Ezra Levant revisits the 1972 Summit Series, where Paul Henderson’s last-second goal on September 28th defied Soviet dominance, yet he remains snubbed by the Hockey Hall of Fame. Comparing Cold War-era freedom to 2022’s bank freezes, wiretaps, and vaccine mandates, Levant argues Canada’s liberties have eroded under "cancel culture" and state overreach. Ontario’s LCBO monopoly—profiting from $35M tax cuts in 2004 while shielding unionized staff earning $60K/year—exemplifies cronyism, with private retailers historically stricter on age verification. Meanwhile, dismissed warnings like Dr. Brieram Breidel’s on mRNA spike protein toxicity reveal systemic suppression of dissent, leaving Canadians with false choices and unanswered questions about safety and autonomy. [Automatically generated summary]
Any Canadian over the age of 55 knows what I speak of?
Please allow me to share my thoughts on the iconic summit series a half century later.
It's Wednesday, September 28th, 2022.
I'm David Menzies, and this is The Ezra Levent Show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
Where were you in 72?
Now, anyone over the age of 55 knows exactly what I'm talking about, for it was on this day, 50 years ago, that the most famous goal in Canadian hockey history was scored.
Now, this is where I was half a century ago, folks, sitting on the floor at Danesbury Public School.
Indeed, there I was with all of my classmates watching the game during school hours, no less, on a small 20-inch black and white television set.
Now, there are some things in life that you never forget, and the dying seconds of game 8 of the summit series, well, that was one of those things that I shall always remember.
And yet, two things stand out about the 72 Summit Series some 50 years later.
First of all, why is the hero of that series, Paul Henderson, still not in the Hockey Hall of Fame?
As well, we all know that the Summit series was far more than eight exhibition hockey games.
The narrative was us versus them, capitalism versus communism, democracy versus tyranny.
And yet here's the thing, folks.
A half century later, how democratic, how free are we in Canada of 2022 versus 1972?
Allow me to go back to the studio and provide some analysis.
Hard to imagine, but a half century has actually passed since that piece of vulcanized rubber left the stick of Paul Henderson and somehow found its way past Soviet Union goaltender Vladislav Trečak.
check out the video evidence which never ever gets old.
Wow, that was the final exclamation mark on a comeback for Canada that was so utterly improbable given how shockingly the series started on Canadian soil.
I say shockingly because this was supposed to be a cakewalk for Team Canada.
By this point in time, Canada had stopped sending teams to Olympic hockey tournaments due to the inherent unfairness.
Back then, professionals were ineligible to play in the Olympic Games, so amateurs had to be sent to represent Canada.
This rule did not apply to the Soviets, however.
Oh, sure, on paper, the Soviets were considered to be amateurs, but in reality, they were the cream of the Russian hockey crop.
And so it was that a wide-ranging belief kicked in, namely, if the very best Canadian players in the NHL ever took on the best that the Soviet Union had to offer, well, the Russians would be utterly annihilated.
Come 1972, that thesis was finally put to the test with a summit series featuring four games in various Canadian cities and four games in Moscow.
And just about every single sports writer back then predicted that the end result would be eight games to zero for Team Canada.
It looked as though that prophecy was going to come true.
In game one at the Montreal Forum, Canada scored two quick goals in the first period and the route was on.
Not quite.
The Soviets rebounded and when the dust settled, they had shockingly won the game seven to three.
Team Canada would win at Maple Leaf Gardens.
Game three ended in a 4-4 tie in Winnipeg.
And in Vancouver, the Russians again prevailed with a shocking victory leading to a cascade of boos and cat calls directed at Team Canada from its Canadian fans in the Pacific Coliseum.
And that led to perhaps one of the most famous interviews in Canadian hockey history.
Check it out.
As a team of outcasts head to their dressing room, one player remains on the ice.
Phil Esposito is given the microphone to address a wounded nation.
For the people across Canada, we tried.
We did our best.
And for the people that boo us, geez, I'm really, all of us guys are really disheartened and we're disillusioned and we're disappointed in some of the people.
We cannot believe the bad press we've got, the booing we've gotten in our own buildings.
And if the Russians boo their players, if the fans, if Russians boo their players, like some of the Canadian fans, I'm not saying all of them.
