Ezra Levant debunks Patrick King’s viral claim of legally ending Alberta lockdowns, exposing procedural errors in his July 21st court case—weeks after official lifts—and warning against unproven legal tactics costing others. He contrasts King’s failed approach with Fight the Fines’ organized defense for 2,000+ ticketed individuals, while citing Quebec’s vaccine passports tied to Trudeau’s $6B funding as politically motivated. Data from Public Health Ontario (July 31, 2021) reveals 49.8 adverse events per 100,000 doses, with AstraZeneca’s risks higher than Pfizer’s, yet lockdowns persist as flawed experiments, not solutions. [Automatically generated summary]
I mean, it's a long weekend up here in Canada last weekend.
I like these noontime live streams.
I do them Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
I mean, they do cause me to move away from other work I'm doing, so I'm always saying, oh, I don't have time, but when I'm doing them, I love them.
I love the free form banter.
I like the questions and the comments I get from the public.
I like being able to follow a stream of consciousness.
I know people think I do that a little bit too much, but forgive me.
I get some pleasure out of that.
I also try out ideas that I sort of workshop them that I later do a more prepared video.
Every night, as you know, at 8 p.m., I do a more prepared show.
And so today, let me tell you what I want to talk about, and it fits a few of these.
I want to talk just a little bit more about Patrick King.
He's the rough and tumble Albertan from Red Deer, who, according to a viral video that last I checked, was close to a million views on Rumble, which is quite a lot.
This one man single-handedly, through one neat legal trick, managed to lift the entire lockdowns in Alberta, including the face mask ban.
You know, it's really a miracle.
We've had some of the smartest and bestest lawyers working around the clock for more than a year.
We've had formal constitutional challenges at different levels of court, including the federal court, federal court of appeal, provincial court, court of Queen's Bench, every court you can think of.
No one's been able to beat the lockdowns legally yet.
Even in Australia, our Australian viewers crowdfunded a challenge at the Supreme Court.
A Harvard lawyer grad, Harvard law grad, Kathleen Foley, one of the smartest lawyers in Australia.
I watched some of that case.
No one's been able to do it, but this homemade lawyer from Red Deer cracked the code.
Do you want to call up that video?
It's by an American who I sort of like his style, actually.
He's pretty aggressive.
His name is Stew Peters.
I'd never heard of him before.
He's got a website that is very lively, very feisty.
He's a real fighter.
But I don't think Stew Peters really knows anything about Canada.
He called our Globe and Mail the Daily Mail.
His video was on August 3rd talking about how this court case on July 21st struck down the mask law and the lockdown laws.
They had already been lifted by the government on July 1st.
So I think you had a very excitable American host who was very revved up by it, combined with a bit of a flim flam man who said, yeah, I really did save the world, combined with an American who really knew nothing about what was going on, didn't realize that the lockdown's already been lifted.
Let's just play just a minute.
And I don't want, we've gone through this.
It's a 17-minute video.
Here's just one minute.
Let's play one minute of that.
We'll come back in a second with the audio.
That man's Patrick King, and he, Every week for years, actually, even predating the lockdown, he would go to the street corner.
And you just take a look.
But breaking out of Alberta today, mandatory masking is coming to an end.
Kids will not be masking when they return to school.
Mandatory quarantine will be ending contact tracing, testing for mild symptoms.
It's all done.
They will now be recognizing COVID as a mild flu and treating it as such.
Freedom has won in Alberta, proving that fighting does work.
Joining us now is Patrick King, a devoted father of two, a proud Canadian.
You were fined $1,200 for violating the COVID-19 Public Health Act for being in a group larger than 10, which I'm assuming is what lit the fire inside of you.
And it appears that you, sir, were a part of the efforts that we can now celebrate today.
Tell us about it.
Yeah, for sure.
Thanks for having me on, Stu.
Yeah, on December 5th, we held a rally.
So in Red Gear, Alberta, Canada, we have been known as the only city in Canada to hold the longest rally against all these government mandates that they've been putting in with regards to even our industries.
I started back about four years ago.
I'm an oil and gas worker, have been for over 17 years.
I also hold a degree in occupational health and safety and environment.
And when they started to attack our industry out here, I started getting a little bit more vocal.
So we've held rallies on our streets with regards to oil and gas and this government that we have for over three and a half years.
And on December 5th, we were celebrating our 200th week of being on the corner on a Saturday morning protesting.
And on that particular day, COVID mandates were implemented.
He goes on for a bit.
About a million people have watched that on Rumble and more elsewhere.
So he got a ticket.
And I'm against lockdown tickets.
And I'm glad that he fought it.
But he's not a lawyer.
You heard the guy is an oil man or former oil man.
I'm not sure if he's working now.
And so he went to court on his own.
And I'm glad he did.
And there were two RCMP officers there who testified.
I saw him there and he was with the group.
And there was a prosecutor there from the government.
And when you're an unrepresented litigant, when you don't have a lawyer, you're in court and you don't have a lawyer, the judge cannot be your lawyer for you.
But the judge can say, okay, you're doing that wrong.
If you want to do that, here's how.
Or if you want to do that, you got to do this.
So it was actually pretty interesting reading.
I thought the judge was pretty helpful in explaining things.
And every single thing that Patrick King did in court was wrong.
And that's okay because he's not a lawyer.
How would he know?
It would be like if I decided to do surgery.
I'm not a doctor.
Everything I'm going to do is wrong.
That's not a knock on me.
It's just, hey, don't do surgery.
Or if I try to do engineering, try to build a bridge.
Don't do that.
You're not dumb.
You're just not an engineer.
So Patrick King is obviously a loquacious fella.
And I think that I salute his two-year protests.
I'm not sure why.
It started on other matters.
I don't know Patrick King, never met him.
But you can see he's sort of a happy warrior kind of guy.
I don't know anything about him.
I understand he said some questionable things, but I'm not interested in that for the purposes of today.
