Tamara Ugolini examines Big Pharma’s "Big Catch-Up"—a May 2023 WHO-UNICEF-Gavi-Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation push to restore childhood vaccination rates, despite COVID no longer being a global emergency. Dr. Byram Bridle reveals his 2021 warnings about Pfizer’s mRNA biodistribution were silenced, yet later studies confirmed spike protein toxicity in organs like the heart. Canada’s new BC medical order (May 1) threatens six-month jail terms or $200K fines for "misinformation," while federal-funded media avoids debate, raising concerns over truth policing and selective censorship. The episode critiques fear-driven policies, missed vaccine-preventable deaths, and systemic suppression of dissent, urging accountability in public health decisions. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, how the pharmaceutical lobby is working to promote the big catch-up to mass vaccinate children who missed their routine childhood vaccine throughout the COVID hysteria.
And then an immunological expert joins us to discuss misinformation in the post-COVID era.
Today is Tuesday, May the 9th, and I'm Tamara Ugolini, guest hosting the Ezra Levant Show.
You may have heard that the pharmaceutical lobby and their public and private partners have joined forces to call for what is being referred to as the Big Ketchup.
An announcement from the pharma-centric World Health Organization reads, WHO, UNICEF, Gavi, that's the Global Alliance for Vaccines, now the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which are basically one in the same,
along with Immunization Agenda 2030 and many other global and national health partners, are today joining forces to call for the Big Catch-Up, a targeted global effort to boost vaccination among children following declines driven by the COVID-19 pandemic.
This World Immunization Week, WHO is highlighting the big catch-up, our year-long effort with countries and partners to get immunization back on track.
Our focus is on catching up the millions of children who missed out on life-saving vaccines during the pandemic, like the pneumonia, measles, and HPV vaccines.
By restoring lost immunization progress to at least pre-pandemic levels, we can secure healthier futures for our children.
It's also urgent we strengthen health systems so they can deliver vital services such as immunization to keep outbreaks at bay.
From new parents to presidents and prime ministers, we all have a role to play in promoting vaccination to protect the adult in every child and the future of every adult.
Now, of course, this is all a direct result of the all COVID or nothing public health hysteria that was experienced by the world as public health bureaucrats took the reins from elected political officials and led once free and democratic nations down a delirious and devastating path that prioritized nonsensical,
knee-jerk, hysterical reactions over evidence-based science and medicine, completely disregarding previously well-established pandemic response plans.
Have a listen to the former head of Alberta's emergency management agency, Colonel David Redman, recap his testimony on this very topic at the National Citizens Inquiry a few weeks ago.
Emergency management is how we address all emergencies in our country.
Every province and territory has an EMO, an emergency management organization.
And during this pandemic, they were sidelined.
We did that at our peril because we put the wrong people in charge, people that weren't inexperienced, that should have realized that the response in a pandemic is for all of society, not to protect the medical system.
And so in my opinion, I believe that the process that is known, developed, and used for every emergency was completely thrown away.
Our pre-written pandemic plans, and 13 out of 13 provinces and territories had one, were completely ignored.
The Government of Canada's plan was completely ignored.
So as a country, we took all our lessons learned, both in emergency management and in public health, and we threw them away.
You have talked about devastating costs to this country.
What can the average Canadian do to I guess we can't mitigate it ourselves, but what are the next steps for us?
Canadians need to hold their governments accountable.
They need to hold their government, their medical officers of health.
They need to hold the media.
They need to hold our courts accountable.
We need to say to the four major institutions that are pillars of our society, you've failed.
And we need to say it loud and clear if they're not willing to do it themselves.
And I had always hoped that there would be a premier brave enough to step back and say using non-pharmaceutical interventions or lockdowns is wrong.
They cause far more harm than good, and yet none have.
And until the point in time that we get a premier to lead the other premiers out of this morass, it obviously has to be the citizens.
So citizens have to say enough, you did it wrong.
Here's why you did it wrong, and we're not doing this again.
One last question.
You talked about the fact that you never use fear in a pandemic, in an emergency period.
What can Canadians do to counter that, to counter their own fear, maybe to take responsibility for the actions that they've taken because of that fear?
Fear is a terrible, double-sided sword.
You can get people to comply, but what you do is irrevocable damage.
So people have to go back, consider that what we've done is wrong, why it's wrong, and then every Canadian manages risk in their own way, but what they have to do is realize that fear is never an appropriate response.
Confidence is always the response.
Confidence that they can get through it, that their family can get through it, that their community can get through it if they work together.
Sharp Decline In Infant Deaths00:04:31
And what we've seen during this pandemic is that it was everyone for themselves.
And so individuals have to take accountability for the fear they've caused and to help others overcome that fear.
Instead, through government-sanctioned threats and things like police state intimidation tactics, they closed the gyms, the schools, they banned social interaction and terrified the masses from seeking medical care, calling them selfish for not staying home and saving lives, because any small accident or bone break would overburden a medical system that was bracing for a surge of COVID-19 patients based on Chinese propaganda videos that never came to fruition here.
And meanwhile, being cooped up indoors was the largest risk factor for close contact droplet spread.
And because of these hysterical measures, the general public stopped seeking medical care.
Most clinics were closed to in-person visits anyway.
And as per this report prepared by a United States nonprofit organization focused on health awareness and education called Health Choice, they found that child and infant deaths were at an all-time low.
