The Canadian province of Alberta has seen a coronavirus surge in recent weeks, and medical practitioners are calling into question the one-dimensional public health policy there. Two things are striking about this report. Firstly, as an oil producing province, most Albertans have seen through the climate crisis, anti-fossil fuel crusade. But their officials have implemented an unskeptical tyrannical covid regime. Secondly, in order to speak out against the suppression of alternative views and facts, doctors are forced to use a law firm as a shield against retaliation.
At Palmer Foundation is this article Canada: Alberta Failing on COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatment. Excerpts in italics with my bolds. H\T Trial Site News
On October 4, attorneys Rath & Company sent a stinging letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) regarding letters from CPSA’s Council to both doctors and the public in Alberta province. The lawyers note that they represent both vaccinated and unvaccinated doctors who are anonymous based on veiled threats from CPSA.
Key issues in the letter include interference with patient autonomy and “colluding in the coercion” of patients into taking experimental vaccines. The other concern raised is discouragement of doctors using their own judgement for “alternative treatments” like ivermectin.
Rath & Company also raises concern about an Open Letter from CPSA’s panel of experts from October 1. Misinformation in the Open Letter includes the claim that “there is 1 in 20 risk of hospitalization with documented COVID-19 infections in Alberta,” while ignoring the government’s own position that at any given time, there are four times as many folks infected as the number of reported cases. Thus, the correct ratio would be one in 80.
And a problem with scaremongering is that we can lose sight of key facts; the bulk of hospitalizations and death are in folks over 70, and “the average age of death of someone from COVID-19 is higher than the average age of provincial life expectancy.”
So, to mandate vaccination upon young and healthy doctors, nurses, etc., violates their rights under generally accepted medical ethics. CPSA’s Open Letter also suggests that 12-year-olds should be able to consent on their own to vaccination.
Recommended Consent Language
Government of Ontario data shows that the Moderna vaccine leads to myocarditis in about 1-in-5,000 of 18–24-year old’s; the comparable figure for Pfizer is 1 in 28,000. And Canada’s vaccine rollout was experimental from the outset; Astra-Zeneca’s product was pulled when it was shown to corollate with thrombosis in 1 out of 58,000 persons over 80. Then that same product was “mixed and matched with Pfizer and Moderna injections without adequate research having been done as to possible adverse effects.”
There is also evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 are at an increased risk from the mRNA products. And especially as to young folks, the “government of Ontario’s data demonstrates that this is likely more harmful to that group than AstraZeneca‘s product] was to people over 80.”
Citing Canada’s definition of assault along with the voluntary consent requirements of the Nuremburg principles, the lawyers argue that the threat of losing one’s livelihood vitiates any consent thereby obtained.
The Rath law firm goes on to list items that should be included in advising potential vaccinees:
• That this mRNA therapy program does not provide immunity for COVID-19 and only provides an unknown amount of protection from the virus for a limited time;
• that people who receive injections can, in fact, get infected with COVID themselves and pass the virus on to other members of their family, including their aging parents;
• that there is insufficient data over a multi-year period to advise that the injection is safe and that serious life-threatening conditions, including permanent damage to the heart muscle (myocarditis) and DEATH, may occur in healthy people under the age of 50 as a result of taking the injection;
• that if you are under the age of 50, with no comorbidities, you are at a greater risk of a serious illness or adverse event, including COVID-like sickness, including fever, and DEATH from the vaccine than you are in actually suffering permanent harm from COVID itself;
• that the incidence of COVID-19 “vaccines” causing death or seriously adverse outcomes in children is greater than the potential for children to have any serious outcome from actually contracting COVID-19; and
• that pregnant women should be advised that the effects of the Pfizer and Moderna injections on fetal health are in fact unknown and that vaccine side effects may, in fact, include spontaneous miscarriage and fetal abnormalities.
New Mutation, Old Vaccine
Next, the Rath letter notes that the CPSA has effectively threatened doctors about granting vaccine exemptions while at the same time denying the science from Israel, showing that natural immunity is over 10 times as effective as an mRNA product. And at this point, the vaccinated are now dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated in the UK.
The attorneys note that their “clients are extremely concerned that we have now reached a stage in the course of the mutation of the virus that using a vaccine developed for an extinct pathogen in regard to viruses that have mutated is dangerous. It now appears that the virus has mutated specifically to avoid the original ‘vaccine’ in a manner that will cause further widespread transmission of the virus and death amongst those fully-vaccinated.” And the clients think that the vaccinated need to be more fully aware that they can spread this disease.
Ivermectin Saves Lives
Rath’s clients also fault CPSA for its position on ivermectin. Having banned this drug’s use for COVID-19 patients, the group is ignoring the fact that,
“Physicians of good conscience in the Province of Alberta, having read studies indicating that Ivermectin is effective in the earliest stages of COVID in lessening viral replication within the patient, have properly prescribed Ivermectin to their patients in this province.
Numerous studies and clinical observation of thousands of patients has indicated that Ivermectin is highly effective in this regard. Even low dose studies that were designed to reach the conclusion that ivermectin was not effective found a signal that indicated that Ivermectin effectively interacted with the COVID virus molecule to prevent or lessen replication of the virus.”
And even poorer nations have used this drug to achieve dramatic reductions in morbidity.