I am sorry to be so frank to a man whom I admired and from whom I expected good things. I confess that in younger days, I thought of Albertans mainly as people who cornered too slowly on mountain roads. But I learned, partly from you, that I must think much more of them than that. At the moment, however, I am struggling to make sense of your driving. You seem to be spinning your limo in circles, making us all dizzy.
Back on May Day, when “Alberta is open for business” reverted to “Alberta is in lockdown,” I made a few notes. By your government’s own figures, there were at the time active covid cases in every zone. Only 2.9 percent were in care and 0.7 percent were in intensive care. Of these the vast majority were elderly or suffering co-morbidities. Some sixty percent of deaths in the province thus far had taken place inside long-term care units, where (as we are now discovering) euthanizing protocols were used in some jurisdictions. Most of the others who died were also in the advanced-age category.
Your government, which had enjoyed more than a year to create any additional intensive care facilities it might need, at far less expense than lockdowns and with none of the collateral damage, had not done so. Yet it fussed constantly about overwhelmed hospitals that were not actually overwhelmed. It determined that Alberta must rejoin the parade of provinces that, rather than quarantining those who are genuinely sick, preferred to quarantine everyone. This was medically and tactically absurd, as Lt-Col. Redman, Dr Modry, and others pointed out. Moreover, you persisted in your efforts to suppress the resistance and incarcerate its leaders.
What was true in Alberta was also true here in Quebec, where I followed the official numbers even more closely. The choice not to expand ICU capacity had in both places obvious implications. Either the government (1) didn’t believe it was necessary, in which case it was lying about the severity of the covid threat; or (2) it supposed the withdrawal of civil liberties, the lapsing of routine medical care, and the destruction of the economy more tolerable than allowing that those extra beds might be necessary; or (3) it was working to some different agenda altogether.
The first and the third of these options are compatible, of course, while the second simply beggars belief. The low mortality rate, the categories in which deaths were occurring, and the futility – nay, the destructiveness and brutality – of the “emergency” measures convinced me that the third required much more attention.
Summer arrived and the inmates of Alberta’s province-wide quarantine camp soon received back from your government a few of their rights in the form of temporary privileges, though you did not call them that in your Open for Summer program. Autumn is barely upon us and those privileges are already being withdrawn. My May Day musings have thus become Labour Day musings, which suggests a review of the statistics.
On 1 May, Alberta had 21,385 active cases, 632 hospitalizations, with 151 in intensive care. On 1 September, there were 13,495 such “cases,” only 515 hospitalizations, with 118 in intensive care. (NB: In the subsequent twelve days the numbers were dramatically increased.) In the few fatal cases, the average age at death was still in the eighties.
I don’t need to tell you that people do tend to pass away in their eighties, if nothing takes them earlier. “Three score years and ten,” or perhaps four score, are the years allotted to man. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, either, that in Canada for many weeks now the covid mortality rate per 100,000 people has been sitting at or near zero. In other words, almost no one is dying, directly or even indirectly, from covid. Meanwhile, more than seventy percent of Albertans over twelve years of age are fully vaccinated.
But there’s the rub. The “active case” number has dropped nearly forty percent, as one would expect over the summer, while serious cases requiring hospitalization and/or intensive care have come down by more than twenty percent. The general infection rate is relatively stable. Most who are infected barely know it, if indeed they do know it. Why then this latest 180-degree turn?
I will tell you why. It serves to obscure the fact that the so-called vaccines are having very little positive effect and may even be having a negative effect. I say “negative” not in the sense that they are quite capable of producing serious adverse reactions and deaths among those not at risk from covid itself, but rather in the sense that they do not work very well at preventing infection or death. (So far in Canada, the death rate in cases among the fully vaccinated, at 1.5 percent, is fifty percent higher than it has been among the unvaccinated since last December.)
The vaunted 85-95 percent risk reduction was only relative risk reduction. Absolute risk reduction was closer to one percent, since most people are not at risk in the first place. But what reduction there is holds good only for a few weeks or months, unlike naturally acquired immunity. Hence the need for regular booster shots. It turns out that there is no such thing as being “fully vaccinated.” There is only having been jabbed as often as asked.
We are beginning to understand why Mr. Trudeau ordered supplies sufficient to jab each Canadian ten times. Unfortunately, we are also beginning to understand the dangers in these jabs. Statistics are not pretty. No other product has ever survived such adverse event numbers. We are likely to find out much more, alas, as people are herded back into the clinics every few months for yet another booster.
The spike proteins these mRNA treatments teach our bodies to produce are pathogenic, capable of producing a blood-clotting effect. Each booster increases the possibility of that effect in tissues that do not heal, such as heart and lung and brain. Children, who are not at risk from covid, are at risk from these treatments. It is entirely unethical – monstrous in fact – to experiment on them for the sake of our covid-zero fantasy.
