Let's get on with the Show! (OPEN LETTER)
Global Declaration on Information Integrity disallows censorship
This OPEN LETTER was intended as an email to Rachel Notley, Luanne Metz, Tim Caulfield, AB MLAs, journalists, etc. Over the days of writing, we kept finding new useful angles. Readers may wish to copy out and share certain segments as stand alone emails, letters, posts, etc. Feel free to use as you wish.
re: comments made by
- Dr. Luanne Metz on May 15, 2024 (at the 2hour34 minute mark https://assemblyonline.assembly.ab.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20240517/-1/17896 )
- AB NDP leader Rachel Notley in the Alberta Legislature on May 13, 2024 (at the 1hour53 minute mark https://assemblyonline.assembly.ab.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20240517/-1/17894)
- Timothy Caulfield, U of A Health Law professor, https://twitter.com/CaulfieldTim/status/1790502242941907335
- Lauryn Heintz, Journalist https://calgary.citynews.ca/2024/05/14/calgary-ucp-vaccine-misinformation-town-hall/
- Max Fawcett, Journalist https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/05/16/opinion/anti-vaxxers-are-winning-war
- World Health Organization - multiple references to evidence-based critique branded as "misinformation" on https://www.who.int
- YouTube Community Guidelines re: "vaccine misinformation" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/13813322?sjid=14955808191827862698-NC#zippy=%2Cvaccine-misinformation
What do YouTube, the World Health Organization, Rachel Notley, Luanne Metz and Tim Caulfield have in common?
They are all incorrectly applying the term "Misinformation" and advocating for outright censorship in the marketplace of ideas.
And they are violating the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online that Canada initiated and that was posted in October 2023. (LINK)
This Declaration of Information Integrity includes these commitments:
Respect, promote and fulfill all human rights that are essential to upholding information integrity, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information regardless of frontiers.
Implement necessary and appropriate measures, including legislation, to address information integrity and platform governance, in a manner that complies with international human rights law, including but not limited to States’ obligations to respect privacy rights as set out in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the rights of freedom of opinion and expression as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Promote user access to diverse online content, including national and international sources of news and information, and encourage efforts that promote diversity of content online while supporting the promotion of cultural diversity, such as through supporting and fostering strong, independent and pluralistic media that also help to preserve cultural heritage and identities, and local languages.
Promote and respect pluralistic media and journalism, and protect access to media content as one measure to counter disinformation.
In order to claim that certain information is FALSE one needs to be able to point at data that disproves it. So says Health Canada here.
In maligning and trying to silence a gathering of high level physicians, professors, scientists, etc. invited to Calgary by a Calgary UCP constituency association for an event called aninjectionoftruth.ca, Caulfield, Notley, Metz, and various journalists are disregarding this cardinal rule: In order to claim that something is indeed Disinformation, one needs to be able to point at data that disproves that information. They also venture into the classic error of assuming that if something might be "potentially misleading" i.e. leading the public away from a predetermined static and outdated conclusion, it should be deemed "misinformation."
However, University of Cambridge philosophy lecturer and Associate Fellow at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, Dan Williams writes: “[M]odern misinformation research confronts a dilemma when it comes to defining ‘misinformation’: On the one hand, if researchers define the concept so that it only includes clear-cut falsehoods, misinformation appears to be relatively rare in the media ecosystem and largely symptomatic of other problems, at least in Western democracies. On the other hand, if researchers define the concept to include subtler ways in which communication can be misleading even when it’s not demonstrably false, the concept becomes so expansive, amorphous, and value-laden that we shouldn’t trust misinformation experts to decide what counts as misinformation.” In other words - if the term “misinformation” is used only for “clear-cut falsehoods”, it is rare. If it is used to refer to anything that could be “misleading”, we can’t trust anyone to determine what that could be.
When it comes to PUBLIC HEALTH information specifically, most people are not aware of the taxonomy showing the differences between Beliefs and Facts (i.e., Data, Information and Evidence) as published by Dr. Olaf Dammann, Professor and Vice Chair Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston and shared here:
From this insightful publication we learn that if the one side or the other of an argument is running on beliefs that are not fully grounded in CURRENT evidence (i.e. useful contextualized information - aka useful, accurate data in context) then, and only then, could a charge of “misinformation” stick. And then it would need to be followed up by a presentation of the data in context coming from the other side. At no point in time should the scientific process be reduced to a static, linear exercise ending with a fixed conclusion.
Mr. Caulfield, Ms. Notley and others are simply running on their OWN BELIEF that the information to be provided at a Town Hall in Calgary on June 17 is 'Misinformation' and as such, is to be banned from public discourse. They have NOT presented any data to disprove the evidence that high level experts in vaccinology, paediatric neurology, computational biology etc. have presented in other venues and will finally get to present directly to Albertans. In fact, when Professor Tim Caulfield attempted to back up his claim about US political commentator Tucker Carlson being a spreader of ‘misinformation’ by citing outdated studies, a University of Guelph vaccinologist was quickly able to point out just where Caulfield's claims fell short.