So he was in court, and he didn't have any witnesses.
He just sort of showed up.
He asked the cops some questions and cross-examination, not particularly effectively.
And then he just said to the judge, I want to call as a witness Dina Hinshaw, the public health officer.
And the judge said, okay, well, you've got to, you know, that should have happened.
You should have done that.
If you wanted that witness, you've got to subpoena them.
We'll take a break.
We'll finish this trial another day so you can do that.
He also said, well, I want to do a charter challenge or a constitutional challenge.
And the judge said, well, You can't just say that in court.
You have to give notice to the government of that.
That's one of the rules about making a constitutional challenge is you can't spring that on a court on the government.
You have to give them some notice.
So he was making a lot of mistakes, and I'm not blaming him or anything.
He's not a lawyer.
And the judge was correcting him pretty gently.
I thought the judge was pretty friendly.
So he left court.
The trial was half done.
And he issued a subpoena for Dina Hinshaw, the public health officer.
But again, he's not a lawyer, so it would be like me trying to do brain surgery.
I could probably Google it, but that's probably going to get her done wrong.
So he had the wrong court.
It wasn't even a court.
He had a Justice of the Peace sign a subpoena.
And I think in Alberta, it has to be a different court that signs it.
So he tried to subpoena the public health officer, but because he's not a lawyer, he mixed it up and he did it wrong.
So it was thrown out, from what I understand.
And also, Dina Hinshaw's lawyers said, we don't know anything about the events of that day in December 2020 when he was given a ticket for being at a protest in Red Deer.
I don't have any material evidence.
Material means to do with the matter, matter, material.
Don't have any material evidence about what happened on the streets of Red Deer last year.
So not only is your subpoena not valid because it was done by a Justice of the Peace as opposed to the proper way, I don't have anything to say because I wasn't there.
I don't have any useful evidence for the court.
And Patrick King, who put no preparation into it, he just sort of walked into court, didn't have any documents, didn't have any witnesses, didn't really know what he was doing, and that's fine because he's not a lawyer.
But he did it all wrong.
So he lost all these matters.
So the subpoena was thrown out.
Even if he had issued it properly, it's likely that she would have resisted it by saying, I don't know anything about what happened in Red Deer that day, and that's what's on trial.
When he said, oh, I want to do a constitutional challenge, if he would have known or if he would have had a lawyer, he could have given notice to the government, and then he could have opened up a larger challenge to the law.
But you can't just say, oh, I want to have you come and talk to me about pandemic laws in general without notice that you're doing some constitutional challenge.
So he did all those things wrong.
He lost on all those disputes.
But his subpoena was quashed.
And I think, this isn't clear, I don't know what came of his $1,200 ticket.
I don't know if they're proceeding.
But my point is, everything he did in court didn't work.
Not because he's dumb, not because he doesn't have energy, but he just doesn't know how to lawyer.
I went to law school.
I haven't practiced law in over a decade.
But you do learn a lot of stuff.
And actually, civil procedure, criminal procedure, those are sort of tricky.
It's very intricate rules.
And not only, and frankly, when I graduated from law school, I wasn't very good at those things.
Those are things you have to do through practice.
In law school, you're learning more theory and general ideas.
It's when you're a student at law and then a junior lawyer, okay, you do a dozen of these, you do 100 of these.
Now you know, okay, we're doing a subpoena.
Well, we've got to go to this court, and it's got to be signed by this person.
We're doing a constitutional challenge.
Okay, well, we've got to serve notice on the crown.
And like, I think you'll learn those things more by doing them than by reading them in a textbook.
So Patrick King is not a lawyer.
He's never gone to law school as far as I know.
And he just simply didn't know any of these things.
The judge gave him some ideas, but he didn't do them properly.
So he lost on all of these things.
But Stew Peters, for some reason, maybe just excitement or maybe because Patrick King misled him, I don't know, said, you are the man who freed the entire province.
No, he didn't.
The province was actually freed on July 1st when the government lifted the lockdowns, including some of the cities had mask mandates for a few more days, but it was all long done by the time Patrick King had his court date on July 21st.
But that was such a viral video, and it was so exciting.
And you saw the headline, put the headline back up just for one second.
I mean, if you are thirsty in the desert and there is something that looks like an oasis, you're just so grateful for the miracle.
Yes, finally, finally some hope.
And I can understand why so many people, look at this, freedom fighter court victory ends masking shots, quarantine in Alberta.
But it didn't.
It just didn't.
It was not a victory.
I don't know if his own ticket was thrown out.
He doesn't actually say.
And it wasn't in the transcript from his earlier half trial.
It had nothing to do with ending masking shots or quarantines in Alberta.
None of that was at issue.
The only thing that was at issue in that court case was his $1,200 fine.
That was the only thing.
He tried to do a couple of moves, but he got them all wrong.
And again, I'm not blaming him for getting them wrong.
It would be like if I tried to do surgery on someone.
And I wouldn't try.
But because of that headline, and because Stew Peters, the American, doesn't really know anything about Canada, and that's fine.
I talk about places around the world that I'm perhaps a little wobbly on.
But he didn't know a very basic fact that Alberta actually lifted those things weeks ago, had nothing to do with Patrick King.
But King had so much fun going viral and being called the hero, he just sort of ran with it.
And, you know, a friend of our show named Laura Lynn Tyler Thomas, Thompson, if I'm saying her name right, has her own show out in Vancouver and she interviewed him.
White Paper on Malfeasance00:12:43
And I want to show you a clip from that.
And I want to show you how this story has evolved, how Patrick King is becoming a bit of a flim flam man.
And I mean, listen, if you try and stop every quack on the internet, you'll spend your whole life doing it.
And I don't propose to do that.
But what I'm worried is that like a quack doctor selling a miracle potion, that people, I mean, I suppose if it's just an empty hope, maybe don't disabuse people of that, but it's not going to lift the lockdowns.