Some of them booed us.
Then I'll come back and I'll apologize to each one of the Canadians, but I don't think they will.
I'm really, really, I'm really disappointed.
I am completely disappointed.
I cannot believe it.
Some of our guys are really, really down on the dumps.
We know we're trying.
Hell, I mean, we're doing the best we can.
And they got a good team, and let's face facts.
But it doesn't mean that we're not giving it our 150% because we certainly are.
And I think, Phil, the disappointment is a natural thing because the whole thing was an unexpected thing.
We all live with the National Hockey League.
We have all been so proud over the years how great they are.
It's unexpected because the press said that we were so good.
Not one of us said.
No, no, no, this is the thing.
This is the thing that I'm on behalf of the fans, I must say that probably, since everything is relative, we know how good you people are.
The people didn't realize how good the Soviet team was.
And now we found out how good they are.
I think we can appreciate how good both teams are.
But I'll tell you, we love, I mean, every one of us guys, 35 guys that came out and played for Teeth Cannon, we did it because we love our country and not for any other reason.
No other reason.
They can throw the money for the pension fund out the window.
They can throw anything they want out the window.
We came because we love Canada.
And even though we play in the United States and we earn money in the United States, Canada is still our home.
And that's the only reason we come.
And I don't think it's fair that we should be booed.
As I was doing that, people were yelling and screaming at us, calling me names.
Communism is better, don't you admit it now, and all this other stuff.
This is Vancouver.
And guys out of the stands were yelling at communism is best and it's supreme.
That's when I really realized, man, we are in a war here.
This is no game.
This is war.
Wow.
Cue the goosebumps.
Canada, of course, would go on to prevail.
And you know, if you want to relive the 1972 summit series in text, I highly recommend Ken Dryden's new book, The Series.
What I remember, what it felt like, what it feels like now.
By the way, folks, please don't hold it against Mr. Dryden that a while back he was a liberal member of parliament.
Ken Dryden strikes me as a classical liberal as opposed to a Marxist liberal toiling for Prime Minister Blackface McGroper.
Now, here's the question given the Paul Henderson heroics, however.
Why is this man still inexplicably not in the Hockey Hall of Fame?
Lest we forget Paul Henderson wasn't a one-hit wonder in that series.
The Toronto Maple Leafs Forward also scored the winning goals in Game 6 and Game 7.
Talk about coming through in the clutch.
And yet, for reasons that remain murky, the powers that be at the Hockey Hall of Fame, the same hall that once inducted Gilbert Stein, are of the opinion that Paul Henderson isn't worthy.
Granted, Henderson's NHL and WHA career statistics from 1962 to 1981 are not Gretzky-like numbers, but who cares?
It was Henderson's unforgettable goal in 72 that literally had Canadians dancing in the streets.
To add insult to injury in recent years, the Hockey Hall of Fame has become yet another Canadian institution beholden to the tyranny of political correctness.
Female players are now being inducted into the hall.
And really, I don't mean to slam women's hockey, but come on.
How many people on the planet have seen the likes of Cami Granado or Angela James play hockey?
But that's the thing with the hall.
Gender equity now eclipses bona fide achievement.
As well, for reasons that, again, remain murky, while the powers that be at the Hockey Hall of Fame are of the opinion that Paul Henderson isn't worthy of inclusion inside the hall, there's a statue of Henderson scoring the winning Game 8 goal located outside the hall.
And get this, the guy he scored the goal on, that would be Vladislav Trečak.
He's in the Hockey Hall of Fame, but not Paul.
Incidentally, I spent a week at Trechak's goaltending school back in 1997.
I was able to speak with the old Russian gumper and was surprised to learn that his biggest hockey regret was not letting in Henderson's series winning goal in the last minute of play, but rather he remains bitter to this day that he was pulled in an Olympic game against the Americans in Lake Placid back in 1980.
Team USA, comprised of a bunch of college kids, would eventually go on to win the Olympic gold medal that year.
It truly, truly was a miracle on ice.
1980 to the Americans is what 1972 was to the Canadians.
In any event, I've asked various sports writers why Paul is not in the hall.
And speaking on the condition of anonymity, one theory is that Henderson made enemies in the sport when he became a born-again Christian shortly after the summit series.
