‘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 Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu!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: 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?

 

‘The jab’: UK deaths expected to be dominated by the double-dosers

The Statement

“The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.”

 

The source

UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, 5 April 2021

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975909/S1182_SPI-M-O_Summary_of_modelling_of_easing_roadmap_step_2_restrictions.pdf

 

My take on it

Sources are important.  That’s why I routinely reference them.  I note that the SPI-M-O paper is to be read in conjunction with three other sources of modelling, one of which is the University College London.  Others have had much to say about the original predictions from that source, and also about blatant conflicts of interest.

Moving on, …

it is surely staggering that an expected 70% of deaths will be of people who have had two doses of the ‘vaccine’.  Whatever this injection may claimedly have done for others will be of small comfort to those thus affected.

The expected results reported here are attributed to a high level of uptake in the most at risk demographic; and are explained as ‘vaccination failure’.  If the administration of the injection is weighted toward this group, and if the deaths are similarly weighted, then one might reasonably ask, as a ‘first effect’ whether the vaccine itself might be in some way contributory.

 If, ‘in the most at-risk age groups, immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals’, at what point should we expect this finding to be reflected in updated health advisories?

Vaccine Passports? Not for EU

The statement

On 27 January, the Council of Europe signed Resolution 2361, which states that vaccinations in EU Member States should not be mandatory. Furthermore, persons who have not been vaccinated may not be discriminated against in any way. This effectively stops the notion of “vaccine passports”.

The Source

www.nyatider.nu/council-of-europe-no-compulsory-vaccinations-and-no-discrimination-against-the-unvaccinated

My take on it.

‘The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental European cooperation organization with 47 Member States, which, despite its name and the same flag, is separate from the EU. Its resolutions are not legally binding, but recommendations to Member States are almost always complied with.’

Good.

‘The resolution goes so far as to order member states such as Sweden to actively inform citizens of these rights. The resolution has been ignored by mainstream politicians and the media.’

Surprise, surprise.