Preston Manning’s proposal about commission deserves support
By Lethbridge Herald on July 20, 2022.
Editor:
On July 14, Health Canada announced its approval of the Moderna Spikevax for children from the ages of six months to five years old.
That evening, on the CBC’s “The World at Six”, in a segment starting at minute 8, a pediatrician, Dr. Daniel Flanders, says with regard to convincing vaccine hesitant parents, “When you weigh the risks and benefits of this vaccine it’s really not debatable.” Not debatable? Really?
In response to the Health Canada decision, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance put up a couple of videos and a pdf on its website that walk you through the evidence. They conclude that kids do not need the shots, that they don’t work, and that they have not been proven safe. Perhaps they are wrong.
But why does the CBC never put anyone on who actually helps us all grapple with the evidence? All you ever hear is something like “After a thorough and independent scientific review of the evidence, the department has determined that the vaccine is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19.” OK, but then why not explain why the Canadian COVID Care Alliance is wrong?
Government funding for the CBC is well over a billion a year. Is that why they never present arguments that go against government policy? Preston Manning has called for a commission that is independent of government funding to assess the way that the government has managed the COVID crisis. You can find his proposal at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. You may not agree with anything else that Manning stands for, but I say let’s support him on this. What say you?
Andrew Blair
Lethbridge
9-8
I wouldn’t trust any of these Reformers and that includes Preston Manning. This the same guy who wanted to scrape our Public Health Care System and has been paid as a member to the so-called Expert Panel , Jason Kenney created to help him spread his lie that we don’t have a revenue problem, only a spending problem, while he helps the rich steal our oil and gas wealth.
What comes to mind again, is “Multisystem inflammatory syndrome” in children (MIS-C) that appears to be linked to COVID 19. “Without early diagnosis and appropriate management and treatment, MIS-C can lead to severe problems with vital organs such as the heart, lungs, or kidneys. In rare cases MIS-C could result in permanent damage or even death.” This is why some Alberta children have ended up in ICU at AB Children’s Hospital with MIS-C and COVID. Perhaps, this complication in children could have been more widely made known to parents.
It could be said here, that life in general, involves assumed risk. For some parents there would be no hesitation in having their young children vaccinated. For those who opt not to vaccinate their kids, prevention is highly recommended, i.e. “keeping hands clean, avoiding people who are sick, social distancing, masking in public settings, not touching eyes, nose or mouth, coughing into tissues or elbow, cleaning and disinfecting high touch surfaces every day, and washing clothing and other items (toys) as needed.”
It would be wise to still, not underestimate the damage that these COVID viruses can still, do.
Some of this info was obtained at mayoclinic.org
thanks for this, so. ab. thoughtful and lots to consider, at least if one has an open and fair outlook.
Here is part of the disclaimer posted on the The Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s website:
“All information in this site is provided “as is,” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the fitness for any particular purpose.”
the point with regard to cbc is well taken. is this not also the case, however, with regard to all of the major networks? superficial coverage, minimal to no analysis, discussion…just pretty much throw out the official narrative, and bury so much of what is happening around the planet. yellow journalism is the norm.
i have not been on the same page with the likes of manning. however, i am always for a real, independent, indepth review of govt policy, approaches and actions. the covid response appears as piecemeal, reactionary, contentious and very, very expensive. the approach may not have been too far off the mark, or, it is possible things could have been better. given it is likely covid may be just the tip of the iceberg of what we all will be dealing with – china is not the only land spending money on idiot fool projects dealing with bio(il)logical warfare – i suspect there is much to be uncovered and gleaned and learnt from the covid response. an independent investigation should be an open book – not a smothering
minus 6 – wonderful. the negative icon pushers are again out in force…only, what exactly is it with the entry you incredibly gifted button pushers take issue with?
I say, Mr. Blair, you would be well advised to reread the disclaimer on the Canadian COVID Care Alliance website. And, while you at your reading, do review the Toronto Star item as mentioned by Mrs. Kidd. Wondering, though, will you lump the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons into that “expert” category you’ve mentioned previously?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/01/21/toronto-physician-co-founder-of-canadian-covid-care-alliance-under-investigation-by-medical-regulator.html
Hello IMO,
I appreciate your advice, and also the advice that others have given me on this and previous posts. I pay attention, though I do not have time to reply to everyone. You are doing what humans should be doing with each other: when you think that another person is wrong, have a kindly go at trying to get them to change their mind.
Though I appreciate your advice, and followed it, let me try to explain why it had no effect on me. Perhaps you will think this is only because I am stubborn, but hear me out.
First, with regard to the disclaimer on the CCCA website, it seems to me to be a typical disclaimer of the sort that I often see, with no implications with regard to whether the CCCA is operating in good faith. I suspect that they had a lawyer advise them to do this, and I can guess at why, but I am not well acquainted with the legal issues surrounding such disclaimers. However, as I imagine it, in a situation where there are numerous uncertainties there will be people looking to find any opportunity to sue, and they may say they were led to believe they were given unwarranted assurances. A disclaimer helps to ward off such suits.
