fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

SELICK: Here’s Why I Wouldn’t Take the Vaccine, Dr. Tam

Karen Selick makes the case for abstaining from a potential COVID-19 vaccine.

mm

Published

on

EDITORS NOTE: The Western Standard Editorial Board encourages open debate by its columnists. The column below reflects the views of its author, however the WS Editorial Board takes no position on vaccines.

Statistics Canada recently released a survey designed to gauge the likely response of Canadians to a COVID-19 vaccine when (or if) one becomes available. 

The results showed that only 57.5 percent of those surveyed said they were “very likely” to get the vaccine. The remaining respondents said they were either somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to get the vaccine, while 9.4 percent of individuals responded that they “didn’t know.” 

A reasonable headline for an article reporting on this information would have been: “As many as 42.5 percent of Canadians have some doubts about getting COVID-19 vaccine.” 

However, the National Post chose to use the headline: “One in ten Canadians would refuse COVID vaccine.” Published on August 26, the article dealt briefly with the survey, then concluded by saying that Dr. Theresa Tam (the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada) says “authorities need more information about those who are worried about or opposed to a vaccine to ensure they have the proper information about how vaccines are approved.” 

As someone who would have responded “very unlikely”, I’d be happy to provide that info. 

For starters, Dr. Tam, my name is Karen, and I would not only like to speak to the so-called management, I’d like to fire you. 

In the five years since I retired from my law career, I’ve found time to read nine books dealing with vaccines—including two written by Dr. Paul Offit, one of the most vocal proponents of vaccines in the U.S. I gave Dr. Offit a fair chance to persuade me, but his research and arguments didn’t hold a candle against the opposition. 

I’m two years younger than Dr. Offit. In my youth I believed (as he still seems to) that vaccines are safe and effective. Maybe the difference between our perspectives is that Dr. Offit holds several vaccine patents, while I hold none. There is no financial incentive tugging at me to continue believing that everything is hunky-dory. 

I began having doubts in the 1990s when reports came out that the flu vaccine was  a dismal failure, year after year. I never got a flu shot myself. Why bother, since I rarely got the flu? The vaccine seemed to be hit-or-miss at best, with effectiveness rates as low as 40 percent in some years. 

But then the news emerged that those who did get the flu vaccine seemed to be at greater risk for other respiratory viral infections. That cemented my decision. Why get vaccinated for one minor illness if it would increase your chances of getting others? But the study piqued my curiosity: what was it about vaccines that would make people sicker, rather than healthier? 

I learned that the flu vaccine contained a preservative called thimerosal. As a former contact lens wearer, I recalled that many years ago, contact lens storage solution had contained thimerosal. When the manufacturers eventually took it out, they considered it important enough to splash across the package, “Now thimerosal-free!”

So I wondered: if thimerosal is bad enough that you shouldn’t get any in your eyes, is it okay to shoot it into your veins? The answer is no.

Thimerosal contains mercury, which is extremely toxic to humans. The best amount to have in your body is zero. Vaccine apologists like Dr. Offit argue that opponents are confusing ethyl mercury (which supposedly leaves the body quickly because it isn’t found in blood tests after a short time) and methyl mercury which accumulates in the body. But in his book Thimerosal—Let the Science Speak, author Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains that the reason ethyl mercury becomes undetectable in the blood after a short time is that it accumulates even more quickly than methyl mercury in the organs—especially in important places like the brain. As of February, 2020 there have been 22 studies that confirm this problem. 

Considering the worldwide explosion of brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s and autism  over the past few decades, you’d have to be a reckless ignoramus to recommend that people continue to inject themselves annually with mercury. Why do you do that, Dr. Tam? 

Next, what about everyone’s favourite vaccine legend: how vaccines saved the world from polio? Well, I’ve read up on that too—in Dissolving Illusions by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, MD, a US board-certified nephrologist (kidney specialist). She started out, like most Americans,  believing in the safety and efficacy of vaccines—until she began observing the some worrisome symptoms among patients who had recently been vaccinated. 

Humphries’ book provides credible evidence (data drawn from public records in the UK and the US) that it was neither the Salk nor the Sabin vaccine that saved the world from polio. Rather, it was improvements in public sanitation in the first half of the twentieth century. Global populations began gaining access to clean drinking water. Newly installed sewage systems meant that residents of densely populated cities no longer lived amidst their own waste. Knowledge about safe food handling practices and handwashing grew and disseminated. 

