‘COVID is dead’: Alberta court strikes down public health policy for lack of scientific evidence

The statement

“Breaking out of Alberta, today, mandatory masking is coming to an end.  Kids will not be masking when they return to school, mandatory quarantine will be ending, contact tracing, testing for mild symptoms, it’s all done.  They will now be recognising covid as a mild flu and treating it as such.  Freedom has won in Alberta, proving that fighting does work”.

The source

Stew Peters, interviewing Canadian citizen Patrick King, 3 August

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends-masking-shots-quarantine-in-alberta/

My take on it

First, some background.

I am grateful to Rumble for the following potted summary:

“Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS. He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on society. Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu! WE WON

King has shown the template to be followed WORLDWIDE. This is what can happen when you are not re-presented by a BAR (British Accredited Registry) Lawyer who’s first obligation is to the Corrupted Courts and not their client.”

Now a little more history, from the Stew Peters interview with King.

On 5 December 2020 Canadian citizen Patrick King was found in breach of an order of the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Alberta Canada (Deena Hinshaw), the order being ‘in response to the Covid-19 pandemic’ and the breach relating specifically to being found in an assembly of more than 10 people.  King was fined $1,200.

King appealed.  When he appeared in court on 4 May he laid out the information that he would need in order to prepare a proper and plausible defence.  In particular it included evidence of isolation of the SARS CoV-2 virus.

The matter of ‘Deena Hinshaw vs Patrick James King’ was scheduled to be heard in Red Deer Provincial Court on Monday 19 July 2021.

On Wednesday 14 July  Mr King subpoenaed the CMOH under s. 699 of the Criminal Code requiring her to bring “all white papers describing the isolation of the COVID-19 aka SARS-CoV-2 virus in human beings, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient”, because “these white papers would have been integral in the crafting of the statutes made under the “Public Health Act” here in Alberta”.

Three days later King was advised that his court action had been cancelled; and so he had to get it rescheduled.

King was then subpoenaed by Deena Henshaw’s lawyers to appear at a hearing in chambers.  At that hearing a lawyer for Teena Henshaw said, “Mr King has been requesting evidence that we cannot give.”

By the time the matter proceeded to court, on Saturday 24 July, it had escalated, being re-worded as ‘Her Majesty The Queen vs Patrick James King’, and with Attorney General Prosecutors from Ottawa attending. Again King reported, and the court noted,  the inability of the CMOH to provide the evidence he had requested.

The point of King’s challenge is that the covid-related health policies developed and implemented by the Alberta Provincial Government and its CMOH are premised on the existence of a specific infectious agent;  and yet they cannot produce evidence that such an agent even exists.

The consequences of this legal precedent are surely huge.  They imply, as Peters said, ‘the death of covid’.

In his interview King references the Rook vs Alberta case, ‘where they summonsed everyone who had violated any of these Covid rules … they are waiting on the determination of thousands and thousands of tickets and summonses …’  These cases will presumably be dismissed.

Now that King knows the successful approach recipe, he is keen to get the word out:  “What they need to do is challenge the Public Health Act, because  then the judge has no recourse than to subpoena the officials that are responsible for this.”

Finally, the sewer starts to clear.

Meanwhile it remains urgent to to educate the general population about the exploding number of deaths and other adverse events from ‘the jab’, which is a ‘known-to-be-harmful’ malignant response to a non-existent threat.

This 58-second clip may be a useful ice-breaker:

https://www.brighteon.com/ac54facd-6df6-49bc-9aa1-4523c19a1d4a

The speaker isn’t just anyone.  Professor Dolores Cahill is an immunologist of international renown

Lock-down: “Stop this human sacrifice.”

The statement

“The leadership of NSW seems not to have considered any of these costs in deciding how to respond to the recent uptick in COVID cases. Where is the argument that the actions taken are expected to yield maximum total welfare? Why are we still focusing rabidly on COVID when the country hasn’t lost a person with that disease since last year and hundreds of people are suffering and dying daily of all manner of other things?

I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand. Consider that we are hearing disproportionately about counts of cases, rather than counts of people suffering symptoms or hospitalised. If we counted cases of all viruses that infect us, and treated them like the fearsome pestilence of the sort that COVID has been elevated to in the media, we would do nothing all day but hide under the bed. What matters is human suffering and death – not whether someone tests positive to a particular virus. …..

What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.

We need to stop this madness.” 

The source

Professor Gigi Foster, UNSW Professor of Economics, in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 28 June 2021 ( https://www.smh.com.au/national/stop-this-human-sacrifice-the-case-against-lockdowns-20210627-p584o7.html )

My take on it

Professor Foster is asking the same questions – the right questions – that she raised at the outset. Where is the impact assessment that examines the case for such extraordinary policy initiatives? Where are the numbers? What metrics should we be using?

The absence of such impact assessment by government is a telling indictment.

Still the question is, Why?

One credible explanation is that a proper impact assessment would come out against these policies.

Does this mean that government is more committed to a particular course of action than it is to the public welfare? Ideological, rather than logical?

“There is a man who is wise in his own eyes. There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Has Professor Foster reached the only reasonable conclusion? “I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand.”

Lock-down: Ten times more deadly than the virus?

The statement

new study from the University of California and Rand found that the lockdowns didn’t save lives, and may have actually resulted in more deaths than if no lockdowns happened at all.

The scientific study concluded that following the implementation of shelter-in-place policies, excess mortality increased and that the increase in mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following implementation. ….

A deadly combination of exponentially increased suicidesdrug overdose, homicide, alcohol consumption, calorie consumption, delayed cancer screenings, spousal abuse, tuberculosis, and more is occurring. Researchers conclude this combination will outweigh deaths from COVID by multiples.

Data show very clearly that lockdowns have not only been completely ineffective, but they have been potentially as much as ten times more deadly than the coronavirus itsel

The source

DailyVeracity 26 June 2021 ( https://www.dailyveracity.com/2021/06/26/massive-new-study-confirms-lockdowns-did-not-reduce-mortality-and-may-have-caused-excess-mortality/ )

My take on it

More evidence – as if we needed it – that lock-downs have a negative net benefit.. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

And this research doesn’t appear to encompass the more recent cross-impact of gene therapy injections. To understand the adverse impact of lock-downs on people emotionally, is to understand how clever is an advertising program that makes freedom a condition of injection. Coercion by any other name. The consequent deaths and other adverse events will only tilt the case further against these policy measures.

Still the question is Why?

Why these counterproductive policy measures?

And why the continuing refusal to do proper impact assessments?

 

Lockdown: Ineffectual, says the evidence

The statement

“Here are the 25 most stringent lockdown states graphed against the 25 least stringent; there must be a radical different between the two groups, right?
Shouldn’t those hospitalization numbers be wildly different? And yet you can’t even tell them apart.”

The source

Eric @IAmTheActualET on Twitter, cited by Dr Tom Woods

( https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/faucitx?e=7bd75a31a9 )

My take on it

As a measure, ‘Hospitalisations’ has much to commend it, although the evidence suggests that it has been compromised by mis-attribution.   We can only hope that the mis-attribution was balanced between the two quotients.

As for the implication, I am already persuaded.

How about you?  What would it take?

Was it Benjamin Franklin who said, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

So I’ll sign off with that ad line from Hyundai:  “Please consider.”