It may be a bit of a stretch, but let me use the rock climbing wall at the University of Lethbridge as an example. You have to sign a waiver in order to climb on that wall. It’s been years since I’ve seen the waiver, but it’s something to the effect of not holding the operators liable for any accident that conceivably could happen. Is this an indication that the operators are providing a service in bad faith, that they are encouraging unwarranted risks? I think not. The waiver is just a protection against people who do not want to accept responsibility for the possibility inherent in risk that something will actually go wrong.
So maybe you see something more alarming in the CCCA disclaimer, and if so I would like to hear what you have to say, but to me, it does not nudge me either for or against them.
Second, with regard to the article in the Toronto Star, I’m not sure, but I believe that Mrs. Kidd mentioned it before in a discussion online here at the Herald in connection with ivermectin. I seem to recall having wanted to reply, but was short on time. In any case, before you brought it up I had already read the article, and have also seen a video discussion online with Ira Bernstein. I do not know anything more about the Bernstein case.
However, I have done a fair amount of reading surrounding the evidence about ivermectin. Now I’m just some guy you have come across commenting in your local newspaper, and I do not expect you to have any confidence at all in any conclusion I have come to, but to give you some idea of why the Toronto Star has done nothing to change my mind I’ll let you know what my conclusion is. With regard to whether ivermectin works against SAS-Cov-2 I have come to a rather wishy washy conclusion. I think it probably works to a small extent. The evidence is not super strong, but the evidence does favour it. I’ve commented on this evidence in these pages here in the past. I have written to the science advisory for Alberta Health about their position on it, and got back a response that did not address the issues that I raised about it. I might also mention that I have direct experience with ivermectin, have taken it, and think that it may have been partly responsible for the mildness of the case of Covid that I got a few months ago.
But with regard to whether ivermectin is safe I am not wishy washy at all. It has a proven record of safety. So think about this. We have a treatment for Covid that has decades of safety data behind it, and a new technology that cannot possibly have decades of safety data behind it. With ivermectin there is very little money to be made. With mRNA there are billions to be made. So a physician, Ira Bernstein, says he will make ivermectin available to those who want to give it a try, and what happens? He gets smacked down like Semmelweis was. Doesn’t that make you a little suspicious?
Granted, that’s not a conclusive argument. Maybe Bernstein was a quack. But more and more evidence is coming out that shows how dangerous the mRNA vaccines are. For example, this link, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9047157/, will take you to an article about a study that shows that you are 13 times more likely to get Covid after being vaccinated twice than if you have natural immunity from having got Covid previously. In other words, the mRNA vaccines are increasing the long-term risks of getting Covid, not reducing them. Byram Bridle discusses this at more length on his substack: https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/.
I could go on about what the VAERS database shows, which is alarming, and the increase in all-cause mortality associated with populations with high vaccination uptake, and the data fiddling in Canada, but I won’t for now.
This brings me to your wondering whether I will lump the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons into that “expert” category I mentioned previously. Well, it would be more accurate to say that I have two “expert” categories. There are experts who are willing to try to explain the reasons why they hold their views, and there are those who are not. It’s not that simple, of course, as one and the same expert may be reluctant to explain some things, but not others, and they may try with some audiences and not with others. However, so as not to get too complicated, let’s just go with two categories. I do not know which of these categories the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons falls into. But Byram Bridle is one of those experts who tries to explain. And yes, he has some connection with the CCCA.
I know other “experts” who fall into the other category. Toward the end of the debate about masks between James Lyons-Weiler and Jack Abaluck, Jack Abaluck says that the advice to think for yourself is really bad advice in a complicated scientific field. (You can find the debate here https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/ubs-debates-what-did-the-massive.) I half agree with Abaluck. In a field that is hard to understand I think we do need to rely on and trust experts. But who is to be trusted? For that I think that we need to think for ourselves. My advice is to put more trust in those experts who are willing to explain their reasons. Those who say: “Trust me, I’m a scientist. I have credentials.” should not be trusted so much, though it doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. James Lyons-Weiler, incidentally, is another of those experts I recommend trusting because they are willing to explain.
Well, I’ve gone on longer than I intended, and probably longer than you expected, though I’ve hardly scratched the surface of the issues we face. When I read what people have to say on these pages I feel dismay and sadness. It’s not your fault. You have not been informed. The media has not done its job. But there is so much that has been hidden from you.
As I say, I’m just some guy, and I do not expect you to pay me much mind, which is why I would like to see Preston Manning’s idea of a public inquiry come to fruition – an inquiry that can earn the public trust, but is not beholden to officialdom, and is willing to call the prevailing narrative into question.