Month: February 2022

The title of this piece is the proposed new name for the Canadian National Anthem. The standard “O Canada,” which was proclaimed to be Canada’s national anthem on July 1, 1980, and was first sung in French 100 years earlier has now become passé, because the standard lyrics had referenced “free” multiple times, and that is no longer the case.

The old standard lyrics went as follows:
“Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all of us command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”

As I said, “free” was referenced multiple times, and the new Trudeau-ian government has become the antithesis of “free.” Now in the new Canada you first call people names and refuse to meet with them, before you take away some “freedoms.” Next you freeze bank accounts, cancel credit cards, threaten and ultimately manhandle those who disagree with you. How are any of these Trudeau-Ian actions commensurate with freedom? … Duh, they aren’t!

But it gets worse … more unfreedom.

From The Loop:

Ontario Court Justice Julie Bourgeois denied bail for a key organizer of the Freedom Convoy, telling her: “Your detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public.” Bourgeois told demonstrator Tamara Lich at the Tuesday ruling: “I cannot be reassured that if I release you into the community that you will not reoffend.”

(Take note of  “because she might ‘reoffend’ if released.”  Isn’t that the case with just about everybody who has been arrested? … Duh!)

So the threat of organizing a peaceful protest keeps you in jail in Canada (ABC News).  Last September, a Canadian man accused of 1st degree murder of a policeman was released on bail (City News).

After reading about all of the new “non-freedoms” in Canada, one of the sayings of Ronald Reagan comes to mind … “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction…” 

Be careful, Americans … be very careful.

2/28/22

As has been the case on recent Sunday blogs, today I am highlighting an individual that deserves our recognition and respect. However, the difference today is that all we know is who was the beneficiary of this guy’s act of kindness … Olivia Binns-Jennings of Memphis, who tells the following story:

On the morning of Dec. 28, 2021, she pulled into her local Marathon gas station on Summer Avenue, in the Binghampton neighborhood near Midtown. There were two young men buying snacks and drinks in line ahead of her.

“We began a conversation, just having some good fun and laughter,” Olivia told The Epoch Times. “One of the young men offered to pay $20 for my gas as I was waiting for them to complete their purchase. I said, ‘Thank you but I have it.’ The young man insisted.”

As Olivia was pumping gas to her car, it occurred to her that she wanted others to know how a random act of kindness can go a “miraculously long way.”

“I’m merely trying to get a message out here that the media has been so focused on crime and stories about disarray,” she said. “We as a society are missing the most basic of kindnesses, especially from our younger generations.”

Olivia asked the stranger, a youth about the same age as her own son, if she could snap a photo with him and post it to Facebook.

“He agreed,” she said. “We had never met before and I have never seen him since, but I pray he knows he has touched so many people with this small gesture.”

To me this story is amazing, but more amazing is how different the two characters in this story are:

Olivia is a woman; the stranger is a man.

Olivia is short; the stranger is tall.

Olivia is plump; the stranger is thin.

Olivia is in her late fifties; the stranger in his young twenties.

Olivia has short gray hair; the stranger has long black hair.

Olivia is white; the stranger is black.

Perhaps opposites do attract.

2/27/22

Former Secretary of State and current Biden Climate Czar John Kerry is reacting to the news of Putin’s invasion into Ukraine by issuing concerns about how the conflict will increase emissions. He’s also concerned attention will be diverted away from his climate change agenda as Putin bombs civilians and hospitals. 

“There will be massive emissions consequences to the war but equally and importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus, you’re going to lose, certainly big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact,” Kerry said during a recent interview with the BBC. Kerry went on, “I hope President Putin will help us stay on track with respect for what we need to do on climate.”  

In the middle of a war, Kerry is focused on climate change.  … Yikes!

Meanwhile in the midst of a war in Ukraine, Joe Biden is equally out to lunch as evidenced by continuing his own war on reliable American energy, particularly low-carbon emission natural gas. This has benefitted Russia immensely. By crushing domestic US production of natural gas, Europe is left looking to Russia to meet its energy needs.

Biden’s acumen in foreign policy has always been suspect as evidenced by his past opinions, and as we heard many times before … “past performance predicts piss-poor production.” It’s too bad that Joe isn’t familiar with “The Art of the Deal,” because if he had any negotiating skills, he might not be in this mess. … America might not be in this mess … Ukraine might not be in this mess … The world might not be in this mess.

But thanks to Joe, here we are! … Yikes!