But watch this what he said on Laurel's show.
Well, what you want to do, and anybody else who has these tickets before you get into court, is you want to file what's called a challenge to the Public Health Act.
And you want to request exactly what I requested, which is the white papers for all of these, all of these.
And then what you do is you want to subpoena the chief medical officer health of that province.
That puts them on the stand.
On the stand, they have to provide you with the evidence.
If they don't provide you the evidence, they throw it out.
Then we have rooms for what's called malfeasance, which means every single person across Canada will be able to file civil lawsuits against every single person who pushed this narrative of these death jabs and these quarantines and the devastation of our economy and the destruction of our households and friends and family.
You can get them now.
And that's what we're doing.
You can get them now, and that's what we're doing.
I'm not sure who we is.
Every word he said there was wrong.
And maybe that's not nice to hear.
Maybe you want me to say, no, he really did have these magic beans that grew a beanstalk.
But he says you've got to challenge the underlying law.
Okay, you can do that, but don't forget.
But he didn't, because remember, he forgot to give notice.
He said you can ask for white papers.
I don't know exactly what he means by a white paper, but he didn't get a white paper, a blue paper, a green paper, or a red paper.
He didn't get any paper at all from Dina Hinshaw.
He failed to do so.
He said you could subpoena Dina Hinshaw and get her on the stand.
Well, again, he didn't do that, so maybe it's possible to do that, but not the way he did it.
He didn't do any of these things.
He said, if they don't provide you this white paper, you win.
That's not the case.
That didn't happen for him.
I'm not sure what he means by a white paper.
I don't know if it's particularly important.
He attaches some importance to that term.
If you're challenging how a law comes about, that's the prerogative of the legislature.
You can't really stop that and say, I disagree with the law, so I'm not following it.
You can challenge the constitutionality of the law.
And I assume that's what he meant at the beginning when he says challenge the law.
Again, he didn't do that.
He forgot to do that.
You can do that.
And maybe you'll be able to cross-examine Dina Hinshaw.
Maybe you will.
He didn't, because he didn't give notice, because he didn't do a constitutional challenge, because he just had a $1,200 ticket.
So none of these things actually happen.
He says if they don't provide it to you, that's called malfeasance.
I think that Patrick learned a big word, malfeasance, and he thinks it's like this that that will then be an open door.
He said, for civil lawsuits, every person who pushed a narrative.
So if you can show malfeasance, which just basically is a fancy way of saying doing something wrong, you can file a civil lawsuit against every person who pushed a narrative.
Narrative is a fancy way of saying a story.
You can get them, and that's what we're doing.
But that's not true.
He's not doing it.
He's done, from what I understand.
He didn't do, he didn't get Dina Hinshaw to testify.
He didn't get a white paper or a green paper or a yellow paper or a red paper or any other paper other than a notice from the government that he did it wrong and so they're not going to comply.
I don't know what he means by civil lawsuits against people who have a narrative.
That means you go to court and you're suing someone.
I don't even know where to start with that other than, first of all, he's not doing it.
And second of all, how do you sue someone for a narrative?
If there's a constitutional challenge to be done, which I think is the first thing he tried to say, then do it.
But he hasn't done it.
Now, there have been a lot of constitutional challenges made against various aspects of the lockdown laws.
We've done some.
The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has done some.
Something in Ontario called the Canadian Constitution Foundation has done some.
I'm unaware of any done by the left-wing civil liberties groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association or the BC Civil Liberties Association.
They're too busy cheering on the torching of Christian churches.
But the idea of cross-examining Dina Hinshaw, or more likely, a bureaucrat in Alberta Health Services or federally, that's happened already.
That's been done even in our own lawsuit, for example, at nocovidjails.com.
We cross-examined various health officials who brought in that COVID jail quarantine.
We did cross-examine them under oath.
We did ask them about documents.
I don't know what white paper means, and I'm not sure if Patrick does either, but he liked that word.
We've had some incredible admissions.
We're cross-examining witnesses in Arthur Pavlovsky's case, getting incredible admissions, I think.
But unfortunately, the courts are not lifting the lockdowns.
The JCCF was representing Pastor James Coates and the Grace Life Church in Edmonton.
They cross-examined health officials who said insane things under oath, like that they brought police to the church just to wow the media.
There was no safety reason.
They just brought the cops with them sort of to delight and shock the media.
Like there have been some stunning admissions under oath by health officials who were properly subpoenaed or summoned in some way.
Charter challenges where the lawyer actually remembered to tell the government in advance.
So that's being done.
And regrettably, no court in Canada has yet in any substantial way rolled back any aspect of the lockdowns.
Our Fight the Fines project, we represent over 2,000 people who have been ticketed.
None of them have had a full trial yet.
So far the government's just waiting on all of them.
I think they know we have given notice we're going to make constitutional challenges in some of those cases.
But so far no court has done what Patrick King claims to have done and promises that he will do.
It just hasn't happened.
Now I know people like the cut of his jib because he seems like a regular guy who has found a secret that all the fancy pants could not.
And I love that David versus Goliath narrative.
Wouldn't it be great if some regular guy walked into court one day not knowing anything, not even knowing how to address the judge?
That was the very first thing.
I don't know if you have that handy, that line from the monologue last night.
Like he tried his free man of the land business and the judge just shut him down right away.
Like the transcript is actually quite something to read.
Patrick King did not prepare for his case, didn't have any witnesses, didn't have any arguments, didn't know how to do anything.
And again, I'm not making fun.
I'm saying he's not a lawyer.
Why would he?
But for him to have a complete loss, subpoena thrown out, subpoena improper, no material evidence, didn't give charter notice, and then to go on Stew Peters' show and say I had a total victory and I'm responsible for lifting the lockdown, that's sort of a weird lie, I think.
It just seems a little weird to me.