Henderson's life was never the same after he scored that goal.
He would be mobbed by idolizing fans, and this apparently was a big factor in Paul Henderson re-embracing Christianity.
Now, if that is the case, this is downright shameful.
Most Canadians wouldn't care if Henderson had become a born-again Scientologist, because surely Henderson deserves to get into the hall for his on-ice accomplishments, not because his religious beliefs have allegedly upset Hall of Fame board members and some media types.
But then again, we do live in a nation in which certain people applaud those who incinerate Catholic churches.
Shameful.
But getting back to the statistics argument, one source tells me there are at least two dozen other players in the hall with inferior stats compared to Paul Henderson.
And again, nobody in the hall ever scored a goal that had Canadians from coast to coast to coast literally celebrating in the streets.
Don't you think the 50th anniversary of this extra special event would be a superb time to correct such an appalling injustice?
My second point, in the half century that has passed, let me ask you, dear viewers, do you feel freer in Canada today as opposed to our dominion of yesterday?
After all, we now live in a Canada wherein you can have your bank account frozen for supporting a freedom convoy.
We live in a Canada in which one can be secretly wiretapped by law enforcement for showing up at a freedom rally.
We live in a Canada in which medical apartheid is embraced when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccination shots.
We live in a Canada in which you can be canceled for espousing an opinion that ruffles the feathers of certain elitists.
Hey, I was only 10 years old back in 1972, but looking back, Canada then sure felt freer than Canada now.
Indeed, how disturbing is it that Canada today is actually embracing bits and pieces of the tyranny that defined the now defunct USSR?
Then again, we do have a prime minister who admires the basic dictatorship of China.
Bottom line, time to put Paul in the hall.
And let's put the Justin Trudeau liberals in the electoral penalty box for gross misconduct when the next federal election rolls by.
Maybe Justin loves communism, but I subscribe to the chant that was uttered by the 3,000 or so Canadian fans who attended those final four games in Moscow.
Namely, Nyet, Nyet, Soviet.
Well, folks, welcome to the People's Republic of Ontario under head honcho Doug Ford.
LCBO's Way or the Highway00:14:11
So many facets of this province need fixing, but Dougie is sending millions and millions of dollars over to the LCBO so that this virtual monopoly can have its stores look more like Martha Stewart designed them.
Give me a break.
I mean, it gives you cause to drink, but well, the LCBO recently delisted my favorite scotch, Black Bull.
And when it comes to the LCBO, it's their way.
or the highway.
And joining me now from True North is Andrew Lon.
He has some things to say about the LCBO and that astonishing puff piece that appeared in the National Post of all places.
First of all, Andrew, welcome to the Ezra Levant Show.
And what was your take on that story?
It came across like advertorial to me.
Yeah, it did.
And I mean, if it were a federal Crown Corporation, I'd be wondering if it was just auditioning for some of that like precious sweet bailout money or something.
But I don't know what they're benefiting from by sucking up to the Crown Corporation when it's Doug Ford running the show.
And, you know, it's interesting because I worked at the L CBO for many, many years because even though I hate it as a libertarian, when you're a university student and they're paying you like $25 an hour to be a cashier, it's a pretty sweet deal.
But the thing that I would point out is that there should not be an LCBO marketing department.
Any dime that's spent on doing anything to promote the LCBO is wasted money.
No one has another option.
Like I could literally just find a just random person who has no customer service mentality, put them in like the back of a truck with a few cases of liquor and you go up and pay them in cash to get your product and it wouldn't matter because that's the only option for the products that the L CBO carries for the most part.
Oh, you're so right, Andrew.
If I want to get a bottle of scotch, it quite literally is, as I said earlier, the LCBO's way or the highway, i.e., I get in my car and drive to Buffalo.
I'm sorry, that option's not available yet for me until Arrive can and all the restrictions leave.
But come October, I can start doing that again.
But Andrew, I want to address the biggest fallacy of all when it comes to the LCBO and other provincial liquor monopolies.
And it's this.
People go, it's such a cash cow for government.
Now, I can tell you back when I was freelancing, I believe it was the annual report for 2004 with a financial analyst.
I sat down and what we did, Andrew, that year is we removed the taxes collected by the LCBO, which the LCBO inexplicably categorizes as revenue.
