GroundskeeperWillie

If I understand correctly, mere words that people say or type online can send them to jail for life. It would give tyrannical powers to the government. https://theccf.ca/tell-your-mp-to-stop-bill-c-63/ Have a read, and tell me what you think of this bill. Do you think it needs to be stopped?

Hello, I came across an article on Druthers.ca, that talks about a letter sent from the Surgeon General of Florida to the CDC and FDA. It's in regards to the Covid vaccines. I think it's highly relevant to today's world, especially for Americans. I will post an excerpt of it to give you guys a rough idea. And then I will provide the link to the letter in its entirety so you can read it for yourself. Kindly let me know what you think. ******* In February this year, Florida’s Surgeon-General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo sent a letter to the heads of the FDA and CDC, questioning the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots. He referenced a recent study, noted the drastic uptick in reports to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and asked for an honest and transparent answer to his concerns. The federal agencies responded to the top health official with a four-page “word salad of pandering and gaslighting”, accusing him of spreading dangerous misinformation and disinformation — the canned allegation to anyone that doesn’t embrace the gene-therapy injections as safe, effective and the only way to combat an illness with a ~99% recovery rate. So, on May 10, 2023, Dr. Ladapo blew the whistle, big time! In a powerful letter citing more than a dozen studies, Dr. Ladapo exenterates the “health” agencies, accusing the unelected officials — FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf and CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky — of knowingly forcing dangerous injections into not only the arms of the American public, but the world. Dr. Ladapo posted the letter to Twitter saying: “When I asked the feds for more honesty and transparency around COVID-19 vaccine data, they replied with a word salad of pandering and gaslighting. Here’s my response. Let’s try again.” Here is Dr. Ladapo’s letter: Drs. Califf and Walensky, Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in deep distrust in the American health care system. Beginning with Operation Warp Speed, and possibly to be continued with an additional $5 billion investment in Project NextGen, the federal Government has relentlessly forced a premature vaccine into the arms of the American people with little to no concern for the serious adverse ramifications. It is critical to acknowledge and address the negative global impact caused by the emergence of COVID-19. Nonetheless, after two years, your collective decisions to deny that natural immunity confers comparable or superior protection to COVID-19 vaccination, push mRNA COVID-19 boosters for the young and healthy and delay acknowledging the risks of vaccine-induced myocarditis have only sowed doubt between the American people and the public health community. Data are unequivocal: after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reporting increased by 1,700%, including a 4,400% increase in life-threatening conditions. We are not the first to observe such a trend. Dismissing this pronounced increase as being solely due to reporting trends is a callous denial of corroborating scientific evidence also pointing to increased risk and a poor safety profile. It also fails to explain the disproportionate increase in life-threatening adverse events for the mRNA vaccines compared to all adverse events. Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own data, rates of incapacitation after mRNA vaccination far surpass other vaccines. This is illustrated in a recent Lancet publication (Rosenblum H. et al.Lancet 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35271805) that reports up to one third of individuals being “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or [receiving] care from a medical professional” in the days following mRNA vaccination. The study, (Fraiman J. et al. Vaccine 2022 – pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877) also found an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest for 1 in 550 after mRNA vaccination. As you are aware, this is extraordinarily high for a vaccine. In comparison, the risk of serious adverse events after influenza vaccination is much lower (Lusignan S. Lancet Regional Health – Europe 2021 – thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanepe/PIIS2666-7762(21)00006-5.pdf). For you to claim that serious adverse events such as these are “rare” when Pfizer and Moderna’s clinical trial data indicate they are not, is a startling exercise in disinformation. I want to reemphasise that these questions could have been answered if you had required vaccine manufacturers to perform and report adequate clinical trials. Although Project NextGen has been launched under another administration, I anticipate with regret, that you will repeat past mistakes and prematurely promote new therapies to Americans without accurately and truthfully weighing data on risks and benefits. In light of your stated commitment to transparency and the communication of the risks and benefits associated with these therapies, I am asking that you publicly: Report why randomised clinical trials were not required prior to the approval of mRNA COVID-19 boosters, including the new bivalent booster. Explain why adverse events first detected in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety surveillance system in 2021 were not published in scientific literature until December of 2022. (Hui-LeeWong et al.Vaccine 2023-pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36496287) Report the FDA and CDC’s interpretations of the study (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006288) performed in Thailand, which showed a 3% incidence of myocardial injury in young boys, and the Swiss study (unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Temporary-mild-damage-to-heart-muscle-cells-after-Covid-19-booster-vaccination.html), which also showed a 3% incidence of myocardial injury in adults after receiving the bivalent booster. (MansanguanS,Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease 2022-pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006288) & (NCT05438472-clincosm.com/trial/incidence-patient-characteristics-outcome-myocarditis-after-covid-19) Explain why the Pfizer deadline for reporting its subclinical myocarditis study was delayed until December of 2022, despite the CDC promoting vaccination to millions of young people, and then postponed again until June of 2023 (fda.gov/media/151710/download). Report the results of the VAERS proportionality analyses that you performed. Explain why 26 of the 31 published studies using the V-Safe (cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/v-safe/index.html) system only report symptoms within the first seven days of vaccination when it is recognised that most serious events occur after this time. ***** The rest of the article and letter can be found here: https://druthers.ca/surgeon-general-of-florida-unsafe-vaccines-were-forced-into-arms-of-the-american-people/ If the link doesn't work, go to Druthers.ca, then go to Read, then go to By Subject, then CDC. Then search for the article titled: Surgeon General of Florida: "unsafe vaccines" were forced into arms of the American people

