Tim or Tucker? Who is the Misinformation Provider?
An attempt to educate a news editor
UPDATE FROM LATER ON THE SAME DAY - Hurray, someone from the Walrus HAS called me back to discuss my submission. Let’s see what might come of that.
NOTE: After two emails, multiple phone messages and ZERO response, I have given up waiting for a response and am making this letter public. To quickly locate the section of the letter that addresses COVID-19 misinformation specifically, scroll down to the ********
This was written BEFORE I became aware of Dr. Byram Bridle’s response to the same article - which if you don’t have much time, I recommend you read instead of mine. SEE:
AND it was written before someone alerted me to this EXCELLENT and thorough peer-reviewed and published journal article ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA Biomedicines 2023, 11(8), 2287; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11082287 which summarizes all the known issues as of August 2023.
It can be downloaded as a PDF here:
And finally, it was written before I heard that the federal government is introducing legislation to delay further revisions to the MAID program for three years.
January 27, 2024
The Walrus; 411 Richmond Street East, Suite B15; Toronto, ON, Canada M5A 3S5
RE: https://thewalrus.ca/tucker-carlson-alberta/
Dear Editor,
While everyone has the right to express their personal opinions, when you chose to publish Professor Timothy Caulfield's January 25 opinion piece on the speeches given the day before by American media personality Tucker Carlson in Alberta, you neglected to ensure that his factually incorrect statements were corrected.
It is clear that Caulfield resides both in the ivory tower of academia and firmly within the corporate news bubble. Taking offence with Carlson's tongue-in-cheek comment about the need to liberate Canada from the dictatorship within which this country finds itself, Caulfield points out how high Canada scores on various widely published freedom scales as if that was the only metric that counts and as if the publishers of those scales updated their work to encompass recent events. Caulfield seems totally unaware that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada stood out among other nations of the world when it came to the inability of many of its citizens to take federally regulated transportation, get organ transplants, go to work, school or sports practices, play on the playgrounds, eat in restaurants, heck even to actually LEAVE the country! He seems unaware that the Government of Canada was noted internationally for its unjustified declaration of an Emergencies Act (now declared as unconstitutional by the courts), the freezing of bank accounts of those advocating for the right to free expression, as well as for the imprisonment of pastors, and the continued imprisonment of four men not even granted bail while awaiting their charges for over 700 days - while the lives of their children, partners, parents and even grandparents are disrupted in the interim.
Caulfield ignores how pitifully small the vaccine compensation amount is, how few applicants actually receive it, how few doctors are actually able to report these injuries and how many Canadians are no longer able to work and care for their families due to the effects of the coerced injections. He gives no consideration that even today, doctors continue being subjected to the loss of their medical licences for merely following the science that our government continues refusing to acknowledge. Listen to Dr. Nagase, Dr. Hoffe and Dr. Trozzi, along with many others shown here. And Caulfield seems blind to the horrific impacts on the Canadian economy when such a high number of working aged individuals are dying suddenly or otherwise disappearing from the workforce as seen in all highly COVID-19 vaccinated countries through their insurance and disability claims. (See Edward Dowd’s testimony and data, along with that of Dr. Denis Rancourt who has worked with an international team to quantify possible COVID-19 vaccine mortality at 17 million people worldwide (speaking in English and in French). Caulfield is totally oblivious to our prime minister's fomenting of hate towards the one portion of the population whose decision not to consent to unsafe and ineffective experimental medical procedures has now turned out to be more correct and safe than the route Caulfield, Trudeau, Tam, and others in government, media and academia ceaselessly continue advocating.
Carlson is not joking when he refers to "tyranny" having arrived right next door to the USA. In British Columbia, Bill 36 aka the “The Health Professions and Occupations Act" was pushed through on 24 November 2022 without consultation, disclosure, informed debate and the voting required in a democracy. It is only a hair's breadth away from being fully implemented. Caulfield seems blissfully unaware that this draconian law is set to criminalize medical advice that is not sanctioned by the political appointees the state would put in charge of the governance and licensing of health care workers. This new act will make it illegal for physicians to have an honest discussion with their patients on a wide range of health care issues. It will create involuntary markets for pharma products through mandated vaccination including of BC's 130,000 health care workers as a condition of licensing or employment. This would be in violation of these workers' right to fully informed and freely given consent. And it authorizes the undebated inclusion of laws written in other jurisdictions, states or organizations as provincially binding.