2/26/22

From The Epoch Times:

“In the open-label randomized clinical trial, also referred to as the “The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial,” published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Feb. 18, researchers said their findings “do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

Researchers, from Malaysia, said they found that 21.6 percent of patients in the ivermectin group and 17.3 percent in the standard care group progressed to “severe disease.”

However:

“Ivermectin has been praised by some doctors as a life-saving early treatment for COVID-19. At least two groups, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD), have been advocating for the off-label use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in its early stages.

On Feb. 19, the FLCCC rejected the conclusions of the I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and called it “misleading” and “underpowered.” The group also said that the study authors reached “a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data.”

“In the study’s control group, two-and-a-half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation—and there were three times more deaths in the control group,” Kory, a pulmonologist, said in a statement. “This shows that ivermectin causes a 75 [percent] risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Kory was referring to the results of the study, which found that four people in the ivermectin group needed mechanical ventilation compared to 10 people in the control group; six people in the ivermectin group needed admission to ICU compared to eight in the control group; and three people in the ivermectin group died, compared to 10 people in the control group.

The FLCCC also criticized the fact that all the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for five days when they were enrolled in the study, and said that ivermectin treatment started too late in the disease.

“As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease,” the FLCCC said. “So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that [ivermectin] was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.”

Dr. Paul Marik, a neurocritical care doctor who is the chairman and chief scientific officer of the FLCCC, said the study was “clearly designed to fail.”

“This study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine,” Marik said. “They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”

The AMA is clearly a very liberal organization, and so, not surprisingly,  it’s Journal, JAMA, is also very liberal. Why would JAMA publish this marginal, possibly flawed study, from Malaysia, no less? Why publish this study, but not also publish any pro-Ivermectin studies? 

In my opinion the answer is the same reason that the liberal newspapers in the U.S. have given their articles on the Canadian Freedom Movement a distinctly anti-truckers slant. (Washington Post painted Freedom Convoy as ‘explicitly racist,’ arguing ‘freedom is a key component of white supremacy’) Huh??

The other day a friend of mine noticed that our local “newspaper” seems to only print articles that are pro-Democrat….Why?

Liberal News outlets apparently think that if you control what people read, you can often control what they think … Hmmm! I wonder why!

2/24/22

Years ago I was playing a fair amount of poker at casinos and doing okay. Keep in mind that I was an amateur, playing only for fun, while others were more dedicated and much more proficient. Many were professionals and, like I said, I was an amateur. When a professional is mano-a-mano with an amateur, most often the professional will win. Whether we are referring to sports, or are referring to the more important things of the world, again and again, I will put my money on the pro every time. I could see the writing on the wall, and I no longer play poker at the local casinos.

 What brought this weak poker analogy to mind? 

Think of the headlines these days. Think Ukraine. What we basically have here is an amateur trying to match wits with a professional. Putin, the professional, has been planning his “invasion” into Ukraine for months. Who could ever think that Putin was doing this just for fun? Who could possibly fantasize that Putin was bluffing? Furthermore, who could convince himself that this Russian troop buildup was anything but the real deal. Only a rank amateur, and for all of you voted for J.B., let me break it to you gently … J.B. is a rank amateur – as rank as they come.

There is no way in hell that Biden has a chance against Putin, and soon, if not already, every rational person will realize this. At this point my hope is that Biden can find some way to save face without getting any Americans killed. 

As of 2/22/22 Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was holding out some hope, because he said that President Biden promised his country more weapons from the U.S. for its bid to fight off a Russian invasion. I’ve got news for you, Minister Kuleba … If you haven’t realized it yet, J.B is an amateur, and Putin is a pro who is not bluffing. If Ukraine is pinning its hopes on Biden, the best advice I can offer is to pray a lot.

However, I do agree with what Kubela said to close out his interview:

“This will send a clear message across the entire world that the West is incapable of defending its principles.” In addition, Kuleba warned that “other players” would soon “challenge the United States” based on its inaction in Ukraine. 

This, my friends, is a sure bet!

2/24/22

Right from the git-go, I must admit that this was not my original idea, but I liked it so much, that I thought I would write about it. This is an approach being suggested by Rep. Mo Brooks, who is now running for Senate in Alabama. 