These improvements also brought about dramatic declines in diseases such as diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. Most people don’t realize that the mortality rate for all of these diseases had declined almost to zero before any vaccines were developed for them.  Some diseases such as scarlet fever and typhoid fever declined dramatically in lockstep with the rest, despite the fact that there was never a vaccine for them. 

In fact, there is good evidence that the paralytic polio epidemic of the 1940s and 1950s was actually caused by the extreme toxicity of a combination of commonly used agricultural pesticides, including DDT, lead and arsenic. Polio had been known since the 1800s but was a mild illness then. Most victims recovered quickly and never suffered paralysis. Polio only began paralysing people permanently during the 20th century, reaching its heights as pesticide use soared. The eventual decline in paralysis cases corresponds closely to the declining use of these toxic pesticides. 

Furthermore, the medical conditions necessary for a diagnosis of “polio” changed abruptly in 1958, shortly after the introduction of the polio vaccine. Many diseases that had previously been diagnosed as polio suddenly got their own separate label. And as author Brett Wilcox points out in his book Jabbed: How the Vaccine Industry, Medical Establishment, and Government Stick It to You and Your Family, the classical definition of polio as “a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days” was changed to “a disease with residual paralysis which persists for more than 60 days.” Since the vast majority of cases did resolve within 60 days, the change of definition was just like waving a magic wand over a huge percentage of polio cases and making them vanish. Poof! Nothing had changed except the labelling, but vaccines got the credit. 

Dr. Tam, I learned something else in my reading, from a book called The Virus and the Vaccine, by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher—something that disturbs me very much. The oral polio vaccine of the 1950s—that innocent-looking pink liquid given to me at my elementary school—was widely contaminated with something called SV40. SV stands for simian virus. The vaccine was grown on the kidneys of monkeys imported from Africa, and it turned out they had numerous (at least 40) viruses that found their way into the polio vaccine. 

According to this scientific study on SV40 published in 1999, “there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S. Further investigations are clearly justified.” Have the further investigations been done, Dr. Tam? Are you looking into them now? Or are you still maintaining that vaccines are perfectly safe and we shouldn’t worry? 

Finally, I learned from a book called The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Wayne Rohde that vaccine manufacturers were so heavily besieged by lawsuits for the harm their products caused in the 1980s that they threatened the US government that they’d stop making them entirely unless they were granted immunity from liability. Congress keeled over obediently and passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving manufacturers of responsibility for vaccine injuries. The most recent data available from the US government (they seem to have stopped publishing the totals after 2018) shows that $4.4 billion has been paid out to vaccine-injured individuals. Experts say that barely scratches the surface of the harm done, since most Americans don’t even know they can make a claim, and many physicians (thanks to the influence of Dr. Tam and her ilk) don’t even recognize vaccine injuries when patients present with them. 

Do you think cars would be safer if injured drivers and passengers were prevented from suing manufacturers for defects? Of course not. No product is safe if all liability for defects or harm is removed. This 2017 peer-reviewed study published in the Review of Industrial Organization compared the adverse vaccine reactions before and after the NCVIA was passed. It should be no surprise that the author found “that vaccines that were licensed after legislation that preempted most product liability lawsuits are associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse events than were vaccines that were licensed under a previous regime that permitted consumers to sue.”

Do you understand me sufficiently yet, Dr. Tam? I could go on, but you probably get the gist of my objections by now. Vaccines are not safe, and their efficacy is highly questionable. 

Dr. Tam, there are many other things individuals can do to ensure that their immune systems meet and defeat coronaviruses successfully, without vaccines. I’d be delighted to tell you about some of them in another article—but I have the sneaking suspicion you might not want to read it.

 Karen Selick is a columnist for the Western Standard and a retired lawyer who now works as a freelance writer, editor, and video maker. 

Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for the original Western Standard, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca.

Opinion

McALLISTER: Nenshi’s regional board is at war with rural development

Bruce McAllister writes that a radical move by the Calgary Regional Metropolitan Board will kill development in huge areas surrounding the city. And the province is letting it happen.

mm

Published

on

With the stroke of a pen arbitrary drawn across a map, many thousands of acres of rural lands surrounding Calgary are about to be sterilized of their economic potential. Land that owners intend to develop – creating thousands of jobs – has been rendered useless.