Here, let's just show a little bit of transcript that Justin has.
So, yeah, so look at how it starts.
So, the government just went, that's Ms. Kai.
Now, the judge, that's at the court.
All right, Mr. King, and then look at the first thing he says.
First thing, I'd like to establish something for and on the record.
Is this a court of law or an administrative office for the enforcement of public policy under color of law for the corporation of the province of Alberta?
That's what some of these homemade law free man of the land guys try and say.
And look what the judge said.
Sir, I am not going to entertain this today.
This is a court of law.
You are here for your trial.
And then King says, this is for a court, a court of law.
And they're cross-talking.
And if you, and then he says, that's all I need to know.
Thank you.
And then the judge says, are you planning to represent yourself today?
Yes.
And then it goes on.
It's quite an interesting read.
But literally no idea that he had was right.
And again, I'm not making fun.
If I tried to do brain surgery, not having gone to med school for one day, every single decision I would make would be wrong.
And I would hopefully get a real doctor.
But I most certainly wouldn't make every mistake there is and then leave the surgical suite and have a press conference and say, I just learned how to cure cancer.
And that's what I think Patrick King did.
Now, do you have that cartoon that we used yesterday?
I was thinking to myself, why am I talking about this?
And again, we've talked about it for 20 minutes today.
Why?
Like, who cares?
What does it bother me?
And it's that old cartoon that I probably saw this 10 years ago.
It was true 10 years ago, but it's even more true now.
It's like a one-panel cartoon.
Do you need me to send that to you again?
No, we got it.
If you try and fight everything on the internet that is not right, you will be very busy if you try and correct things.
You come into bed?
I can't.
This is important.
What?
Someone is wrong on the internet.
That cartoon's got to be at least 10 years old.
So why do I care that Patrick King is wrong on the Internet?
Why do I care that Stew Peters, someone I had never heard of before yesterday?
Why do I care that he's saying Patrick King lifted the lockdown in Alberta and he's got the method to free everyone?
Why do I care that my friend, my friendly acquaintance, Laura Lynn, hosted Patrick King where he went on and just expanded it and now you can civil, you can sue in civil court everyone for malfeasance.
Who?
Everyone who's part of that narrative and that's what we're doing.
Who's we?
Why do I care?
I think partly because we do follow the facts wherever they lead.
We do try and tell the truth.
And I think it's important to debunk false hope.
I mean, maybe you want false hope a placebo instead of hopelessness.
I think that's why people really caught on to this.
Finally, there was hope.
I suppose for some folks having false hope is better than no hope.
Challenging Misinformation Battles00:16:09
And when we come along and say that just that guy was making it up, he's full of it.
Everything he did in court was thrown out.
He didn't do the things.
He didn't understand words.
I don't think he understands malfeasance.
I don't think he understands material.
I don't think he understands so many basic things.
And it's because he's not a lawyer.
It would be like me doing brain surgery.
Do we have any solutions?
I don't know.
I mean, we're defending more than 2,000 people who have tickets.
And we've, you know, for free, so we're defending people with real lawyers.
But I mean, you know, we have more than 2,000 people who have asked for help.
We still accept five or ten new cases every day.
We're doing some constitutional challenges.
Like I say, they haven't been successful yet.
So maybe the answer is, well, we haven't done any better.
Yeah, and I'll tell you that.
I mean, we're appealing our losses.
But this flim flam man, who is having the time of his life on TV, absolutely got shellacked.
I wouldn't say they laughed him out of court because they didn't laugh at him, although he does complain that one of the cops was smirking at him.
He wasn't laughed out of court.
He was just thrown out of court.
It's fine.
I mean, I think he really enjoyed it.
But if he's giving advice to people who try and follow it, they're going to be flattened.
And I suppose that's the real answer.
If this was just an amusement, like there's lots of fake videos and deep fakes and Photoshops out there.
I saw a really funny one.
There's this one comedian who starts a news clip, like a real news clip, and then he presents himself as if he's being interviewed.
Like he takes a news clip.
I don't know if I can dig it up fast enough to show you just in the show, but he's an African-American comedian.
And he'll play like two minutes of a real news story.
And then he'll clip himself in as if he's being interviewed about like a drug.
And you know this, you know, this case of someone who was arrested on an airline and duct taped.
So he tells a story that gets crazier and crazier and crazier and crazier.
And then he finishes up with a news story.
And he sees how many people he can trick.
It's very funny.
So that's harmless.
If you believe in his fake comedy videos, it's harmless.
He had a good laugh.
You say, whoa, the world's crazy.
That's really funny.
I don't know if anyone knew the comedian I'm talking about.
But it's harmless.
No one is going to change what they do because of this comedian.
But I'm worried that Patrick King's terrible advice that did not work for him will be followed by people and they'll lose thousands of dollars in fines or maybe worse.
So that's why I care.
All right, let's look at some comments.
Hyper chat from Rocks4 Northeast.
Hey, Ezra, we need worthy journalists to dig up the numbers of injuries and deaths through the vaccine.
I'm guessing Rebel News are the best for the task.
I know many would appreciate to get those numbers.
It's like you're a mind reader.
We've got that on the agenda for today.
Super U Devil's Advocate.
King has the right idea, but he should have lawyered up.
Yeah, his idea is to challenge the law.
It's a fairly basic idea.
And I think he should.
But he didn't, like, if you read the transcript, maybe we should post that transcript on our page.
He walked into court with no preparation, no notes, no documents, no evidence, no witnesses.
He just walked in, and the judge gave him some information, which he mangled.
His big idea, hey, let's challenge the law.
Yeah, good idea.
And dozens, maybe hundreds of people have tried across the country.
Adam Skelly tried.
Rocco Galati tried.
The caliber and the thoughtfulness of the different legal claims is a wide range.
Some are outstanding, some are very shoddy, but nothing has succeeded in a way.
So, simply saying, oh, I got an idea, let's challenge the law.