It turned out they actually lost $35 million of memory serves for that year.
Can you imagine a government-run monopoly, liquor monopoly, actually losing millions of dollars?
What I'm getting at, Andrew, is if you were to privatize the system like they did in Alberta back in the 90s, the government is still collecting the taxes.
And that's their role, to regulate and tax, but not to warehouse and retail alcohol.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, it's like the Ontario government losing money on online gambling.
Like it takes a special kind of success as a government to find a way to lose money at the realm where literally the slogan is that the house always wins.
The house always wins unless it's the Ontario government running the only liquor retailer in town.
How do you lose money on that?
I think that, you know, it's fascinating to me.
And I remember a few years back when Ontario switched to the HST, the liquor sales tax was, if I'm not mistaken, 18.5% or 19%.
It was in there.
And when the HST went into effect, liquor got subsumed under it.
So the tax went down to 13%.
And that means that the price of alcohol at the LCBO should have dropped by 5%, 6%.
But oddly, it didn't.
The prices stayed exactly the same, even though the taxes went down by a considerable sum because the markup went up.
And LCBO justified this by saying that it was so that people would drink responsibly, as in a good deal is antithetical to people not just going on a binge anytime they go there.
And it strikes me that we're giving a lot of deference to this agency when we're not, as Ontario consumers or taxpayers, getting anything good for it.
No, that's a great observation.
And I think, Andrew, a very significant point in history for the LCBO and the province of Ontario, we go back to 1995, Mike Harris running for premier, he won majority and then a second majority.
And if you recall, my friend, one of the top three planks of Mike Harris's common sense revolution was to privatize the LCBO.
And what you saw then under the stewardship of Andy Brandt, who used to be with the progressive conservative government, they started to spend money like drunken sailors.
LCBO stores used to be very nondescript little buildings.
Suddenly you got these Taj Mahal liquor temples.
And I think, Andrew, the idea was to create a network of stranded assets, i.e., if the province ever went ahead with privatization, as a private enterprise, you couldn't viably operate some of these stores in a competitive system.
It's too many millions of dollars invested in the store and the overhead.
So it's almost as though the fix was in in terms of polluting the waters, forever allowing the province to go through a privatization.
What would you say to that, sir?
I would agree.
And I'd say the big elephant in the room there is staffing as well.
No private operator would ever pay LCBO staff, who many of them are very kind, very capable, and very helpful, but no one would ever pay them $50,000, $60,000 a year to be cashiers.
And I'm not denigrating that.
It's a job and it's a good, honest job.
But that is not what the market would bear under any other circumstances.
So you're right that an investor would look at this and head for the hills, which is why the only, the only demographic that is opposed to privatization seems to be big labor, big labor and government, I guess.
But I'm going to view them as being one and the same right now.
No one, this isn't even a left-right issue, liberal conservative, because all of them can enjoy the splendor that is holding up a glass of Sangria or having a martini or whatever.
And it's baffling to me that no government, even the most bootstrappy free marketeer conservative governments will go near this.
It is incredible.
And I think one of the reasons, Andrew, especially if you look at the Sunshine list, you see so many cronies making high six figures, working at the LCBO, working at the OLG.
These are kind of like elephants' graveyards for loyal politicos to go to and get a nice, comfy job.
But Andrew, what we have to address when you step back and you say, we compare, you know, Canada to the United States, why do we have provincial liquor monopolies?
Why do we have provincial lottery monopolies?
And with both entities, it comes down to this, Andrew, as you well know, social responsibility.
See, if we were to allow potentially harmful products or money-draining products like lottery tickets, if we left that up to the private sector, well, the next thing you know, you have 15-year-olds drinking Colt 45 in the parking lot.
All the private sector cares about is making money.
We at government, you can trust us.
And yet, you know, from 10 years ago, Andrew, we did that experiment when I was at Sun News.
We sent a 15-year-old clad in a burqa to buy hard liquor to three stores.
No problem.
And I'll give you a quick anecdote: 1986, I'm 23.
I was working in Alberta at the time, visiting Southern California, had a driver's license, had my ID, and I wanted to buy for my friend for putting me up for a few days a case of Budweiser.