We used to take pride in the ‘Alberta advantage’. The record shows that when we let good people use their land, they return the favour with growth, jobs, and wealth that build our schools and hospitals. Alberta’s innovation has done even more. It has produced enough wealth to share with those provinces with more limited opportunities. But it seems this is coming to an end.

The Calgary Metropolitan Region Board (CMRB) has been plodding along since Rachel Notley created it to impose a growth plan for the entire region that is highly prescriptive and anti-competitive. The central planners in urban municipal think-tanks and lobby groups in Calgary and Edmonton think they can build Alberta from behind a one-way-mirror at a focus group. They’ve had their chance, and they’ve failed.

Last week all the warning shots that we have been firing hit the target. The hammer dropped, the shoe fell, the truth was revealed. The CRMB made public the maps they are working on to plan the region, and what they reveal is very telling about what the future holds if the central planners at Calgary City Hall and the CMRB get their way. 

In short, there is a good chance that if you own land in the areas surrounding Calgary, it was just sterilized by this unelected fourth layer of government. They have just dictated from behind closed doors that you will now be severely restricted from building your business and contributing to the economy. You’re out.

The Board’s consultant – an urban planner from San Francisco – included three future development areas for the region, two in Rocky View and one in Foothills County. If you own land in one of those, you have a chance of moving something forward, but there’s a catch.

The CMRB growth plan will take precedent over any other land-use. That means that if a developer wants to amend his current plan and add units or do anything to remain nimble and adjust to the marketplace, they will have to do it according to the CMRB’s plans. 

But the most egregious act of this plan is what happens to lands outside these designated joint planning areas. Effectively, that land is frozen to any business or future development. 

Future development potential will now be restricted to urban locations, period. Their plan is to eliminate the competition. They did not present a better service or product. They just lobbied hard enough to change the master plan. It’s a toxic turn for southern Alberta’s economic future. 

We have been warning for some time that Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi has been using this Board and his allies from urban municipalities (not coincidentally those who buy their water from Calgary) to stifle growth in competing rural districts. 

If you own land near Calaway Park and you had a good idea for a business to serve families out for some fun on Sunday afternoon, you can forget about it. 

If you had a project on Highway 8 that would provide housing choice in the region, and competition for the marketplace, forget about it. That’s not on the map. But what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that’s been spent getting projects through the approval process in neighbouring municipalities? It doesn’t matter. The Board has spoken. Well technically, not yet, but it’s about to. These draft plans move forward to the province for approval on March 1st.

Before we hold out hope that the province won’t approve the plan, we have to look at their track record on the CMRB. They have caved to the lobbyists at every turn. They prop up the CMRB when they should be dismantling it. The simple fact is that they need the votes and rural Alberta makes an easy loser in their eyes. 

It’s not like the UCP hasn’t been made aware of this. They appear to have other priorities.  Given the COVID-19 pandemic and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, you can understand why they are distracted. But the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or Jobs and Innovation, or Red Tape, or somebody who even remembers what the Alberta advantage is all about had better act before it is too late.

If this land-use plan gets implemented there are thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment that will go with it.

Gone will be the Gardner project and its $3 billion investment along Highway 8. Gone will be the Qualico Elbow View. Gone will be any potential to amend the Glenbow Ranch project along Highway 1A. Anything near Calaway Park: gone. The second phase of The Omni by Genesis and its 4,000 jobs east of Calgary: gone. 

The central planners may think that nothing stands in their way as they begin to mount their master plan in Mayor Nenshi’s office and pour a round of drinks. They know that between a pandemic and a deadline of March 1st, so few eyes will see their plan. They know the development industry and landowners’ lobbying efforts to the province have failed, and they know that while eyes are turned elsewhere their master plan can take effect. They know that the CMRB is stacked in their favour, it was designed that way. But we can sound the alarm. 

What happened to the Premier Jason Kenney’s rallying cry to “make Alberta the best place to do business in North America”?

The UCP, Jason Kenney, and his ministers can stop this madness. The only question is, will they?