Geez, why didn't I think of that?
Hyper chat, Roasty, I want to know the real percentage of Canadians who took the vaccine.
Can Rebel get that for us?
Well, how would we know?
How would we know?
I don't know if we would.
We could do some access to information, perhaps.
Hyper Chat, Tobias.
Dan Dix also reached out to Pat King to ask all the obvious questions pertaining to the claims made by the Stew Peters show.
Oh, okay.
Well, that sounds interesting.
He's a bit of a dissident and an omni-skeptic, so I'll have to see how that goes.
I hope he's more skeptical than just, wow, you personally lifted the entire Alberta lockdown three weeks before you even went to court.
Roasty, is there a way to force the government to prove the existence of COVID?
Well, I think that COVID exists as a virus.
I don't think that that's really in dispute.
I think what's in dispute are other questions like how deadly is it?
What are the demographics that are most at risk?
What's the right way to treat it?
I think there are questions about reporting how many people died or got sick with the virus and how many from the virus.
There's that one crazy case of someone falling off a ladder and that was ascribed to COVID.
That's an extreme example.
There's questions about do lockdowns work?
Are vaccines necessary?
Are vaccine passports?
Like you're getting further and further away from the virus itself and you're into social control and privacy issues and civil rights issues.
I think that's the front line of the battle.
I think clearly, I think where did the virus itself come from?
Did it come naturally?
Did it come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
I think those are all interesting questions.
Does the virus exist?
I don't think is an interesting question because I think it does exist.
It's the other things that are the real question.
I mean, there's flus every year, there's influenzas, there's coronaviruses every year.
Rumble, share 21.
At least he tried, Ezra.
Good on Pat for trying.
I suppose he did try.
He did everything wrong, and so it didn't work.
And so I'm not blaming him for trying brain surgery without being an MD.
I'm just saying it didn't work.
I don't have a beef with the fact that he tried.
I have the beef with the fact that he's claiming he saved the province and he's prescribing his failed methods to everyone.
That's my beef.
I don't have a beef with the guy trying.
I like the fact that he tried.
Just everything he said to Laura Lynn didn't work.
Rox Forney, why do you work so hard on dividing our side enough already?
I get so many emails like that.
Because I think that Patrick King, is he on our side?
Well, he's against the lockdown.
So I guess he's on our side in opposing the lockdown.
He thinks the prosecution is improper and the lockdown is improper.
Okay.
I don't have a beef with any of that part.
I don't have a beef with the fact that he even went to court on his own.
But he's lying when he said that his secret method that no one else caught saved things and everyone should do it.
It didn't work, and if other people try it, they'll lose.
Now maybe they'll have a lot of fun in court like he obviously did.
But if you have a ticket for $1,200 or $3,000 or $5,000, and we have some people in our fight-to-fine system who have fines of over $10,000.
So if you're a severely normal family and you have $10,000 worth of tickets, and we'll give you a lawyer at fightthefiance.com, we won't charge you for it.
But if you say, no, no, no, I saw that guy in Alberta and he fought it with this one neat trick.
I'm going to do that.
Okay, you're going to lose.
And you're going to be out $5,000 or $10,000.
And how is that going to affect your family?
That's why he's not on my side on that part.
I'm not on his side.
I'm on the side of the facts.
All right.
I mean, let me show you this next clip.
This is from the governor of Maryland.
This is my point.
I see in the comments people are saying, I don't know if the virus itself is even real.
Is that the front line of this battle?
Or is it this guy who's clearly using the vaccine and the virus as a political Reichstag fire, as an excuse, to do what he really wants to do?
Listen to the politics here.
Take a look.
Look, I don't care what misinformation or conspiracy theories that you have heard.
The plain and simple fact is that these vaccines are working.
If you're still unsure about the vaccines, here is the important fact for you to consider.
Nearly every single person hospitalized or dying with COVID-19 in Maryland right now is unvaccinated.
Those of you who refuse to get vaccinated at this point are willfully and unnecessarily putting yourself and others at risk of hospitalization and death.
You are the ones threatening the freedoms of all the rest of us, the freedom not to wear masks, to keep our businesses open and to get our kids back in school.
And tragically, it may be only a matter of time until you do get COVID-19.
It's hard to believe he's a Republican.
So it's the misinformation and the politics.
I don't even know what misinformation in the era of COVID even means anymore.
On masks, so are they in this week or are they out this week?
And if you're vaxed, you have to wear a mask.
And if you're vaxed, are you safe?
Or do you have like it's just the narrative changes from Anthony Fauci in particular every week.
You get whiplash.
Do we scold people and shame people for getting sick?
Is getting sick a moral thing?
Like are you evil if you get sick?
Are you dirty if you get sick?
What if you get sick and recover naturally?
Are you immune?
In fact, is that immunity stronger than from the vaccine?
That's the battleground here, not is there something called COVID-19.
I note that on the same day that Trudeau gave $6 billion to Quebec, Quebec announces it's bringing in vaccine passports.
So I think that there's a political agenda there.
Don't you think that's the battle front line?
Um, it's 1238.
I want to...
I want to show you what I would prefer to talk about than the question I see from some folks, is the virus even real?
Well, I think the virus is real.
It's what do we do about it?
Do we use it as a political weapon?
How serious is it?
Who does it affect?
What's our response to it?
Why are we obsessed with it?
I'm still looking through this, and I'll probably have a more formal discussion of it next week in the show.
But can you put that public health document up?
So this is just for the province of Ontario, so it's not Canada-wide.
It's from Public Health Ontario, which as you can guess, is a government agency.
Weekly surveillance summary.
Adverse events following immunization.
So that means you take the vaccine and something happens to you.
For COVID-19 in Ontario, for basically the last seven months, this report provides a summary of adverse events following immunization that are temporarily, that are temporally associated, i.e. occur after receiving the vaccine, with receipt of COVID-19 vaccine and meet the provincial surveillance definitions, i.e. confirmed.