I came across this hard-hitting article on Druthers.ca. Druthers is an independent, people-powered newspaper in Canada. Basically, this article talks about Moderna's "misinformation department" run by a former FBI employee, and how they use artificial intelligence to scour websites looking for vaccine resistant narratives. Apparently they don't care about truth, they just flag anything that encourages vaccine hesitancy as "misinformation". I have to say this article really opened my eyes to what these huge organizations are up to. I will post an excerpt below, and will also include the link to the full article below. Kindly let me know what you think. ***** Moderna’s “disinformation department” partnered with an industry-backed nonprofit, the Public Good Projects (PGP), to monitor and suppress dissenting voices on COVID-19 vaccine policy, according to a new report by investigative journalists Lee Fang and Jack Poulson published Monday in UnHerd. Over the last year, the “Twitter Files,” two lawsuits against the Biden administration and other investigations have exposed instances of collusion among government, social media and universities to suppress dissenting speech about COVID-19 policies, election fraud allegations and other topics. This new report sheds light on Moderna’s behind-the-scenes strategy within this new media landscape. It exposes key actors and how they worked to monitor 150 million websites for the purpose of censoring speech that undermines the company’s COVID-19 vaccine narrative and actively shaping public discourse to benefit Moderna’s bottom line. Great Barrington Declaration co-author and Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was blacklisted by Twitter, praised the new report in a tweet: Moderna had never successfully advanced any product to market prior to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and was teetering on the edge of collapse when the pandemic was announced. Its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine transformed the drugmaker into a $100 billion company almost overnight and turned its CEO, chairman and cofounders into billionaires. Today, as public interest in taking yet another booster shot tanks and federal subsidies for the shot are disappearing, so are profits, leading the company to invest in new strategies — like a flashy marketing campaign — to stay afloat, Fang and Poulson reported. Moderna also is doubling down on work started during the pandemic to attack dissent about vaccines and to direct vaccination policy, they found. In fact, Moderna today employs former law enforcement agents, like Nikki Rutman, a 20-year FBI veteran who worked for the agency in Boston during Operation Warp Speed where her job was to conduct weekly cybersecurity meetings with Moderna. Now she runs Moderna’s global intelligence division — part of the department spearheading Moderna’s work to stop “disinformation” — producing reports that flag “anti-vaccine narratives” online and recommending whether and how to address them, they wrote. The department works with the PGP, largely funded through a $1.27 million donation from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a biotech lobbying group that represents Pfizer and Moderna. Through PGP and Talkwalker, a “social listening” company, Moderna’s team monitors everything from mainstream news outlets to gaming sites, deploying artificial intelligence to monitor 150 million websites across the world for vaccine-related conversation. The team issues reports to Moderna staff that colour-code the “anti-vaccine narratives” by level of risk. Lowrisk narratives “don’t currently warrant any action.” For the higher-risk narratives, the team “will notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” Lee and Poulson wrote. Analyzing sample reports, the journalists discovered that examples of “high-risk” posts included a video posted by Elon Musk mocking myriad claims that the vaccines were “100% effective” along with a number of posts made by comedian and political commentator Russell Brand, whom they flagged in September for his “anti-vaccine” beliefs. The Moderna team also raised concerns over the optics when tennis star Novak Djokovic, who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, won the Moderna-sponsored US Open. **** Here's the article: Moderna’s “Disinformation Department” Monitors 150 Million Websites for “Anti-Vaccine” Narratives If the link doesn't work, go to Druthers.ca, then go to Read, then go to By Subject, then Censorship. Then search for the article titled: Moderna's "disinformation department" monitors 150 million websites for 'anti-vaccine" narratives".