“I would say to the Canadian truckers — we’ve got our supply chain issues here in the United States of America. We could use some more truckers in the United States of America. And I suggest we give or offer them all political asylum,” Brooks said during an interview with Mobile, Alabama, radio FM Talk 106.5. “I think that’d be great if they were to leave Canada, come to the United States of America, move our goods from the East Coast to the West Coast and every point in between, and see what Canada then does — as they have, in effect, expelled these truckers by denying them their liberty and freedom.”

It seems like a win-win … a win for the U.S. and a win for freedom loving Canadians. Think about it. As Brooks said, the U.S. needs truckers. These Canadian guys are experienced journeymen. They have already been driving back and forth across the border. Driving semis in the U.S. would be no problem. Interested trucking companies would hire them in a nano-second, and the Canadian truckers would not even have to provide their own trucks. 

Whether they stayed indefinitely, or only for a short time, it would be a  win for these truckers as once again, they could provide for their families by doing what they do well. If, after a trial period, for whatever reason, they liked their new life in the U.S. better than their old life in Canada, so be it … become naturalized.

The other part of the win-win is that this would not only be a win for the truckers, but it would be a win for all freedom loving Canadians. It would be like poking a stick in Trudeau’s eye. At some point Canadians will get tired of supply chain shortages, all because the all knowing Prime Minister would not even meet with the truckers, but instead resorted to name calling. What goes around comes around, and hopefully his recent autocratic behavior will be his demise.

At this point many Americans would agree with Rep. Mo Brooks. Recruit the Canadian truckers. The one problem with this win-win idea is  … Joe Biden. The U.S. President is big buds with Trudeau … you know, birds of a feather. However J.B.’s polling numbers desperately need some good news, and resolving our supply chain misery would be one way for J.B. to potentially reverse his continued downhill slide.

2/23/22

A lot of people have been fired from their jobs and more are threatened to be fired from their jobs because they refuse to get the Covid vaccinations. Some non-vaccers are obstreperous or stubborn, but a fair number are claiming religious or medical exemptions.

Thus far most employers are refusing to consider either. In terms of the religious exemption a very recent court ruling may change that. 

From The Epoch Times:

“The United Airlines COVID-19 vaccine mandate has violated some employees’ religious beliefs, according to a federal appeals court.

The company’s mandate allows for religious exemption applications but even if those applications are granted, some employees to which they are granted are forced to stop working, receive no pay, and stop getting benefits paid by the company, a set of conditions described as unpaid leave.

The treatment of religious objections triggered a lawsuit, which asked a court to block the mandate for them, but a federal judge in November 2021 declined to do so, asserting plaintiffs didn’t prove they would suffer irreparably.”

However the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed:

‘United has presented plaintiffs with two options: violate their religious convictions or lose all pay and benefits indefinitely. That is an impossible choice for plaintiffs who want to remain faithful but must put food on the table. In other words, United is actively coercing employees to abandon their convictions,” Circuit Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Andy Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote in the unsigned majority opinion. (Interestingly the judge, Mark Pittman, who initially ruled against the plaintiffs was also a Trump appointee. Also it is interesting that the dissenting judge of the three on the Fifth Circuit, Jerry Smith, is a Raegan appointee.)

I expect that across the country there will be more rulings in favor of religious exceptions to the vaccine mandates. Potentially this could be a expensive proposition for United Airlines and other companies who have basically not paid any heed to religious exemptions. They basically fired employees who claimed religious exemptions … or put them on unpaid leave. Potentially these companies will owe back pay for an extended period of time for a substantial number of employees. $$$!

If the foundation to vaccine mandates loses the religious appeal aspect, look for that foundation to start crumbling.

2/22/22

I have always thought it was strange that when somebody died from Covid within three weeks of his/her initial vaccination, that individual was considered “unvaccinated.”

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that someone went along for a year Covid-free and unvaccinated. He/she had not been isolating for that year, but rather had been going about as usual, doing his/her normal activity. Then for what ever reason that unvaccinated person (perhaps because of the threat of losing his/her job) gets vaccinated … and two weeks later comes down with Covid and dies. That person would then be categorized as an unvaccinated Covid death. Is somethin’ funny going on?

If a virgin (no shot whatsoever) non-vaccinated individual dies, then his/her death is categorized as an unvaccinated death, and rightfully so. But it stretches the limits of my imagination to categorize the death of a virgin-unvaccinated individual the same as someone who dies within two weeks of his/her initial vaccination.