It's important to note that the AEFI, that's adverse events following immunization, described in this report are defined as any untoward medical occurrence that followed immunization and do not necessarily have a causal relationship with the vaccine.
So they're saying we're not sure they were caused for the vaccine.
They just happened right afterwards.
This weekly summary includes reports of adverse effects reported in the public health care and contact management solution as of July 31.
So it's only those that were reported.
Doses administered up to and including July 31 are extracted from the COVAX application and they just tell you that.
So let's skip ahead to the numbers.
So that's just some background.
Highlights.
There are a total of 9,698 adverse effect reports received following 19 million doses of the vaccine with a reporting rate of 49.8 per 100,000 doses.
This represents an increase of 637 reports compared to the previous week.
So 637 reactions to the vaccine in a week.
Of the total 9,698 adverse effects reported, 9,200 are non-serious.
488 reports meet this serious definition.
The most commonly reported adverse events are allergic skin reaction and pain, redness, and swelling.
So they don't call those serious.
348 reports of events managed as anaphylaxis, that means an allergic shock, in which 25 reports also meet this serious definition.
20 reports of Guillain Barret syndrome.
I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
That looks like a pretty serious thing.
I think that's considered serious.
I'm not well versed in that.
572 reports including a vaccine-specific adverse event of special interest, in which 286 reports also meet the serious definition.
So basically, like I say, none of these vaccines have been approved by the FDA.
They've only been authorized for emergency use.
So this is the largest medical experiment in world history.
Normally these things happen when you have a small group of people who willingly usually sign a contract and are paid and are closely monitored to test new medicine.
But they didn't finish the test.
They rushed this to the market with an emergency authorization.
And so really these thousands of people are the tests.
21 reports of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.
I don't know what that is.
Gender Disparity In Vaccine Reactions00:11:19
215 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis.
That's the inflammation of the heart after receipt of mRNA vaccine.
That's scary.
Go to the next page.
Summary of AFE.
Now this is interesting, and I want to read this slowly and carefully.
Look at the table.
Summary of all AEFI, that's adverse effects.
So that means something bad happened.
So in the six and a half, seven months, you had, you see it's breaking down by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and all combined.
So apparently those are the only three vaccines allowed.
So again, you see the 9,698, of which 5,000 are Pfizer.
Number of non-serious reports, it's most of them.
Number of serious reports, 239 for Pfizer, 153 for Moderna, 96 for AstraZeneca.
Proportion of total reports that are serious.
So they're saying that only 5% of the adverse reactions are serious.
It's higher for AstraZeneca.
Doses administered, and then they do the total reporting rate per 100,000 doses.
So if 100,000 people take a dose, what percentage of people are going to have an adverse reaction?
You can see for Pfizer, it's 40 per 100,000.
That's how things are often measured in medical instances.
And it rises to 119 for AstraZeneca.
Okay, so scroll down, and it's also much higher for AstraZeneca to have the serious reporting.
It's 8.8.
Okay, scroll down to the next page.
Now this is very interesting to me.
Summary of all adverse effects reports received to date by age group and gender.
This is just for Ontario.
Would you look at that?
The number of women who have negative reactions is triple the number of men.
More than triple.
7,451 women have adverse effects.
2,036 men.
Isn't that very, like that just jumps right off the page.
And then they do it per 100,000.
So 21 men in 100,000 have an adverse effect.
73.5 women.
So that's almost 1 in 1,000 women.
I can tell you that the, I mean, we can talk about the death rates or the hospitalization rates for the virus itself.
I want to do some comparisons between the risk to different demographic groups of the virus and the risk of vaccine adverse impacts.
So kids, start off with kids.
He had 227 kids who had an adverse impact.
The rate is 18.8%.
Excuse me, not percent, per 100,000.
And the rate's important because I don't know how many of each age group.
I don't know the absolute number.
So the rate is more useful.
The rate rises, people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and then it goes down, which is unusual.
So the most dangerous demographic group for taking the vaccine is people in their 40s, which is very interesting to me because people in their 40s are quite safe from the virus.
Not perfectly safe, not as safe as kids.
I would like to see that broken down by gender.
They just break the whole thing down by gender.
I want to know what 40-year-old women, what their danger rate is, because we can see it's typically triple that of men.
So if we could, I wish we could see the breakdown of all these age groups by gender, but isn't that interesting?
So far to me, the number one takeaway from this, besides the raw number, is that women are three times as likely to have adverse effects from vaccines as men.
And that people in their 40s are the group most likely, whereas they're not the most likely to be in danger from the virus itself.
Okay, next slide.
Ah, number of reports by week.
Okay, that's not that interesting to me.
Ten most frequently reported adverse events.
Allergic reaction, pain, rash.
I think those would be called non-serious.
Okay, scroll down to the next one.
Events managers, anaphylaxis.
Anaphylaxis, you probably heard the phrase anaphylaxis shock.
That's when people have these extreme allergic events where they could die from.
If it's an anaphylactic shock, you could actually die from that, which is why they don't want you to leave the vaccine center right away.
They want you to stay there.
Now, I don't know enough about Guillain-Barre syndrome, but it looks like they're associated with the AstraZeneca vax.
Adverse events of special interest being identified by International Health.
572 reports.
Of them, 286 met the definition of a serious AEFI.
Capillary leak syndrome.
I hate even just saying those words.
You know what a capillary is, right?
It's a tiny blood vessel.
Tiny blood vessel leak?
That's just Health Canada and Public Health Canada are aware and are reviewing information as it becomes available.
No cases are being reported in Ontario.
See, this is the stuff that normally is done before you jab a million people.
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, that's a hell of a phrase, is a condition characterized by the presence of acute venous, that means veins, or arterial arteries, thrombosis with new onset, low levels of platelets, and no known recent exposure.