I went to one, two, three, finally the fourth store before somebody would serve me.
And it was explained to me: the guy would say, Look, you have out-of-state ID, even out of country.
So we're not really allowed to accept that.
And I believe that you're 23, that you're legal to drink.
But if you're not, and if this is part of a sting, I face a fine.
I think the number was either $10,000 or $50,000.
If it happens again, I lose my liquor license.
Therefore, I lose my livelihood.
So sorry for the margin I'm making on a case of beer.
It's not worth it.
So, Andrew, I'm telling you this story because that proves the private retailers are really working under social responsibility, given the penalties.
The three L CBO units that I went to with the 15-year-old, none of them were punished.
Nobody was suspended.
Nobody was fined.
What do you make of this fallacy that the government is socially responsible?
Well, there was actually a study in Ontario, it would have been 12, 13 years ago now, where someone did organize that sting and they went to variety stores to buy cigarettes, beer stores to buy beer, and L CBOs to buy some product from the L CBO.
And they found that the highest performing as far as asking for ID and refusing when ID wasn't available was the group of variety stores they went to.
The second highest performing was the beer store.
The worst was the L CBO.
And while individual L CBO employees may be reprimanded if they don't do the ID checks for a convenience store, you're right.
They could lose their entire license.
And I've seen variety stores that have to hold up a very embarrassing sign on their door or on their rack for the cigarette saying, We are not allowed to sell cigarettes for X number of weeks because we were caught selling to a minor.
So there is a huge, huge, huge downside if one of those privately owned businesses runs afoul of a law, which, like it or not, is the law in place right now for purchasing certain substances.
No one's going to shut an L CBO down.
In fact, even when every other business in Ontario was shut down, the L CBO got to stay open.
100%.
And you know, Andrew, you are so right.
I mean, to personalize this, I live in Richmond Hill at the corner of Bayview and Major Mac a couple of years ago.
There was a convenience store.
He was the target of one of those things.
And what do they do is they get kids that look older than they are.
It's very malicious, I think.
Sells a pack of cigarettes, loses the right to sell tobacco.
Now that store is bankrupt.
It's gone.
And literally, two kilometers down the road was one of those LCBO stores that sold that 15-year-old the hard liquor.
No harm done.
You know, Andrew, there's so many other angles.
You know, I love the idea of the marketing.
Why are you marketing?
Why are you giving air miles or aeroplane miles now?
Again, what part of monopoly do you not understand?
Yeah, I mean, it's funny because I get my Aeroplan miles from Air Canada, which is Air Canada's way of saying, you know, we really want you to book with us instead of WestJet.
So we're going to give you these things.
The LCBO is saying, you know, we'd really rather you, well, never mind.
Just have some Aeroplan miles.
Yeah.
And again, it's so unnecessary.
And here's the hypocrisy.
Once upon a time, you could go into shoppers' drug mart and on a prescription sale, Andrew, get Optima points.
And the government outlawed that, right?
Saying that was some kind of ethical breach.
But you're giving Aeroplan or Air Miles to liquor purchases.
Like what's the difference here?
I guess the final question.
I mean, billboard campaigns, too.
I've seen them on The Gardener off the road.
It's like, that's expensive real estate.
It's like, you're either trying to woo me away from your non-existent competitor or you're just trying to convince me to drink in the first place, which seems to violate the LCBO's social responsibility mandate.
Bingo.
It is sucking and blowing at the same time.
And we can, if you look at the LCBO's magazine, Food and Drink, you could do arm curls with that.
And yet we're in an age where print is a sunset industry.
Why or why is Food and Drink so successful?
And by the way, how completely unethical it is for the LCBO to be in the publishing business?
They have no Bailey work there.
They're in the alcohol business.
Well, I can tell you, Andrew, what the sales reps do allegedly is they go to advertisers, they go to suppliers, and they say, you know, our holiday issue of food and drink is coming up.
And I'm sure you would like to support us, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Basically, the underlying thing is you don't want to lose your listing.
You don't want to go to a part of the store where there's not a lot of visibility and suddenly, wow, what a great way to sell ads and pad up that magazine.
It is despicable.
Yeah.
And again, it's not to say that I have any issue with the content of the magazine.
It's quite a good magazine.
