He got vaccinated at a very, very public press conference in January of 2021," Kennedy said, noting that five months later, the diary reveals, Fauci "had a pulmonary infarction, which is one of the adverse events that NIH, CDC and FDA said are expected from the vaccine."

"He never told anybody," Kennedy said. "He got treated for it privately by the best doctors in America at the same time, he was telling everybody that was not an adverse event."

Think about that for a second. The man who badgered every American into taking the shot, insisting it was perfectly safe, appears to have experienced one of the exact injuries his own agencies flagged, then quietly got elite private care while assuring the public that such reactions weren't real. Ordinary Americans who reported similar problems got dismissed and mocked. Fauci got the best doctors in America.


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)