Bruce McAllister is a columnist for the Western Standard, Executive Director Rocky View 2020 & is the former Wildrose and PC MLA for Chestermere-Rockyview

Continue Reading

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: O’Toole used the wrong excuse to expel Sloan

“If O’Toole had not defended Sloan in 2020, if O’Toole had not courted his support for down-ballot votes, if O’Toole had supported the move to expel Sloan when he first made his remarks, he might then have a leg of credibility to stand on.”

mm

Published

on

On Wednesday afternoon, the federal Conservative Caucus made it official, expelling Derek Sloan into the political wilderness. He will now sit in the southeast corner of the House of Commons beside the Green Party, in Maxime Bernier’s old seat. Virtually at least. 

The party did have cause to boot Sloan. Unfortunately for them, it’s not the one they used in time to save face from the episode devolving into a farce. 

On Monday, O’Toole issued a white hot statement blasting Sloan for receiving a $131 donation to his leadership campaign from a neo-Nazi who sometimes goes by the name Paul Fromm. 

“Derek Sloan’s acceptance of a donation from a well-known white supremacist is far worse than a gross error of judgment or failure of due diligence.”

Well, that excuse held about as much water as a pasta colander. None of it added up

Very few people in 2021 know who Paul Fromm is. 

Paul Fromm made the donation under the name ‘Frederick P. Fromm’. 

The donation was for $131, and would attract the attention of precisely no one working for Sloan or O’Toole. 

The donation slipped not just by the CFO of the Sloan campaign, but also through the Conservative Party of Canada who took their own 10 per cent cut without question. 

The Conservative Party of Canada issued Fromm with a membership card and allowed him to vote in its 2020 leadership contest. 

Most reasonable people smelled a rat. Clearly, O’Toole wanted Sloan gone, and this was the trumped-up charge he would use to make it happen. 

It’s too bad, because O’Toole and his allies in caucus had cause to expel Sloan without the need for a farcical show trial. 

Sloan has made genuinely extreme statements that allow the Liberals to paint the entire party as intolerant. And they aren’t just the usual Liberal accusations that ‘everyone that disagrees with me is a: racist, homophobe, transphobe, Islamophobe’, ect, ect, ect. 

While seeking the Tory leadership in January 2020, Sloan told CTV: “Whatever the cause of sexual orientation, which I still maintain is scientifically unclear. That is the position of science right now.”

It’s not. Being gay is not a choice. For most of mankind’s history, those who were gay, wished that they weren’t. Even in broadly tolerant societies like Canada, many gay men and lesbian women still struggle with their innate identities. 

Claims that being gay is a choice – implicitly or explicitly – is meant to buttress long-discredited theories that we can “pray the gay away.”

Sloan is welcome to hold these views. But most Canadians, most Conservatives, and even most social conservatives, do not. 

His positions on other issues – abortion, child sex reassignment surgery – while controversial, are not necessarily extreme. They might go against the grain, but they should be a welcomed part of open debate in the political sphere, and within the Conservative Party. 

But claiming that being gay is a choice? The Conservatives need to draw a line somewhere, and that seems like a good place to start. 

Unfortunately, that’s not where O’Toole drew it.

After Sloan made these comments about gay-choice theory, O’Toole defended Sloan against attempts by mostly Peter MacKay-supporting MPs who were trying to expel him then. 

At the time, O’Toole needed third and fourth-place down-ballot support from Sloan to secure the Tory leadership. These views – while not his own – were welcomed in O’Toole’s “True Blue” coalition. 

Keen observers could see close parallels with Andrew Scheer courting support from social conservative Brad Troast in the 2017 leadership race, just to discard him once he had the job. 

O’Toole needed Sloan in 2020. He didn’t in 2021. 

Since 2020, Sloan has been mostly quiet, and hasn’t committed any political sin of note. O’Toole was grateful for the contrived scandal of a meager donation from a has-been hate monger made under another name. 

If O’Toole had not defended Sloan in 2020, if O’Toole had not courted his support for down-ballot votes, if O’Toole had supported the move to expel Sloan when he first made his remarks, he might then have a leg of credibility to stand on. 

Instead, he drummed up a fake scandal and played the self-righteous Liberal card.

And in the process, has made himself the bad guy, and Sloan the man who deserves justice. 