Hello. My brother just purchased a duplex very recently. This is in British Columbia. My mother and I have been actively assisting him with various things. One email that we received from our notary public, which was about the title registration, reads: "I attach the registered Form A Freehold Transfer for your records and will provide you with a State of Title Certificate in about three months' time once the vendor's mortgage is removed." Does this mean that the property will be my brother's property only if the seller has taken the money from us and used it to pay off the mortgage on said property? It doesn't sound fair to me. We have already shelled out the money for the entire price of the duplex. We should be the rightful owner of the property the minute that our money goes out. Why do we have to have such a condition placed on our title? What if the seller gets the money but doesn't use it to pay off his mortgage? Does that mean we lose our duplex? I am confused and a little disturbed. Please help.

I did not ask you for a lesson in jurisprudence. Should people take responsibility for their own actions, yes or no. That would not be incitement. I am starting to think you don't know what incitement is. If I told my boyfriend someone at work was bothering me, and I said, you'd better do something about it and go to my work place to do it now, otherwise I will lose my job. So he went and murdered that coworker. Have I incited him? Maybe all I wanted him to do was to confront that coworker and give her a good scolding. I didn't tell my boyfriend to kill her. But under your incitement laws, somehow I am responsible for the murder even though I never told anybody to murder the coworker. The problem I have with incitement is that it's too loosely defined. Its application and interpretation are entirely subjective. It can be used to cover a lot of activities and has potential to be abused by legal authorities.

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't. And why is that? That's right, it's because you have agency. And you can and do decide not to listen to me. The same thing applies to the protestors. They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump. By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

So under what circumstances is incitement a crime? And further, how do you define incitement? Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack. And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court. I want to hear from you. I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.

No sir, you need to learn to read. I didn't say people weren't sent to jail. I also didn't say people weren't being held accountable. Rather, I said, Trump should not be held responsible for other people's actions. I know that reading is hard, but with enough practice, you might get to the level of a 3rd grader.

Well, I know that incitement is a crime, but I really think that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. They can't just say, "Trump made us storm the capitol". In a similar vein, the courts should punish the actual actors who committed a crime, they shouldn't blame it on someone else for inciting them, because, like I said, people are adults, they should take responsibility for their own actions. If I told my boyfriend that someone at work had been bothering me, and that he should do something about it or I would lose my job, and he then went and murdered that coworker, this is entirely his fault. I did not incite him to murder that person. I did not abet him to do anything. He needed to take responsibility for what he did. I did not commit any crime at all.

If your father did something wrong, and people want to punish you for it, how would you feel?

Your "rectification" means current white males, who did not discriminate against anybody, are discriminated against. You seem to think contemporary white males are the same as white males from the past. You are punishing living white males for what white males of prior generations did.

Stop trying to make it about me. I never said anything about accident of chance or systemic anything. I am asking you to prove that when a minority or a woman is passed up, it must be due to discrimination. This is the claim you made, so you need to back it up. Maybe many years ago, there was systemic racism. But in today's world, I'd say there is little to none, at least officially. If you want to allege racism or discriminatory hiring practice, which is today's political climate is a very serious accusation, you better be prepared to corroborate it. You can't just point to something like, "oh, a white guy is hired even though there were minority applicants" and claim that discrimination has happened.

"If I am not too lazy"? Why do you talk to me like that?

Ok, so if you are so sure that Trump incited them, then post proof. Post actual quotes from Trump that indicate incitement.

Then you need to prove that the reason they were passed over was because of discrimination, not because of their lack of qualifications or competence. I don't doubt that historically white males tended to land jobs, however this fact alone does not prove that there was favoritism. It could just be that white males tended to be the most competent. This is not their fault, and it's not the employers' fault, either.