Caulfield has consistently propped up so-called "Misinformation Research" which relies strongly on polling data and simulated scenarios (as critiqued here) and has no references to the biological processes that engage once, for example, an injection enters the body. Ironically, it was Caulfield himself, as moderator for this event held in Edmonton in 2021, who stated: “Changing your mind based on the science is a badge of honour.”
And back in 2009, Caulfield ran a workshop to discuss evolving issues in science journalism. Highlights of the findings have been reposted here….. At that time, Caulfield was clearly aware how private-sector funding of scientists diminishes the public’s trust in 'industry scientists’. Back in 2009, he and his fellow workshop participants advocated FOR two-way dialog with lay publics, for example through consensus conferences and cafés scientifiques. He stressed that if such civic engagement occurs too late in the process, it ‘only serves a public relations function’. Now that it is clearly too late, and Alberta’s official unexplained death totals have been noteworthy across the country, who is he to try to prevent a citizens’ forum from examining the data? As the University of Alberta’s Professor of Health Law, Caulflield had over two years to examine the data and chose not to find evidence-backed explanations for them.
Caulfield, Notley, Metz and their adherents have done nothing to seek explanations for that data that was in governments’ hands all this time. Persuaded early on that COVID-19 injections were the ONE ANSWER to “flattening the curve” or to “getting back to normal”, they have been so invested in that one “solution” they have not taken stock of the world of data all around them. They ignore their responsibility to revise their recommendations in light of changing findings and ever new data. And they continually claim that people who have followed the science through continuous revisions and review are purveyors of “misinformation”.
Caulfield and Co. have so far persuaded at least two journalists and the folks at the Eventbright ticket agency of the veracity of their belief that the speakers at the Calgary event engage in "misinformation”. As well, they are trying their darnedest to lead others to believe that just because the pro-Pharma medical licensing body (the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons) has stripped some of the speakers of their licenses to practice, these guests are to be maligned, vilified and ignored. What has been omitted from publicly funded media reports for the past 3-4 years has been the willingness to actually understand more about vaccine science than the simplistic "safe and effective" messaging put out by agencies compromised by their reliance on BigPharma ad money etc. As a former AHS Board member, of all the MLAs in the Alberta Legislature, Ms. Metz should be most aware of the reality of vaccine injuries - a rare reality pre-COVID but not since the vax rollout in late 2020. During her tenure at AHS she should have sought out explanations for the steep increase in adverse event reports in jurisdictions like Israel, the UK and others who embarked on this injection project before Alberta did. And she should have been willing to block the policies blindly leading unquestioning Albertans to their injections which soon revealed themselves as nothing more than Russian roulettes of harm. Is she ready to face legal repercussions for her role in the matter?
Instead of fearing the wrath of citizens who still believe that vaccine harm data is MISINFORMATION, the UCP caucus members too should be standing up loudly to point at the hypocrisy of those who are trying to censor factual data at this event in Calgary. Instead of claiming that we are so OVER COVID that no one should be bringing it up any more, MLAs of ALL stripes and journalists from ALL platforms should be asking themselves:
Remembering that to be silent in the face of harm is to be complicit, what can I tell those who can no longer study, work, walk or even sleep due to uncontrollable neurological tremors, or who have had to bury loved ones… about MY ROLE in their suffering?
Noting the unreported march to the inevitable, i.e. the adoption of the unbelievable terms of the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations in less than a week (May 27 - June 2), am I ready to once again announce my support of a legalized (yet not scientifically supported) endless cycle of mask and vax mandates, lockdowns, quarantines, censorship, as Disease X (likely Avian Flu) Diseases Y , Z and countless others are rolled out upon the population? Or will I resist attempts by some unaccountable others to implement the coming “Decade of Pandemics” for example by standing in solidarity with actions like this one?
None of the critics of the planned June 17 event have ever stepped forward with a rational discussion of other, better, more accurate hypotheses around why possibly Alberta's all cause mortality rose so substantially when so many Albertans got themselves "protected" via multiple shots of spike protein-making genetic instructions. They are silent on the question of why the category of "UNKNOWN" topped the death stats in Alberta in 2021 and continue to do nothing to address the topic. See
.
In calling for the event to be cancelled, Caulfield, Notley, et al not only sound ridiculous, accusing the event organizers of "classic false balance, ...classic ‘both-sidesism" (this from folks who had ZERO tolerance for ACTUAL INFORMATION BALANCE these past 4 years.) If they had an ear to the ground in terms of current research, they would know how very little efficacy and safety data the PRO mRNA shot side has available to present.
