Goddess

I can see why you stick to anonymous forums.

The relationship between US/Canada has always been reciprocal. both countries have defended each other, traded with each other, and relied on each other during crises. Relationships work best when both sides recognize the value each brings. You're welcome, BTW, for the energy we provided to 14 of your States during last week's cold snap. Seems a fair amount of you are alive by Canada's grace: Saskatchewan becomes power lifeline during North American winter blast - WestCentralOnline: West Central Saskatchewan's latest news, sports, weather, community events.

Well, like China's media, CBC is state run and funded, so..... FYI - Carney just allowed government staffers to delete emails after 2 weeks to avoid FOI requests. I think we stand a better chance of voting in a party with better priorities and that will govern differently, than getting Carney to wear a body camera. You think you're gonna get THESE guys to wear body cameras? 🤪

You don't post much in the way of solutions. "Cameras on politicians" is about the extent of it. And you mock and shame anyone who suggests there should be more accountability so much, that I imagine you as Eeyore "Well.....that's just the way it is.....nothing we can do about it......we just have to live with it....." Every reason given for needing more accountability is called "conspiracy theory" and "horseshit" by you. So apparently, there is no need for accountability because there is nothing wrong going on in Liberalland. Yes. For the reasons above. Any information you spout is usually a CBC headline cliche. Or Liberal party slogan. And it never goes any deeper than that, with you. Indeed.

Your outrage is always very selective. You have no problem when Pfizer pays for a study, in spite of them being hit with the biggest fine in US history - for fraud and forging data. Not to mention the opiod crisis.

As part of this new partnership with China, Carney has given China's state media access to Canada. China's state media is an extension of the CCP. This is after numerous warnings from Canada's own intelligence agencies about China's media and foreign influence. This did not have to be part of any trade agreement. Carney's China Journalist Deal: A Catastrophic Betrayal of Canadian Security In the current threat environment—where Canadian police have warned a federal candidate it was unsafe to campaign, where Chinese-language ecosystems have been tied to intimidation campaigns, and where Canadian intelligence reporting describes Chinese media as a central tool in Beijing’s election interference—the proposal is not merely naïve. By enlarging the very channels through which coercion, censorship, and Beijing’s vote-fixing schemes already operate, it may be recklessly dangerous. Chinese police have paid Chinese-language journalists in Canada to locate and track targets. This is documented intelligence available to the Prime Minister in unredacted form. Mark Carney knows this. Recall: Paul Chiang made his threatening comments about turning Joe Tay over to the Chinese consulate for a bounty at a gathering of Chinese-language journalists in Toronto—precisely the controlled media apparatus CSIS described.

I'm researching and confirming a recently published paper on the RNA:DNA hybrid contamination. This one: RNA:DNA Hybrids Survive Digestion in mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing This is the best layman's explanation of the issue I have found so far. Revelation about mRNA vaccines: RNA-DNA hybrids resist purification, significant underestimation of contamination | FranceSoir This paper reveals not just incompetence on the part of Pharma manufacturers, but outright malfeasance. After copying, all remaining DNA must be removed, as it could be dangerous (more on that later). An enzyme called DNase I is used, which cuts the DNA into small pieces to destroy it. But here's the problem: DNase I is extremely effective on single-stranded DNA (double-stranded), but 100 times less effective on RNA-DNA hybrids. As a result, a large portion of the DNA attached to the mRNA remains intact! Manufacturers and regulatory authorities (such as the FDA and EMA) set a limit: no more than 10 nanograms (ng) of DNA per vaccine dose. The study shows that this cleanup is uneven : the unattached parts of the plasmid (such as the KAN gene) are well destroyed, but the hybrids (especially Spike) survive. What are the consequences for the public? These discoveries affect billions of vaccinated people with The health risks : the remaining DNA, protected by lipid nanoparticles (like oil bubbles), could enter your cells and attach itself to your own DNA, causing mutations . El-Deiry explains: “Small fragments represent billions of pieces, and if they reach the cell nucleus, they could activate cancer genes or block protective genes like P53”. Links are suspected with “turbo cancers" (which grow rapidly), via a decrease in immune defenses (IgG4) or activation of PD-L1 (which helps tumors grow). Manufacturing issues : Mass-produced vaccines (process 2) differ from those tested in clinical trials (process 1), containing more impurities. This could therefore contravene regulatory standards and violate official authorizations, warranting sanctions and review by the FDA. The missing information : vaccine leaflets admit to a lack of data on the risks of cancer or fertility. With these hidden inaccuracies, people have not been warned of the real dangers, which violates the fundamental right of individuals to truly free and informed consent. This point was discussed at length with Professor El-Deiry.