All this must be covered up. Paramedics, nurses, and physicians who insist on pointing out vaccine injuries, or who themselves refuse to be vaccinated, are being disciplined or dismissed. And now you have resorted to a most calumnious cover-up, repeating the narrative that was prepared for just this eventuality. You have scapegoated the unvaccinated, especially the young, as if they were the source of these problems.
The well-orchestrated lie that we now face “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” is without any foundation. It is evident in still more highly vaccinated places, from Israel to Iceland, that the virus spreads between the vaccinated. The mRNA treatments are incapable of stopping that and may actually enhance it. But by incessant propaganda, by coercive measures, by cash awards such as you have just announced, you keep pushing them, even as the prospect of overcoming this coronavirus by robust natural immunity disappears.
People seem to have some inkling of that. Why otherwise would they remain fearful? Plainly they do not trust the treatments they are taking to protect themselves, and in their propagandized state some are quite willing to turn on those who have not seen fit to follow their own example.
Playing on their fears to produce compliance is unconscionable. Bribing people to produce compliance is unconscionable. Threatening people is unconscionable. Coercive mandates are immoral and unconstitutional. Even continuing to approve these experimental products is problematic.
The primary means now being deployed to coerce vaccination, besides unjust dismissal, is the passport system. It is quite obvious that the whole exercise has had this system as its primary goal. That is why it has been pedal to the metal and the wheel hard left on this dizzying drive.
On the Labour Day weekend you began introducing Albertans to the idea of a QR-coded society and a passport system. You are, I fear, being quite disingenuous by suggesting that it will be a voluntary convenience. You are not leading Alberta down any other path than the one being taken by our prime minister and by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec. Let Albertans query you very carefully on that! But I too have some questions for you.
In your province, as in B.C., a few deranged or hateful people have responded to misinformation about the residential schools by burning churches. To your credit, you have called that out as a completely unacceptable response. Yet you yourself have threatened to come after the unvaccinated, in as yet unspecified ways.
You have already defaced dissenting churches with fences and locks. You are standing by while people lose their liberties and livelihoods. When the scapegoating gets out of hand, when people start vandalizing or burning the homes or churches of the unvaccinated, will you accept any responsibility for that?
Or when it becomes more acceptable to force good citizens into bankruptcy or into quarantine camps, as they are preparing to do in Australia and here in Canada as well, will you follow suit? Ontario is just dismantling its covid field hospital without ever treating a single patient there. Even as it does so, it begins building quarantine camps? Something tells me the latter will not long remain unoccupied.
Pandemics, through which many of us have lived before, are not the reason but only the excuse for the growing tyranny in the West. We are already weary of this tyranny. We would like to have a hand in shaping solutions to the problems that technocrats think they alone should solve. We would like to be at liberty to get on with our lives as we see fit. We wish to be free.
To illustrate, I had a letter the other day from a young woman in Alberta who would like to be able to continue her college education without invasive questions about her medical decisions, demands for perpetual medical tests, acts of shunning, fees being extorted for activities in which she will not be allowed to participate, shaming from her premier – and now complete exclusion for non-conformity.
I had another letter from a woman elsewhere, in her nineties, who was deeply concerned about the coercion of her grandson into the Great Experiment on penalty of being excluded from his military college altogether. She was not concerned that this beloved young man would bring her covid on her deathbed. She was concerned that he be able to live, as she had lived, in a free society where prudential judgments were in the hands of ordinary citizens – that there be such a society for him to defend.
Mr. Kenney, what I say to you I say to all our political leaders: Your policy doughnuts on the tarmac of our daily lives are an outrage for which you will be held accountable, in this world and the next! Do not mistake us for fools. Not only do we grate at the damage you are doing us; we recognize that a smokescreen is being laid down for something vastly more troubling than a mere coronavirus.
I speak of the Great Reset, as the Davos people call it. You are on record as wanting nothing whatever to do with that. Good for you! To lift a line from Travis Smith in The Arts of Rule, the Davos “hypocrites” (as you called them) fit the bill of that perfectly unjust man who “swindles others into consuming harms voluntarily and voraciously, remedying their indigestion with additional poisons.”
I want to believe you when you say that you don’t wish to be found in their company or be party to their program. But in that case I can only conclude that while you were reading Mr. Schwab’s book they must have hacked your onboard computer. Might I recommend disconnecting it permanently and doing your own driving? The result, I am confident, would be most reassuring to your own conscience, as to the rest of us.
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Ethics at McGill University. This version has been slightly abridged by the author from the original at the Haultain Research Institute.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.