Now O’Toole looks like a man caught playing dirty backroom politics, and leaves the social conservatives in his party asking themselves if they are just there to hand over votes and money.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

CYR: Kenney has betrayed his ‘Grassroots Guarantee’ one too many times

“As a Wildrose MLA, I fought hard for the merger that created the UCP so that we could cast out the radical socialists and bring back better times to Alberta. It disheartening that time has proven that the new party we thought we created only turned out to be little better than a re-branded PC Party.”

mm

Published

on

Would you even notice if your locally elected MLA was replaced in Alberta’s legislature by a Premier Kenney cardboard cut-out? If the answer is ‘no’, then your party has failed you.

Mainstreet Research conducted a poll in January 2018 where the UCP held 52 per cent support and the NDP just 25 per cent. Fast forward to January, 2021 and a new Mainstreet Research poll conducted for the Western Standard shows the UCP collapsing to just 26 per cent. In its place, the NDP have surged to 41 per cent, and the new Wildrose Independence Party has broken out to 9 per cent. What changed from three years ago?

The grassroots were abandoned.

The Wildrose Party had an unparalleled grassroots movement that we brought to the table before the merger, whereas, the Progressive Conservative Party (PC) held name recognition from 44 years of being in government. It made sense to combine both parties into one, the United Conservative Party (UCP). We had grassroots and name recognition and in return, were rewarded with record popularity to enact a mandate of throwing out the NDP to prevent further damage to Alberta.

Premier Kenney recognized early in his leadership campaign that putting the grassroots in charge was the answer, and rolled out his “Grassroots Guarantee”. This appealed to both parties’ members and led to resounding support. After successfully winning the leadership race, he rolled out the same narrative to Albertans and in 2019, the UCP grassroots platform walloped the NDP top-down platform.

What truly made the UCP successful had less to do with Premier Kenney being a battle-hardened politician and more to do with the party’s connection with the middle and working class. As a province, we all lived through the reigns of Alison Redford and the NDP, and saw first-hand how destructive top-down their leadership styles were. We found out that it inevitably leads to elitism and the disconnection of government from its citizens.

When Premier Kenney made the January 14 Facebook post to unilaterally eject the Lesser Slave Lake MLA Pat Rehn from caucus, I was alarmed. Let’s set aside this MLA’s alleged transgressions and the fact that it was probably the right decision for the party. My concern is how it was done.

As a grassroots party, the caucus would normally be called together and the offending MLA would be given the opportunity to defend themselves. Once the caucus members received answers to their questions, they would hold a secret ballot to decide if the MLA is ejected or not. This is grassroots decision making at the highest level of the party.

Whereas, in a top-down party like the PCs of old and NDP, the leader ignores their caucus and makes the decision on behalf of the party.

If a leader has the unilateral power to eject caucus members, it gives them absolute power over the people’s elected representatives. What’s stopping the leader from ejecting the legislature speaker for not making a ruling they like, or an individual MLA voting with their conscience – or the worst offense of all – a conservative standing up for conservatism?

Leaders making the sole decision to eject caucus members is not grassroots. It’s authoritarianism.

But that’s not the most alarming part of the announcement Premier Kenney made in his post. It now appears that he usurped his own party’s board by taking complete control over the nomination process. For those that don’t know what this process is, it’s how the party chooses its candidates running in the next election. This means that your candidate likely won’t be chosen locally, but you will be told who represents your region by the Premier’s Office.

Presently, Premier Kenney has shown he doesn’t have enough respect for his fellow caucus members, his party’s board, UCP party members and their policies (he “holds the pen”), and the average Albertan who he promised with his “Grassroots Guarantee.”

What will be the result of this broken promise? Dave Rutherford put it best in a Facebook post, “Conservatives like me will never vote for the NDP, but when conservatives get angry, they don’t vote for the lefties, they stay home and don’t vote at all, or they find a non-threatening alternative to park their vote.”

These are powerful warning signs that shouldn’t be ignored. So again, I ask you, would there be any real difference between your MLA and a cardboard cut-out of Jason Kenney?

As a Wildrose MLA, I fought hard for the merger that created the UCP so that we could cast out the radical socialists and bring back better times to Alberta. It disheartening that time has proven that the new party we thought we created only turned out to be little better than a re-branded PC Party.

Scott Cyr is the former Wildrose and UCP MLA for Bonnyville-Cold Lake

Continue Reading

External Advertisement

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.