Who could've predicted that going to a violent, chaotic protest, shouting obscenities, blasting an air horn in agent's faces, interfering when they try to subdue someone else, carrying a semi-auto with extra magazines and wrestling with officers in a high-adrenaline encounter would carry the risk of a tragic outcome? He should have followed his own covid advice. Weird that he stayed home to avoid the risk of a mild virus, but goes to a riot, fully armed and fights with law enforcement.

I wonder what happened to the 2 million doses of HCQ that were donated to the Canadian gov't because the medical community already knew coronaviruses responded well to HCQ?

Important to note that the role of HCQ was to serve as a Zinc ionophore - it allows zinc to enter the cell more effectively and stop replication. This is interesting because Ralph Baric (of Wuhan lab/coronavirus fame) knew this already. He published this paper 10 years BEFORE the pandemic. Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture - PMC Here, they report a significantly lower risk for severe disease, based on 14 randomized prophylactic RCT's. That's not nothing. HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 627 studies Imagine how many people died because they suppressed HCQ and IVM as treatments? Ah, but then they couldn't have gotten the Emergency Use Authorization and made $$ BILLIONS $$. No early treatments could be allowed to get in the way of that.

Sorry, charts from the above post:

This paper, which was used extensively to discredit the use of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) for covid, has finally been RETRACTED: RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - PubMed It was a completely fake study. And not just fudged numbers, either, it was entirely made up in order to sabotage HCQ as a treatment option so Pfizer could get the Emergency Use Authorization it needed for the jabs. This was egregious because it delayed the publishing of many studies which confirmed the efficacy of HCQ for covid. Winters: Approval delays in multi-country COVID-19 trials: the case of COPCOV and the risk of therapeutic inertia [HCQ] COPCOV: Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (Schilling) [HCQ] The largest HCQ randomized control trial (RCT) showed a 57% lower symptomatic PCR+ covid. This is the Oxford 4,652 patient, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Authors also included a meta-analysis of 8 other RCT's confirming significantly lower symptomatic cases. It took over 800 days to publish this because of the fake studies.

Under Trudeau, who was being advised by Carney, the Liberals gave Telesat $2 billion to provide satellite services to Canada, in spite of them not even having a satellite. The CEO of Telesat is Carney's good friend. Now this: Telesat sued as creditors allege ‘fraudulent’ transfers | Financial Post Looks like they are taking the money and running, too. Just like all the other Liberal insiders.

Via Andy Brook: AS A FMR RCMP (Ret'd), allow me to share 'something' media has not reported: FACT: RCMP Federal Policing (Planned Spending) for 2025/2026 is $1,550,8890,261 (or 1.5 Billion). That amount funds. 〈5,165〉 Planned Full Time Equivalent positions CONSIDER - Costs currently associated with Canada's Federal gun buy back budget could reach $756 Million (Parliamentary Budget Officer). According to @MLInstitute, it could cost $6.7 Billion. NOW IMAGINE THAT$1.5B could provide funding for approximately 5,165 RCMP officers solely dedicated to RCMP Core Responsibility of Federal Policing. THAT'S 5,165 officers which could be deployed to specifically target organized crime and gun smuggling. I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. LINK 1 ( RCMP 2025-26 Departmental Plan | Table 13 and Table 17) https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-manuals/departmental-plans/2025-2026/full-report LINK 2 (Macdonald-Laurier Institute): https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/20230725_Aiming-off-target-SchwartzHurley_PAPER-v2.pdf

I think every province but Quebec will say No to this eventually. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ALL SAY "NO!"

Fuque, our gov't is full of incompetents. 🙄

"Out of the frying pan, into the fire."

Right on. Glad they got him. At least the Americans are doing something about the fentanyl crisis. This will benefit Canada, too.

I don't think he is. His climate grift was coming to an end before he decided to "help" Canada. His GFANZ cartel was being investigated in the US, the majority of big industries had abandoned it, AI has supplanted climate alarmism as the topic du jour at the WEF this year, countries that went all-in funding the green grift are floundering economically and finding that intermittent wind & solar cannot replace reliable other sources and was too expensive, so citizens are suffering. His time in England was not the grand success he claims it was, he bankrupted them, increased their energy costs, decreased output. He sent money like a drunken sailor in the UK and frequently came under fire for it. At best, he got mixed reviews. He came to Canada because the climate grift is ending and Canada is basically the last man standing when it comes to climate grift. He's here to milk the last few billions out of it and he'll bugger off to the US when we finally give him the boot, where his family lives and works and where all his investments are.