Caulfield clearly is also not aware of how the Canadian government's refusal to discuss or consider the implications of remaining a signatory to the World Health Organization's latest pandemic preparation treaty and associated International Health Regulations is leading to the loss of Canadian sovereignty in any future health crisis of concern yet to be declared. Caulfield should realize that "one size does not fit all" and yet, he is not questioning our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister, and those who lead the Public Health Agency of Canada about the dangers of heading straight into a total LACK of say, when it comes to making health care policy for individuals or regional, or other demographics.
If Caulfield were to become aware of all of the above mentioned points as well as of the flirtation our Prime Minister has with certain dictatorships, he would better understand Carlson's choice of "Soviet style graphics" used in the documentary trailer about our country under Trudeau/Freeland rulership that Caulfield critiqued in his article.
When referring to the panel discussion after the speech, Caulfield claimed that Carlson made "misleading assertions about Canada’s medical assistance in dying policy." It is too bad that Caulfield did not explain exactly what he felt to be misleading about Carlson's comments re: the Canadian government's MAiD program. Was it perhaps the rounding up to 50,000 from the currently reported estimate of 44,958? As Lynn Frances explained in her article Canada: The Euthanasia Capital of the World "According to Health Canada’s Fourth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, there were 13,241 reported cases of medically assisted deaths in 2022—higher than any other country—accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. If Statistics Canada included MAiD as a cause of death, it would be the sixth leading cause of death in Canada in 2022. The total number of deaths since the legalization of MAiD was reported to be 44,958. “(Druthers, Issue #38, January 2024, page 1)
But we all know that record-keeping on other cases is not formally being done, so the numbers can be much higher. Was Caulfield bothered by Carlson's reference to the government contemplating expanding MAiD to the depressed, the mentally ill and to children? It is hard to follow Caulfield's veiled critique when we read: Dr. John Maher, a psychiatrist at the Canadian Mental Health Association and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics in Mental Health, commenting “Inducement to suicide while denying mental health care to two-thirds of Canadians who urgently need it is an unconscionable failing. MAiD for mental illness violates the Supreme Court requirement to preserve life whenever possible. Directly undermining suicide prevention efforts is an insidious perversion of our mental health care duty. Mental illness is treatable, and death is not treatment.” Carlson's point was that when governments roll out "programs" such as MAID and the provision of deadly drugs such as fentanyl to young people, parents should stand up and defend their offspring from such government actions.
Does Caulfield honestly believe that the phenomenal increase in these programs is NOT connected to some kind of increased profits for the makers of the drugs involved? Is Caulfield even aware of BC's intent to make fentanyl freely available to the 19 and under population without their parents' consent? Surely, he would understand Carlson’s concern if he bothered to consider that the BC government decriminalized possession of up to 2.5 grams of narcotics such as fentanyl, whereas 2 mg of such a drug is sufficient to kill a person. Effectively, while the BC Government will now be in the business of producing high quality drugs for addicts, by allowing possession of deadly quantities without taking any action, it is effectively encouraging people to walk around with the equivalent of multiple loaded guns! Is Caulfield unaware of how policy makers can be "bought" or that their compassion and desire to "do the right thing" has indeed been increasingly weaponized? While we are encouraged to be “kind” to the “poor addicts” by allowing them to “safely” access what will kill them and others they come into dealings with, someone making these products must surely be enjoying the open market access to easy profit.