Jeez, that's so scary.
Normally this stuff is worked out before they give it to the public.
On May 11th, 2021, Ontario announced a pause on the administration of first doses of AstraZeneca out of an abundance of caution due to an observed increase in reports of this syndrome.
However, based on the lag period from vaccination to subsequent symptom onset, clinical recognition and reporting to the vaccine safety surveillance system, there may be additional reports reported in the coming weeks.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, it's buried in the fine print, ain't it?
To date, there have been 21 reports of this following the first dose of AstraZeneca.
Of these, 16 are confirmed.
Yeah, hey, do you think anyone would take AstraZeneca if they read this?
I don't know.
Maybe they would.
Maybe they're so desperate they would.
Myocarditis, that's the big one.
There have been international reports, including from the United States and Israel, of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle.
That doesn't sound important.
You don't need that muscle.
And perigarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart.
Well, who needs that?
Following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, information to date indicates that these events occur more commonly after the second dose, within the week following vaccination, typically within four to five days, mainly in adolescents and young adults, and more often in males and females.
Oh.
Public Health and Health Canada are closely monitoring these.
Well, I'm glad they're closely monitoring them.
That makes me feel better.
As of July 31, there have been 215 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis following receipt of COVID-19 mRA vaccines.
I find this scary.
Next page.
Okay, what do we got here?
Characteristics of myocarditis or pericarditis reports.
Pfizer and Moderna.
It appears that they're only tracking it on the mRNA vaccines.
Median age, and the so the median age is 26, or 23 or 24.
So these are people the least likely in the world to get sick from the virus.
They're the most likely in the world to get sick from the mRNA vax.
Yeah.
Gender.
Okay, scroll back up a little bit.
67%, 83%, 70%, it's men, young men.
Serious AEFIs.
In Ontario, adverse effects that meet the serious definition are events that required hospital admission.
And reports of death.
Yeah, that's serious.
There were 488 adverse effect reports classified as serious.
As a comparison, go ahead.
AEFI reports requiring hospitalization.
Of the 488 that were serious, 482 had to be hospitalized, had a hospital admission related to the report events.
Summary of outcomes and events for reports requiring hospitalization.
170 had recovered, 224 had not yet recovered.
52 had residual effects, 36 still unknown.
Medically important, adverse effect of special interest, medically important and special interest.
I wouldn't want to be one of those guys.
AEFI reports with fatal outcome.
Reports Of Death Temporarily Linked00:04:13
That's pretty low down.
That's on page 10.
The remaining six serious AEFIs were reports of death following receipt of COVID-19 vaccine that met the provincial surveillance definition.
Resident of healthcare institution with significant comorbidities.
The cause of death was not attributed to the vaccine.
Community dwelling senior, community dwellings senior, individual with VITT death recorded.
Okay, scroll down.
Individual with hypertension, community dwelling.
All right, so these people were sick with other things.
Reports of death temporarily associated with receipt of vaccine.
Temporally.
Sorry, I got that word wrong.
Temporally, that means around the time of.
Sorry, I read that too quickly.
Temporarily means for a short time.
Temporally means nearby in terms of time.
In Ontario, all deaths temporally associated with receipt of vaccines that have been reported to public health units are thoroughly investigated and reported to Public Health Ontario.
As of July 31, there are 29 reports of deaths temporally associated with receipt of COVID-19 vaccine that are currently classified as persons under investigation.
It's tough to say when someone dies, isn't it?
Doesn't seem so tough for them to all be lumped in as COVID deaths, including the euthanizations in Quebec.
Scroll down.
Geography.
Again, I'm more interested in the rates because, of course, the big city of Toronto is going to have more cases than the other places.
Technical notes, data, KV, it's all right, so we're done.
Well, I find that interesting.
I think I'll probably do a formal show on this next week.
I want to learn more about the fact that women are three times as likely to have a vaccine adverse incident as men.
Did you know that, Justin?
I didn't know that either.
That's scary because will it, I don't know what goes wrong when women take the vaccs.
Is it something to do with having babies or breastfeeding or something?
Like, does it hurt those bodily functions?
I don't know.
Like, what goes wrong with women?
Is it just more redness, more soreness, or is it something specifically feminine that happens?
I don't know.
It's interesting to me that the group that has the worst reaction demographically in terms of age are people in their 40s.
Not people in their 70s or 80s or 90s.
And I'm a little scared about that myocarditis, pericarditis business.
That's the inflammation of the heart or the heart lining.
And that's overwhelmingly young men.
That's like 3 to 1, 4 to 1 men, 4 to 1.
I wonder why that's not on the front page in the news every day.
I wonder why that's not the subject of breathless CBC reports every day.
I wonder why only COVID cases are.
Can you go to, I think we showed this yesterday, the COVID-19 stats for the country.
Because last I checked, which was yesterday, six out of 13 Canadian provinces and territories had not a single death from the virus or with the virus in the last week.
Not one.
In fact, in the entire country, going from memory, the grand total of people who died in an entire week, so second largest landmass in the world, 38 million people, count of deaths in the last seven days, is that 66, is that what that says?
So that's ticked up a little bit from yesterday.
Zero Count Areas00:08:46
So you can see areas with a zero count.
No one in Quebec, no one in Newfoundland, no one in the Atlantic, actually.
No one in any of the Atlantic promises.
No one in the far north other than one case in the Yukon.
Single digits in the prairies.
There's 45 in Ontario.
I'm curious about that because that seems anomalous.
But even in Ontario, look at the graph there on the right.
Just plunging, the numbers plunging.
Go to Alberta, hover over Alberta.
What happens when you do that?
Yeah, just absolutely plunging.
And that's interesting because, of course, they've had zero lockdown for over a month now.
And you would think that that would be spiking up.
I mean, they had the Calgary stampede and all.
It just isn't.
Thanks.
So did you learn anything?
learned something.