The majority of us here would far rather see the odd anecdote or personal experience posted, than pages and pages of LOOOOOOSSSERRRRR!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LLOOOOOOSER!!!! LOSER! LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOSER LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSERRRRRRR LOL LOL LOL LOSER LOSER LOL LOL Both of you need to grow the fuque up. And respect the founder and moderators of this board, who, I'm sure, set it up as a place where adults could discuss adult subjects in adult ways.

When I put forward something from social media, it is almost always as additional "on the ground, straight from the people affected" information, added to official cites I've already posted. When I post an Op-Ed, I identify it as an Op-Ed, someone's opinion. I've been here longer than you. I know how it works. Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think most people here have already figured out for themselves that anecdotal evidence carries less weight than official sources. Speak for yourself. Conversations, discussions progress. Let them. Without immediately jumping in and lecturing everyone, as you usually do. You rarely add anything to most discussions, other than lecturing others. Ya. Like everyone else here, from time to time. I don't automatically discount anecdotal evidence or personal experiences. Even courts do not do that. Before you attack me again, I AM NOT SAYING ANECDOTAL/PERSONAL EVIDENCE OVERRIDES EVERYTHING ELSE. I'm saying it has its' place. Example: An employee's personal experience with discrimination often doesn't go far, and can be easily discredited, until others start speaking up with the same experiences. We saw this many times during covid. Incidents of myocarditis were denied, personal experiences of millions of people were discredited, scientists who identified the very plausible mechanisms for how it happens were censored. Social media groups that formed organically by those affected, sometimes numbering into the hundreds of thousands of members, were de-platformed. Until it became such a big issue that it could no longer be ignored. After a year and half of denying it ever was happening - now it's added as a black box warning on the product. My issue with you is that you readily accept anecdotal and personal evidence from posters you agree with (at the least you ignore when they do, but often you "Like" and "Thank You"), and when it agrees with your own preferred narratives. And you viciously attack, when it comes to posters you hate. And then follow them around the board, repeatedly accusing them of ONLY ever posting social media info. You're a hypocrite. So don't act now like you're the voice of reason. You're "best buds" with the 12-year-old on here, who is one of the most useless, intellectually bankrupt posters I've ever encountered on a forum before. You follow him around like a chihuahua, applauding everything he does.

Well, you've made some progress. At least you finally recognize China is not our friend. Which is what you clearly stated to me on another thread. You are still wrong that they are not our enemy, though. Friends don't interfere in our elections, steal our intellectual property, harass and threaten our citizens, jail and execute our citizens or flood our streets with fentanyl. Enemies do.