But if it is something that can stand on its own two legs and be profitable from advertising, then let's let a number of private publishers who I'm sure would absolutely love the opportunity to run a profitable title take it over.
If it's not profitable, well, why does it exist at all?
What benefit does it provide the taxpayers of Ontario who are the shareholders of the liquor control board of Ontario?
Yeah, absolutely.
I call it the liquor corruption bureaucracy of Ontario, by the way, Andrew.
Job One: Delist Profitless Products00:04:36
One last question.
The French translation, I think.
One last question, Andrew.
Let's say you're Premier Andrew Lawton of Ontario, or at least the Finance Minister of Ontario.
What do you do when it comes to this entity?
Like you demonstrated, you say you're socially responsible, so we have, and that means translation, we limit liquor sales, yet you run contests, you advertise, you give away Aeroplan miles to increase liquor sales.
This is a cat.
It doesn't make sense to exist in the first place.
What would you do, sir?
So I think the first step, like I mentioned, is eliminate any line item in the budget that is unnecessary in a monopoly.
So overnight, I'd slash the entire marketing department, cut every contract with outside marketing vendors.
That means food and drink.
That means Aeroplan.
That means advertising, all of it.
The next thing I would do is delist any product that you can buy in a private store.
So some private retailers are able to sell beer and wine like grocery stores and some variety stores.
If it's in one of those, you don't need it at the LCBO.
And third, I would put it up on the auction block immediately.
Thank you for option number three.
Get me aboard that government of yours in our fantasy land, Andrew.
You sound like you've got the I'm going to bump them all down.
Number one, appoint David Menzies CEO and then do the rest with your assistance at the helm.
Well, you know, Andrew, if I'm appointed CEO, then I can give myself back that bottle of Glenn Farklis 105.
And folks, it's the most oft-asked question.
Did you get your bottle?
The answer is no.
But next week, we're going ahead with a small claims action.
Can you imagine?
It's a $115 bottle of scotch and it costs $100 to file the case.
But there's your social responsibility.
These are bullies.
These are bureaucrats that think they can make up the law as they go along.
Andrew, what a pleasure.
Like I said, I'd invite you out to have a drink with you with my favorite Scotch Black Bull, but the LCBO, for whatever reason, they delisted that, my friend.
So maybe we'll drink Perrier or something one day.
Well, you better make sure when I do appoint you CEO, you better make sure to get a good severance negotiated because hopefully you'll be out of a job in a month when the whole thing goes.
Oh, Andrew, that's job one.
That's job one indeed.
Andrew Lawn, True North, what a pleasure.
Thank you so much, my friend.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Andrew.
And folks, more of the Ezra Levent show to come right after this.
Well, folks, just tons of response from Ezra Levent's monologue last night regarding how we must never forget what governments, bureaucrats, and even members of law enforcement did to us during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jessica's Fluid Art writes, I will never forget how I was forced to stand outside in minus 30 while my husband buried his last grandparent alone.
I will never forget the family who disinvited me to Christmas and other family events.
I will never forget the leaders who debated tolerating me taking up space.
You know, I am so sorry for your loss.
I am so sorry you endured all those indignities.
And that is the point, folks, that Ezra was making last night.
Let us never forget how we lost so many rights, liberties, and freedoms, all in the name of science that was more weird science or political science as opposed to medical science.
M. M Shecky writes, they're still pushing their jabs vigorously.
When a new booster is available, there'll still be lines of mass geniuses gladly rolling up their sleeves.
Oh, no, you're so right.
And one of the most despicable examples was that City of Toronto campaign ad campaign that was, that was recently pulled.
It is atrocious.
My colleague Tamara Ugalini has an item on this, basically showing how a child unvaccinated has to stay inside and watch her friends play outside because, you see, she's unclean.
Spike Protein Circulation Risk00:03:35
She's not jabbed.
How despicable.
And of course, this being a city hall production, are any heads going to roll for this indignity?
Of course not.
Unbelievable.
Well, folks, thank you so much for tuning in.
The big boss man, Ezra Levant, he'll be back tomorrow.
In the meantime, as always, stay sane.
For Rebel News, I'm Tamara Ugolini here to show you a recent study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, that's also called JAMA, that found that COVID-19 mRNA does not stay at the injection site as we've been previously reassured.