If they are willing to learn to rethink their outdated perspective or to respectfully share their potential data and learn from those who have been studying this intensively for the past 4 years, they would be more than welcome to attend and participate.
Likely knowing that he has nothing to bring to the table, Caulfield tweeted a response to calls for him to come and attend the event using words like "dog whistle" and "ideological theatre". Miraculosuly, in the middle of his response, he wrote this sentence: “In this age of harmful misinformation, the government should strive to support science-informed analysis and public policy." On this soliary point, I agree with him, just not in the way he intended.
Supporting actual science-informed analysis is precisely what Canada's illustrious health-law expert was NOT doing this entire time. And this is exactly what the organizers of this event in Calgary are aiming to do. Having data analysts sift through GOVERNMENT DATA on vaccine rates, harms, re-infection rates, etc. and having individuals who pre-COVID were leaders in their fields, those with integrity to not be silenced when large scale societal harms were rolled out, MEET WITH GOVERNMENT. We are NOW FINALLY seeing something happen that many had been advocating for already in 2020!!! (Sadly much too late, but better late than never!)
Instead of advocating for an INCREASE in citizen engagement with science-informed analysis and public policy (as Caulfield wrote about in 2009), voices like those of Caulfield/Notley/Metz/etc. have ventured onto very dangerous territory - akin to George Orwell's 'Wrong Think' - asking that Albertans continue NOT having access to vetted scientifically backed information.
It is time the tables were turned.
Were it not for the undemocratic violation of all lists of media ethics and information integrity - in particular those around ensuring the availability of a diversity of opinion, (see a list here) way fewer Canadians would now be suffering from vaccine injuries, lockdown harms, financial losses, early childhood development delays on account of widespread masking and these very clear vaccine related divisions in our families and workplaces.
It is so clear from their panicked use of the term "misinformation" that Tim Caulfield, Rachel Notley, Luanne Metz and other folk still stuck in the mainstream media bubble are afraid to "follow the science" on actual effective treatments and preventative protocols that WERE ACTUALLY USED SUCCESSFULLY BEFORE the arrival of the genetically modified products falsely advertised as vaccines. They hold fast to the talking points given them by those who similarly fear to follow the reports on WHAT WAS LONG KNOWN by Pfizer, Moderna, DARPA, the CDC, the FDA, the NIAID etc. and not reported on in the mainstream. Topics such as how distributing a non-sterilizing product during a pandemic is the classic recipe to drive further mutations thus prolonging a pandemic; the inability of the product to produce meaningful long-lasting immunity (ergo more profits to be made on so-called 'boosters'); the toxic nature of Remdesivir; the way side effects from dangerous ventilators mimic COVID symptoms such that dying from the vent can be documented as dying from COVID, which in turn netted the system certain retroactive funding; and the inability of PCR to actually diagnose anything given that it simply is a lab science tool to create more fragments of something being investigated, but not to comment on the potentially infectious nature of the sample under examination. All that the PCR can tell anyone is whether a fragment pointing at a previous battle against any type of Corona virus can still be found within spot being swabbed.
Indeed, if the YouTube, Google, Meta censors, likewise those who appear to write up the lists of VERBOTEN TOPICS at the CBC each day, would have realized how, like the emperor who had no clothes, our so-called 'misinformation experts' have no relevant expertise, they could have REFUSED to continue in the deception that has wreaked such havoc. They could have reached out to the silenced experts and given them a platform instead. (See the list of expert witnesses who testified at the National Citizens Inquiry for starters.)
To keep Canadians SAFE, it is not correct to censor out crucial information. It is the media's job instead, to open the doors to all who have valuable information to share - which is exactly what is intended at the event advertised here:
Let's get on with the Show!
See also these comments by Alberta lawyer Jeffry Rath:
NOTE: due to the length of this message, only an abbreviated email was sent with a link to the rest of the letter here. The email ended with this request:
Your immediate actions are desired -
1) to cease and desist from claims that the guests and the Alberta scientists who will be presenting at the June 17 event are "providing misinformation" (unless you have solid data to counter the testimonies most of them have already provided to the NCI and are prepared to provide that. Remember no "misinfo" without credible, recent counteracting "info".)
2) to issue apologies for the harms you have perpetuated by NOT dropping your unsubstantiated BELIEFS about "Covid misinformation" and by supporting policy measures that were more rooted in ideology or denialism than in the best available science on an ongoing basis
3) to seriously sit down to do as Prof Tim Caulfied advised when in 2021 he said: "Science-informed public health officials should revise their recommendations based on the science. That's their responsibility. And if they don't, that's more problematic. I would say, changing your mind based on the science is a badge of honour, not a reason not to trust someone."
Thank you.
.
If You Are Reading This
You Are A Holocaust Survivor.
So Far.
.