It is the same with Carlson's reference to those who take advantage of those having body image issues around puberty. Has Caulfield, as the University of Alberta's resident Health Law expert, ever followed the money trail between the philanthropic arm of pharmaceutical companies who stand to benefit from the apparently growing trend of gender dysphoria among the young and those advocacy groups which encourage the young that normal puberty body image anxieties should be diagnosed and treated with said pharmaceutical means? Caulfield perceived Carlson's comments as "attacks on trans identity” as a movement to “ritually humiliate you.” He might be unaware of the humiliation that is felt by many young people who are now trying to undo harms that well-meaning adults in their lives complied with, those trying now to detransition and undo what basically cannot really be undone. When parents are told by well-intentioned advisors unaware of how their work accrues more benefits for BigPharma than for a patient asking about transitioning: "Would you rather have a dead daughter than a live son", it is their compassion that is being weaponized against them and their offspring. (Learn more here, here and here.)
While a number of Canadian politicians are decrying Carlson’s comments as walking back protections that gays, lesbians and others have under the law, they are not noticing that Carlson’s comments are not targeted against those who identify with a trans identity as much as they are directed against those who profit from pushing life long pharma dependency on unsuspecting young people and their parents for the profit of BigCorp.
Many formerly left-leaning people used to unite to demonstrate and advocate against the exceedingly enormous influence of the mega-corporations. It is truly inexplicable that so many left-leaning Canadians now have been conditioned to turn against those who point out how BigCorp has weaponized our compassion for its benefit. Somehow people like Carlson, are to be shunned, censored, cancelled, etc. for essentially sharing a viewpoint that many of us on the left would have expressed decades ago: People before profit!!
********
Caulfield seems unaware of the irony in this statement "And he (Carlson) presents his conclusions as if they are truisms supported by reams of evidence and coherent analysis." How many times has Caulfield himself presented conclusions as if they are truisms supported by reams of evidence? Does "COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective" come to mind? According to Caulfield, Carlson is wrong when he says: COVID-19 vaccines “didn’t work.” He states: "Studies have clearly demonstrated the vaccines—that 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine scientific success story—saved millions of lives and reduced hospitalizations and the burden on health care systems. Vaccines may have also potentially lowered the risk of developing, and the severity of, long COVID.” With the rush to get Caulfield's article published immediately after the Tucker talks, I assume no one on your end had his references peer reviewed.
Please note:
clearly, Caulfield’s first reference, a document from the American Medical Association is simply a propaganda piece written by a health communicator - publishing claims without substantiating them with a single reference. Instead, Caulfield could have referenced a study done by the Cleveland Clinic nine months ago involving over 51,000 of its own staff members. They have shown that with each subsequent dose of a COVID-19 vaccine injection, the risk of acquisition of COVID-19 rises by ~17%.
While published in 2023, the second study referenced by Caulfield relies most heavily on data from 2021 before many people had received more than the first or second dose. The dose-dependent nature of adverse events including of a REDUCED immunity were not exactly evident until the receipt of the third dose. At that time also, it was not yet clear to many how misleading records of vax status were. Information was not yet available that many US hospital systems were using patient record systems that defaulted to "unvaccinated" regardless of how many times nursing staff tried to enter that someone had one or more mRNA injections. It can be assumed also that the WHO guideline in place at the time on NOT recording people as "vaccinated" until 14 days after their second dose is another factor contributing to the unreliability of the vaxed/unvaxed entries on patient records. These data flaws basically invalidate any of the studies included in the review whose authors simply took hospital vax records at face value without further verification.
It is jaw-dropping that Caulfield would have tried to refer to this Lancet study given its funding by many of the most biased pro-vaccine funders on the planet: “Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.” A second reason not to consider this study is its structure based purely on conjecture, which is what much mathematical modelling ends up being. "The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed. We also estimated the additional deaths that would have been averted had the vaccination coverage targets of 20% set by COVAX and 40% set by WHO been achieved by the end of 2021." To approach believability, and given its June 2022 publication date, the modelling should have, at the very least, included the possibility of a percentage of the population having developed immunity through prior recovery from the infection; the known mortality rate of COVID-19 in different age groups (very small); the reduced virulence of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 variants; the potential for the correction of Vitamin D deficiency in various populations AND the efficacy of antimalarial and antiparasitic drugs widely used in the global south. Add any or all of these factors ALREADY KNOWN in 2022 and the modelling would have come to completely different conclusions.