In the same realm, if an individual dies two weeks after his/her second  vaccine, that person would be placed in the category of a death in someone who had had only one of the two recommended vaccines. Similarly if that individual had waited six months before getting his/her second vaccine, he/she would still be categorized as a death in someone who had had only one of the two recommended jabs. Although that conclusion is true on paper, going for six months doing okay and then dying within two weeks of the second jab is very suspicious. Is somethin’ funny goin’ on?

Likewise, if someone dies of Covid within two weeks of a Covid booster shot, that individual would be placed in the category of a fully vaccinated Covid death … with no recognition that possibly the booster could have played a role in his/her demise. 

I had my two initial Covid inoculations way back in the Spring of 2021. For the next nine months, I did not limit my activity. I did wear a mask like a good boy. I felt fine. In mid December, 2021, I did get my Covid booster, and two weeks and one day later came down with Covid. Now categorically speaking, I would be characterized as an fully vaccinated individual who got Covid. The fact that my booster preceded my infection by fifteen days would be totally disregarded. That is pure poppycock! I am not buying into that illogical thinking. 

Just like in all of the theoretical examples noted above, to me, the vaccination – whether it was the initial jab, the second jab, or the booster 

should be recognized – not ignored. The real question should be … did the jab play a role in the subsequent infection. There is nothing magical about three weeks. To me, if someone’s dies two weeks after receiving the initial vaccination, that is a death in a vaccinated person. However, even placing that death into the vaccinated category, adroitly avoids the issue of whether or not the vaccine contributed, in a causal way, to that individual’s death.

To extend this nonsense one more step … If someone had a reaction to the Covid vaccine sometime in the two weeks immediately after the vaccine, would any sane rational person call this “a reaction to the vaccine in an unvaccinated person?” 

In the latest data from Scotland (mid-Jan to mid-Feb, 2022) the Covid infection rate per 100,000 was significantly higher in the fully vaccinated as well as the three-dose group when compared to the truly virgin unvaccinated group. Could this be due to antibody dependent disease enhancement? (see a prior blog for full explanation) … in other words could the jabs be contributing in a causal way to the increased incidence of infection in certain groups? For some unknown reason, the Scots just stopped publishing their weekly data. Hmmm!

Is somethin’ funny goin’ on here?

2/21/22

“If you walk around a corner and you see your neighbor’s house on fire, you may call 911. You may play hero and enter the house and try to save them. You may cry out for help. The only thing you must not do is nothing.”

As is the tradition on Sunday today’s piece is about someone who deserves our respect because of his honesty, notably Dr.Hector Carvallo. The above words were spoken by him. You may not have heard of him because he lives in Argentina. However his positions as far as Covid are astute and should be listened to.

From the Epoch Times:

Dr. Hector Carvallo is a medical expert from Argentina. His focus since early 2020 has been the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Dr. Carvallo continued:

“We knew from the very first day we entered the school of medicine that the sooner you treat any illness, the more chances you will have to be successful in the treatment. You have to treat quickly, and strongly. This is natural thinking. Nobody has to be a genius to know that. In this case, inexplicably, many doctors have been told to do nothing.

To keep the patients in their homes on their own with just a few pills of Tylenol — which we know it’s good for nothing in Covid — until they cannot breathe properly. Then they have to be referred to the hospital. That is patient abandonment under any law in any country …

I believe in any attempt to keep a mild patient, mild. What I cannot accept as a medical doctor — because it is against our oath — is to remain with arms folded until that person gets worse. That’s criminal … There’s only one reason for all this. The reason is summarized in one word, greed.”

Interestingly, Carvallo had experience with ivermectin as an antiviral before the COVID outbreak. Argentinian doctors were using it against dengue fever, which is endemic in Argentina. Dengue is a mosquito borne illness that, like Covid, is also caused by a virus. So, when SARS-CoV-2 emerged, he decided to take another look at the drug to see if it might be useful.

In early April 2020, Carvallo and his team developed two trials submitted to the National Library of Medicine in the United States. One was for preexposure (prevention) and the other for treatment. In both cases, ivermectin was used as an adjunct to other compounds, as they didn’t believe it was a silver bullet by itself.

As for the safety of ivermectin, studies in Africa have used doses that were 10 times higher than the 0.2 mg/kg recommended for COVID, without toxic effects. Hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, has a far narrower safety margin. This is well-known, and was clearly used to discredit the drug. As explained by Carvallo:

“What they did with hydroxychloroquine in order to discredit it was easy. Hydroxychloroquine is also very useful against COVID. But the safety margin is narrow. What they did was to use three times the dose in order to cause toxicity. There were 200 studies in favor of hydroxychloroquine.