Interesting take from a journalist that is at Davos: The World Economic Forum Doesn’t Think It Rules the World. That’s the Problem. When it comes to the World Economic Forum (WEF), there are two caricatures of the attendees – or “weffers” they like to call themselves. In one version, they are mustache-twirling elites huddled in smoke-filled rooms, plotting a one-world government, mass surveillance, and “you will eat ze bugs!” In the other, they are cast as saviors: the most powerful people on the planet convening in good faith to solve humanity’s biggest problems. This week, @DataInterpretr and I spent quality time with the attendees. We took a different approach than most journalists – we did not ambush them with gotcha questions. Instead, we simply sat at tables, started conversations with staffers and speakers, and asked questions – lots of them. What we got was neither caricature, but something much darker – a first-hand perspective of how tyranny is imposed from a ruling class that will swear up and down that they are not part of any ruling class–and that it controls nothing. How can that be? It is undeniably true that the WEF has been a source of coercive power. The clearest example came during COVID, when Klaus Schwab, working alongside the Big Four accounting firms, used the crisis to roll out ESG metrics. These frameworks stripped influence from ordinary stakeholders and concentrated it in the hands of activists and technocrats, while redirecting corporate capital toward left-wing causes. To understand how that dynamic works, we must enter the mind of a weffer. First, nearly all of them are either extremely wealthy or employed by people who are. Hotels cost $25,000 a night. Gucci is the default for handbags. Coats fall to the floor, trimmed with mink. And despite the sustainability rhetoric, the menus advertise meat proudly, with few vegetarian options in sight. They do not understand that they are perceived as hypocrites. They are aware that some people see them as evil, controlling overlords… and they laugh at the idea, because in their own minds it is absurd. Yet in another sense, it is true. Alex Soros became an object of ridicule after his WEF remarks: "So, um, you know, so, um, you know… but when I see this, you know, when I look at this, um, you know, um, you know, uh, more globally regarding, regarding, you know, regarding democracy, I also say to myself, “When was this great time that everybody got along so well, and, you know, things were going so, so great?” I mean, I think, you know, um, uh, um, you know, the, um, you know, I think that we really have to be careful here in, you know, in this nostalgia, uh, for a time, uh, you know, for a time past, because a lot of the reactions we’re seeing in society are actually reactions to positive, uh, to positive things like, i- you know, like equality, uh, for women, um, you know, uh, and, um, uh, you know, and greater diversity." For all that word salad, the key to remember is: Alex is representative. They all speak this way. Every panel, every “dialogue,” follows the same pattern. Few people are trying to land a clear argument or persuade an audience. They speak to signal belonging, to demonstrate fluency in a shared language, and to impress one another. @DataInterpretr and I learned this firsthand. We made it a point to ask every weffer we could find what they actually did and what they actually believed. We spoke with senior WEF staffers working directly alongside co-host André Hoffmann, with philanthropy idealists, and with corporate employees. We asked the same simple questions again and again: What is your vision for AI? Why all the focus on AI? What has your organization done to help humanity? What concrete implementations do you think will happen? Not a single person could answer with specifics. Every response relied on the same vague abstractions Alex Soros had used. They spoke at length about “AI safety” without defining it. They talked about “helping companies” without explaining how. They talked about "sustainability" without being able to explain how that was implemented. They were unfailingly friendly. They were eager to talk, eager to be seen as important, eager for our attention. But when pressed for substance, there was nothing beneath the language; only more language. Some common, and surprising threads, however, did emerge. First, they do not think in political terms. That may seem odd, given the viral clips of figures like Newsom or Macron attacking Trump. But those moments are the exception, not the rule. Most of the people we spoke to do not experience the world as political at all. They see the world as small and borderless. They do not think in terms of nations, elections, or sovereignty. They see humanity as a single, undifferentiated mass. And because they think this way, they fail to recognize how consequential their actions are downstream. Now imagine a president who arrives and insists on the opposite. One who says: borders exist. Nations exist. Cultures exist. Individuals exist, and they have agency. This is the moment politics intrudes. And this is when their hostility toward Trump begins. Not because they disagree with his policies, but because he rejects the frame that allows them to see themselves as above politics and beyond accountability. Trump forces them to confront the fact that they are actors with power. And they despise him for making that impossible to ignore. Second, they genuinely do not believe they are controlling anything. That may seem implausible, given their infamous “eat the bugs” rhetoric. But in their own minds, they are not issuing directives. They see themselves as tossing ideas into a shared space, a platform where the world’s economic leaders gather to exchange thoughts and explore possibilities. This is where the conspiracy theorists get it wrong. The power that flows out of the WEF is not centrally planned. It is emergent. No one gives orders. No one needs to. A set of ideas is floated. The same language gets repeated across panels. The same concepts get picked up by consultants, NGOs, and corporate strategy teams. Eventually, those ideas harden into frameworks, metrics, and expectations that shape real-world behavior, without anyone ever feeling responsible for the result. We saw this clearly when we asked people what had happened to the intense focus on climate change. Most responded with blank or puzzled looks. That was the moment it clicked. They had never truly believed in climate change as a fixed commitment. Those were yesterday’s topics. Today’s topic is AI. In their minds, there is no contradiction here, because none of these ideas were meant to be taken literally in the first place. The WEF, to them, is just a platform. But when the same platform sets the agenda year after year, its “conversations” become policy, whether anyone claims ownership or not. This is how tyranny looks in the modern world. It arrives dressed as dialogue, consensus, and expertise. It is imposed by people who sincerely believe they are doing nothing at all. The real danger is not that they think they rule the world. It is that they do not realize they already rule it, and feel no responsibility for the effects. They float from topic to topic, from climate to AI to whatever comes next, leaving hardened systems in their wake, while insisting they were only ever talking. No masterminds. Just a ruling class that refuses to see itself as one, and a system that converts its casual conversations into permanent constraints on everyone else. And that, more than any mustache-twirling fantasy, is what should worry us.

Real science predicts.