It's 1259 and normally I would say goodbye now.
But I want to show you a video from down under.
I want to show you someone who actually is fighting against the lockdown madness, not by calling himself a fake hero and pretending he won an illegal case that he lost, but someone who goes out there every day at personal risk to report the news and give a voice to others.
You may know him as our Rebbe Award-winning journalist Avi Yamini.
Here's his report from Melbourne, Australia.
Go from here.
Go away.
Go away.
We're flying.
Oh, why are you at?
Why are you touching me?
Why are you touching me, mate?
Wait.
What about the cameravan man?
What about the cameravan man?
What about why are you touching me?
Why is he assaulting me?
I want his name.
I want his name.
He assaulted me twice there.
There was a camera there from the media right behind him, no problem.
But me, he assaulted twice.
Officer, do you think it's alright that your fellow officer pushed me around like that?
I didn't see what happened, mate.
Mate, he just attacked me.
Do you find it funny that China is mocking us as an authoritarian state for kind of enforcement?
As you know, police are apological, all right?
I'm not going to make anything political.
We're here to keep the peace.
So why are they attacking me?
They do that in China.
I'm in China.
I didn't see what happened, mate.
Do you think it's alright they're pushing the media for a police officer to push media around?
Do you think that that's?
I can't comment.
I didn't see it.
This is why the Communist Party of China is mocking Australia for the enforcement of these COVID restrictions.
Because we have the audacity to talk about how China treats the free press when you saw what just happened.
Melbourne, Australia, sixth lockdown, because we only have one chance to get this right.
So let's target the media.
Inspector, one of your officers attacked me.
Do you think that that's all right?
Tuck in the media.
Do you think that explains why China is mocking our enforcement of COVID restrictions, Inspector?
He's too much of a fucking troll at the top of me.
If you're telling me that that little tap a protester gave a cop who was part of an armed group who instigated a fight is a dog act, what would you call an armed man using violence in his position of power to intimidate and remove media he doesn't like?
Don't worry, no need to answer that one.
I can tell you on behalf of all the viewers here, no matter what happens, you saw on the street tonight, everyone loves you, everyone appreciates the work that you do, that you come out even after what happened, didn't deter you, come out to protect me.
That's why people are at supportIV.com, that's where people don't have to actually fund my security fund.
You pay your work, you know, while so much of the state is struggling to get a job, you're getting some work.
I'm lucky like that.
Very lucky, sir.
And I won't give personal views while I'm on the job, but yeah, all I'll say is, look, I'm lucky to have a job and I feel for people who don't.
I've had periods where I've not had a job before and it's difficult.
I really do empathise and feel for them.
He said that he wasn't ever going to leave me, but he went.
Apparently he needs toilet.
If you go to toilet, you're going to need to go toilet, mate.
But you've stepped up.
Maybe we've just got to cut him.
That's it, mate.
That's it.
You know, you've got to do what you've got to do for the cause and support, you know, legends like yourself standing up for our rights and supporting all of us in this hard time.
It'd be a shame if I get shot right now.
I'll have to jump.
That's it.
I've took that responsibility.
It'd be good for a good cause.
Wow.
I wouldn't even get shot for me.
That video we started at the climax scene where the cops were pushing around.
Did you hear that one guy?
We're here to keep the peace.
Is that really what the cops were doing, keeping the peace?
Have the police been keeping the peace in Canada, Australia, the UK this past year and a half?
I don't think the peace was breached.
I don't think that peaceful anti-lockdown protests are a breach of the peace.
So when the cops come in and give tickets or push people around, I think in a technical way, they're the ones breaching the peace.
My show tonight is going to be about some of the psychology here, the feelings of isolation people have when they're locked down, the feeling of hopelessness, how those are tools by cults.
When you think about it, when someone's indoctrinated into a cult, a new belief system, they're separated from their friends and family and their routines, and they're isolated, and they're gaslit and they're terrorized.
A form of torture, a form of solitary confinement, and it gets to you.
Mental illness.
I can't imagine being a young person, and by that I mean a kid or teenager, having what should be one of the best times of your life ruined by this, when you're still figuring out how to be a person, figuring out how to interact with others the right way, the wrong way.
School cancelled, sports cancelled, masks all the time.
What can you say, what can't you say?
Now you have to take an experimental med, I call it experimental because it's not approved yet by the FDA.
The psychological damage.
And I wonder if that's by accident or if that's part of the strategy.
You know, lockdown is a public health prescription.
It's an experiment in itself.
No lockdown has ever been done before in history of healthy people.
Lockdown, until 18 months ago, was a term that was used in prisons.
When there was a riot or something, when there was some restlessness in the prison, the prisoner would be on lockdown.
I don't think I've ever heard the word lockdown used outside that context before.
Now all of us are treated like prisoners in lockdown.
You can't visit your family.
You can't have people over.
You can't visit, even at a funeral or wedding, you can't visit.
That's a medical prescription en masse, but it's a prescription for healthy people.
The prescription itself is the poison.
And what are they on in Melbourne now?
Lockdown number six or whatever?
So obviously it doesn't work.
So it's a prescription that's never been tried before.
It has deleterious effects.
There's huge adverse effects for lockdown that have never been properly studied before this was inflicted on everyone.
Prescription for Poison00:01:08
And we just accept it now.
And you're wondering why people are feeling isolated and agitated and they look to false prophets like Patrick King, that huckster.
I don't object to him fighting his case in court by himself.
Good for him.
But lying about his total loss in court and saying, I'm your path forward, guys.
Do what I did and you'll be free.
No, we won't, mate.
In fact, if anyone follows your rules, they'll just be fined and be shattered in their expectations.
You're a liar, mate.
You're a liar.
It's 108.
I got to go.
Thanks for watching the show today.
Sometimes we play a dog video after the show to feel a little bit better about things.
I find that these dog videos make me feel between 6% and 22% better.