Titled Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk, the pediatrics division of JAMA tweeted that causation is warranted regarding breastfeeding infants younger than six months of age in the first two days after maternal COVID-19 vaccination.
Because as it turns out, and after careful review, the researchers found trace amounts of BNT162B2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the expressed breast milk of nursing mothers.
Immunologist and virologist Dr. Brieram Breidel tried to alert the public to this potential on May 27th, 2021, during a brief radio interview with Alex Pearson.
What has been discovered by a scientific community is the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system if it gets into circulation.
Indeed, if you inject the purified spike protein into the blood of research animals, they get all kinds of damage to the cardiovascular system and it can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.
And then also a publication that was just accepted for a scientific paper just accepted for publication that backs this up looked at 13 young healthcare workers that had received the Moderna vaccine, which is the other messenger RNA-based vaccine we have in Canada.
And they confirmed this.
They found the spike protein in circulation, so in the blood of 11 of those 13 healthcare workers that had received the vaccine.
What this means is, so we have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein.
It is a toxin.
It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.
For speaking out with safety concerns, Dr. Breidel was rigorously fact-checked, smeared by an anonymous imposter, and repeatedly ridiculed on social media platforms, while mainstream media and employers alike amplified the voice of self-proclaimed experts.
Like that of Dr. Tara Moriarty, who is a dental professor at the University of Toronto and principal investigator at the Moriarty Lab, an infectious disease research lab.
She's also the co-founder of COVID-19 Resources Canada, CanCovid, and hashtag science up first, and oddly is active in health misinformation responses and research.
In September of 2021, Moriarty appears to quell the hesitancy of union workers in a QP, which is Canada's largest union of public employees, in a vaccine policy town hall that undoubtedly saw the termination of employees who did not comply.
It's actually hard to get it to stick around for long enough to get an immune response, and it probably only lasts in our bodies for about two days, maximum two days, and then it starts disappearing quite quickly.
Pregnant Women's Vaccine Risks00:03:01
And because of the way it's picked up, it doesn't get carried around the body.
It's in the location where it's injected.
This is the direct advice of so-called experts to employers, employees, and the general public alike that forced pregnant and breastfeeding women to choose between the health and wellness of their babies or to remain gainfully employed so that they could provide for those same babies based on advice that is being shown in real time to be faulty and based on misinformation.
It's an impossible choice that no one should ever be forced or coerced to make.
To learn more about how Rebel News has been shedding light on this and helping these mothers who chose the health and wellness of their babies over the uncertainty of this biological product, go to saveourmoms.ca.
And one quick look at the manufacturer's own product monograph, that's the package insert, would have informed anyone questioning the safety and efficacy of these products to slow down and wait for more data.
So we've got the monograph, and the monograph, for those of you who don't know, is a little piece of paper that's inside the drug vial when you leave the pharmacy.
Most people throw it away.
It's a big document.
We reproduce that in our report verbatim.
We didn't change it.
And what we were after there was, you know, everything you do in life has risk associated with it.
So we wanted to see what Pfizer knew or didn't know and what they told the government about their drug concerning pregnancies.
And we wanted to examine what the risk to a pregnant woman was of actually contracting the disease and dying of it.
Fertility.
It is unknown whether comernity, comerdity is Pfizer's name for their vaccine, has an impact on fertility.
Pregnant women, the safety and efficacy of comerdity in pregnant women has not been established.
It is unknown whether comerdity is excreted in human milk.
Pediatrics, the safety and efficacy of comerdity in children under five has not been established.
They didn't look at toxicity.
The carcinogenity, in other words, can it cause cancer?
Carcinogenic potential was not assessed.
This is what Pfizer said.
And then if you looked at what the province of Manitoba were telling pregnant women, they were saying it was safe.
They were monitoring it.
The vaccines have been used for 50 years and they were one of the greatest things that ever occurred in medicine.
And don't be worried.
We've done the greatest bit of science on this and it's safe and we're monitoring you.
We've got you.
We've got your back is what they said.
Because this was an impossible choice based on faulty data and a horrific imposition that was thrust onto hardworking, principled people based on this faulty product that was amplified by misled, at best, experts.
And I think that the truth will continue to prevail.