There was one study talking about the toxicity, and all the scientific community in the world latched on to that one. That’s crazy. In the case of ivermectin, it was so wide a gap between safety and toxicity that they couldn’t do that. So, they just disregarded it.”

Carvallo is one of those rare individuals who has been able to perform research others cannot at this time. He’s retired, so he has no funding or career to lose. He hopes that, eventually, more doctors will go back to thinking for themselves and return to their oath to do no harm, and to focus on what’s best for their patients rather than the bureaucracy currently dictating what they can and cannot do.

2/20/22

For those of you not familiar with Novak Djokovic, he is a professional tennis player from Serbia. Not only is he a professional tennis player, but he is one of the world’s top professional tennis players, having won multiple Grand Slam tennis tournaments in the past. On Jan 16 Djokovic was deported from Australia before the first Grand Slam tournament of the year after having his visa canceled by Australian Immigration Minister Alex Hawke on Jan. 14.

His offense? … He was not vaccinated against Covid.

His main reason for not being vaccinated? … on Dec 17 he had tested positive for Covid.

From the Epoch Times:

Lawyers for the Serbian player contended that he should be allowed to stay in the country and compete under a medical exemption from the vaccination because he had tested positive for the virus in December.

However, he subsequently lost his court battle to have the cancellation of his visa overturned and was forced to leave Australia.

Djokovic’s rival Rafael Nadal went on to win the tournament.

So where’s the dilemma?

Well actually there are multiple dilemmas here.

First- Around the world people are being forced to get the jab, even though many have a variety of different personal reasons for not getting vaccinated. To me accepting some reasons and not accepting other reasons is ludicrous. Who is to judge? Three weeks ago I spoke to someone who was not vaccinated. When she started to explain why, I told her I didn’t care! I didn’t care because that was her personal choice, and if it was good enough for her, it was good enough for me. Get the vaccine or do not get the vaccine … who is right? Only time will tell.

Djokovic’s reason?

“I’ve always represented and supported the freedom to chose what you put in your body and for me, that is essential,” he said.

“For me, as an elite professional athlete I have always carefully reviewed and assessed everything that comes in, from the supplements, the food, the water that I drink or sports drinks, anything really that comes into my body as a fuel,” Djokovic continued.

“Based on all the information that I got, I decided not to take the vaccine as of today.”

Second- Djokovic already had Covid as documented by his positive Covid test in December. Almost on a weekly basis these days there are studies coming out that are documenting immunity to Covid from a past Covid infection. Initially an Italian study said that the immunity lasted eighteen months, and a more recent study upped the ante to two years. Where will the bidding stop? SARS 1 which started in the early 2000s has a virus very similar to our present SARS 2, and the natural immunity to SARS 1 is still present now … going on twenty years!

Third- in different countries things are different. In some countries, notably France, the vaccine passport can also be used by individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 and recovered within the past six months. The French Open is in May. Since Djokovic tested positive for the virus on Dec. 17, this means he could potentially still travel to the county up until June without getting vaccinated.

Meanwhile, the UK government has declined to say whether or not Djokovic will be able to take part in Wimbledon this year if he remains unvaccinated. Current rules for unvaccinated travelers to the UK mean they only have to take pre-departure and post-departure tests but are not required to isolate unless they test positive for the virus.

Why are we being confronted with this dilemma? The answer is very simple. Those who should know best, e.g. Fauci et al, for whatever reason, have not had the chutzpah to say what will eventually prove to be obvious … infection with Covid provides natural immunity to further Covid. Will this turn out to be 100%? … Probably not, but the protection will be in the 90% range.

Be that as it may, the consequences of this dilemma are far from over. Note that five Supreme Court Justices are apparently not aware of natural immunity, as they just recently ruled that health care workers must get the vaccine to keep their jobs. Whereas it should have been intuitively obvious to SCOTUS that a large percent of these health care workers have already had Covid, and thus, like Djokovic, have natural immunity, I did not notice any reference to natural immunity in their decision.

The present mayor of New York City just fired about 1400 city workers because they were not vaccinated. When the beneficial effect of natural immunity becomes more and more apparent, will many of these workers file suit to not only get their jobs back, but also to get their deserved back pay?

From now on each time you hear about the continuing consequences of the Djokovic Dilemma, remember that it is all because ‘those that know best’ did not have the courage to say what they should have known about natural immunity all along!

2/19/22