This article from the Journal of Global Health is also written by a team of data modellers and appears to have been published without consultation from expert researchers in immunology, vaccinology, computational biology and other fields that by 2022 had already amassed a major pool of evidence-based scientific knowledge around immunity, injections, injury etc. This addition of this type of expertise would have directed the modellers to come up with more accurate representations of data. With such a low mortality rate of COVID-19, particularly in the under 60 age group, the numbers of people needed to SAVE ONE PERSON from a COVID-19 death amounts to so many more people taking the much greater risk of vaccine related adverse events or even death. For the 5-11 age range, it has been calculated that for every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot. Vaccine safety advocates have shared a number of different Number Needed to Vaccinate calculations, for example here, which clearly contradict the marketing claim that COVID-19 vaccine injections have "saved lives". Has Caulfield ever done the math using the post 2020 rapid and widespread increases in all cause mortality data which is much more concrete than artificial projections and mathematical modelling?
It is also clear from Caulfield's reference to the 2023 Nobel prize re: nucleoside base modifications of the earlier unsuccessful versions of the mRNA vaccine that he does not understand that this modification has made it harder for the body to break down the vaccine components, and the resulting greater numbers of adverse reactions. Moreover, due to the phenomena of increased “frameshifting” with the translation of the modified mRNA for the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2, this increased the rate of production of a plethora of mutated Spike protein variants. These modified RNA even end up in breastmilk and subsequently in breastfeeding infants. It is one thing to mention the granting of a Nobel Prize. It is another to understand just exactly how corrupt the medical/pharmaceutical complex has become if a killer drug is being lauded in this way.
Despite the many invitations Caulfield most certainly received to expand his knowledge base, he seems totally unaware of what was ACTUALLY proven to reduce hospitalizations and deaths prior to the massive push to ensure that nothing stood in the way of the rapidly developed COVID-19 vaccine products receiving their Emergency Use Authorization (in the US) and its Canadian equivalent. From August 2020 to today, treatment protocols for COVID-19 have been keeping the majority of patients out of hospital, recovering quickly at home, in countries OUTSIDE OF CANADA that have not banned many of their components, like our health agencies have.
Caulfield would find plenty of data from countries in which anti-parasitic medications including, interestingly, a Nobel prize winning one, are freely prescribed, showing how those medications work similarly to prevent and treat COVID-19 by coating the ACE2 protein of various cells and preventing the adhesion of Spike protein. The same medications are also proving effective for the treatment of various types of COVID-19 vaccine injuries.
Caulfield stated: “Sure, complain about details surrounding the rollout, the inequitable distribution, and the political posturing associated with the vaccines, but they very obviously ‘worked’ (a.k.a.: saving human lives and reducing human suffering).” Here he conveniently changes the understanding of how a vaccine is supposed to "work" -- While a "treatment" is to save lives and reduce suffering, a "vaccine" should prevent the development and transmission of illness. Clearly on both of these counts, the COVID-19 vaccines did not work as it was the multiply injected much more often than the uninjected who were getting, being hospitalized because of, and dying from COVID-19.
Clearly, Caulfield has no understanding of the various reasons why it is counterfactual to make the declaration that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and that their continued use is justified. The lengthy article submitted recently to another media organization that allowed the publication of highly erroneous claims re: COVID-19 vaccine safety provides an excellent summary of the current scientific understanding around these products. Start on page 7 in this document written by Dr. Steven Pelech, full Professor in the Department of Medicine and Division of Neurology at the University of British Columbia (UBC) since 1988. Additionally, this slide presentation shared in November 2023 by one of Canada's most notable emergency room physicians at the International COVID Summit - Presentation to the Parliament of Romania might be a simple way to start opening up to the evidence being followed today.
The information in each of these places is much more up to date and accurate than the 2021 modelling studies shared by Caulfield. And for anyone who finds online the doctor giving the presentation is being stripped of his medical licence, do not jump to the conclusion that he is not worthy of consideration. NOT being in the emergency room for the past three years has freed him to do the research and data gathering on behalf of medical professionals who acquiesced with the system in order to hold on to their jobs. True to form, the compromised medical colleges are doing their darnedest to silence those who have the moral courage not to go along with the Profit Machine and put People first. It will be Dr. Charles Hoffe and colleagues next as they go before their inquisitors in March.
Another source of information is the presentation I first introduced here.
In his article, Caulfield went on to write about Carlson: "Given the breadth of his truth-twisting oeuvre, it can be a challenge to select highlights from his career.” Given that Carlson's career is nearly as long as that of Tim Caulfield, the question arises - can someone grow, mature and change in his outlook over time? Caulfield himself might see some things differently now than he did in the 1990s. Should he be judged on his earlier views or on his current ones? Carlson has at times publicly regretted some of the neo-con, warmonger stances he once held as a much younger man. Perhaps Caulfield and many of those who still see Carlson as a "far right" icon are not aware that today, Carlson can best be described as a classical liberal.
As we read in Wikipedia: Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation. This seems spot on for many of the positions that Carlson has been expressing, particularly since venturing out on his own following Fox's decision not to keep him. Fox News executives were clearly worried about the effect that the unpredictable directions Carlson’s intellectual curiosity leads him would have on their corporate funded platform.
For all we know, Caulfield might have left high school seeing the world from a classical liberal position. Perhaps over the years he has slid further over to a social liberal position, or possibly to a corporatist, or fascist position, if he believes that corporations have the right to dictate policy to governments, and that for example, there was nothing wrong with the collusion between various social media corporations and the Biden government re: COVID-19 censorship as we learned from the Twitter files.
Caulfield also wrote:"It’s probably best we stop thinking of Tucker Carlson as a journalist or even a public intellectual offering evidence-informed hot takes on current events.” I invite him to listen to the following interviews done on the Tucker Carlson Network to observe how Carlson is doing journalism these days. As Carlson explains, he simply invites interesting people in for a talk. Viewers then observe him listening to the speakers, learning from them and thereby developing a deeper understanding of the complex issues facing us all in today's world.
Interview about what is in the COVID-19 vaccine with Dr. Joseph Ladapo - Why is the surgeon general of Florida calling for an end to COVID-19 vaccination? How did Canadian research not reported on mainstream media lead to his decision?
Interview with Dutch journalist Eva Vlaardingerbroek with news from Germany that is not reported on mainstream media - Why are so many major farmer protests occurring there? And earlier in the Netherlands? And in Poland? And in Italy? etc.
Interview with evolutionary biologist Dr. Brett Weinstein on the make-up of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, their implications and perpetrators (an excellent summary of what has been going on with COVID-19 and why we cannot yet move on to other topics).
I can only hope that if Caulfield wants to be taken seriously as a public intellectual himself, he adopts an attitude of humility, listens more, learns from others, and resists the urge to vilify anyone who does not share his views as a purveyor of misinformation.
Caulfield mused: Tucker’s statements “are not factual representations... Mocking Tucker’s nonsense is very-low-hanging fruit. But that’s the point. Why does he lie? Profit? Power? To forward a particular political agenda? Maybe a combination of all of the above? We can be fairly certain, however, he is fully and cynically aware of what he is doing."
I can ask the same of Caulfield who projects a profit motive on people who were let go of their jobs for speaking out while he maintains his cushy position and continues to misinform the public. Caulfield's self-certain, evidence-poor tweets have been receiving a lot of mockery among those who do not understand how he can continue being so willfully blind to the evidence-based COVID-19 research increasingly being published. We wonder why he lies about the purported safety of the mRNA vaccines. Given that many of his statements "are not factual representations" we ask……"Why does he lie? Profit? Power? To forward a particular political agenda? Maybe a combination of all of the above? We can be fairly certain, however, he is fully and cynically aware of what he is doing." (or can we?)
Hannah Luise, Lead author of followingthecovidscience.substack.com & of FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE - Documenting the Current State of Affairs of COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada As of October 21, 2021 (A Compilation of Letters, Articles and Research Documents) https://followingthecovidscience.8b.io/page2.html#content2-2u
Thank you for all your contributions to bring truth and awareness. I commend your drive. 👍🙏