An odd finding when you consider that at that time, we were to be facing a novel pathogen of unknown proportions that required harshly draconian civil liberty and morality-crushing efforts to quell.
The report was titled Lessons from the Lockdown, Why Are So Many Fewer Children Dying, and was published in June of 2020.
All of the data that they break down comes directly from the United States Centers for Disease Control, or the CDC, namely the National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System.
I'd like to point out figure 14 on page 13 of the 20-page report.
It shows deaths for those under the age of 18 year over year from 2014 in orange to 2020 in brown.
You can clearly see the sharp decline in deaths of that age group on this graph.
And below the graph, it reads.
But the pandemic experience has brought on a surprising effect on this expected death rate among children.
Starting in early March, that's 2020, expected deaths began a sharp decline from an expected level of around 700 deaths per week to well under 500 by mid-April and throughout May.
As untimely deaths spiked among the elderly in Manhattan nursing homes and in similar settings all over the country, including here in Canada, something mysterious was saving the lives of children.
As springtime in America came, along with massive disruptions in family life amid near-universal lockdowns, roughly 30% fewer children died.
The next graph, Figure 15, breaks deaths down of those under the age of 18 even further and makes a shocking discovery.
They found that week over week from February 1st to May 16th, 2020, there was an exceedingly sharp decline in infants under the age of one dying during the first few months of the pandemic.
Under the graph, it reads.
Virtually the entire change came from infants.
Somehow, the changing pattern of American life during the lockdowns has been saving the lives of hundreds of infants, over 200 per week.
That is not a small number.
When trying to assess causation, here is what the report states on page 17.
One very clear change that has received publicity in the public is that public health officials are bemoaning the sharp decline in infant vaccinations as parents are not taking their infants into pediatric offices for their regular well-baby checks.
In the May 15th issue of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report, a group of authors from the CDC and Kaiser Permanente reported a sharp decline in provider orders for vaccines, as well as a decline in pediatric vaccine doses administered.
These declines began in early March around the time infant deaths began declining.
And now we fast track to 2023 and just last week on May the 5th, the World Health Organization declared that COVID is an ongoing health issue that apparently no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern.
Polio Resurgence Alert00:04:59
And yes, that's according to their own website.
And those most pivotal in leading the way throughout the last three years, like CDC Director Rochelle Walinski, announced her resignation, oddly, on the very same day.
Ostensibly, it appears that this means that we need to switch from the incessant COVID-19 propaganda and the behavioral nudges shoving 100% compliance with novel mRNA injections down our throats at every turn, including on highway signs, newsrooms, and radio shows across the country.
Now we need to pivot into this big catch up.
Take, for instance, Chelsea Clinton, the vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, whose biography states that she also serves as the vice chair of the Clinton Health Access Initiative and uses her platform to increase awareness around issues such as vaccine hesitancy, childhood obesity, and health equity.
Chelsea recently presented at Fortune's brainstorm health conference titled Venturing Through the Unknown about how she wants to see continued pandemic emergency powers and appears completely unaware as to why confidence and trust in institutions like public health is at an all-time low.
I do think though, you know, when you ask about the role of public-private partnerships kind of after the last few years, I think we spend so much time, understandably, focused on the mRNA vaccines and technologies.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the really unfortunate, to try to use a not too judgmental word, kind of rise in not only kind of vaccine hesitancy and questioning, but outright kind of rejection of vaccines and of kind of science and the scientific kind of process and also too often on our scientists, our epidemiologists, our frontline healthcare workers.
And so I do think we need to have a much more robust conversation and sense of urgency because I think we are less prepared today than we were arguably in January of 2020, partly because of the kind of lack of trust and confidence in not only our scientists, but in science itself and certainly in the public health professionals.
And so I think we need kind of the public sector to hopefully stop doing things like stripping away public health emergency powers from state public health agencies.
But we also need the private sector to help, candidly, like do a better job of helping explain kind of the science that you are already commercializing and bringing to market, but also what you're working on and help us kind of in the broader conversation not be uncomfortable with the discomfort of uncertainty.
And so I do think we need really good ideas for how best to do that because we all deserve to hopefully not be as unprepared as I worry we are at the moment.
And the last thing I'll say is a new effort that we're a part of is the new initiative launched by the World Health Organization last week to try to catch kids up on their routine immunizations.
In 2021 alone, more than 25 million kids under the age of one missed at least one routine immunization.
And so we're working with WHO and the Gates Foundation and others to hopefully have the largest kind of childhood immunization effort ever over the next 18 months to catch as many kids up as possible because no one should die of polio or measles or pneumonia, including in this country where we also need people to be vaccinating their kids.
This master plan of the big catch-up is slated to last 18 months as per the Fortune article.
And all of these organizations would have you believe that measles and polio have made a resurgence as a result of low childhood vaccination uptake rates.
But according to the CDC itself, measles cases in 2023 are at an all-time low.
Just 10 cases reported thus far for 2023 and 121 cases last year in 2022 compared to 49 in 2021, 13 cases in 2020, but then a whopping 1,274 in 2019.
And in terms of polio, well, we know that the vaccine strain of the virus circulates in North America, as per again, the CDC.
So I guess you better get vaccinated to protect yourself against the infectious vaccine-derived virus.
Why does it appear that big pharma-funded public health institutions are the ones actually putting children's health at risk?
Wouldn't now be an appropriate time to look at child deaths, why they were at an all-time low, and if they remained that way, and what mechanisms may be at play for it, instead of pushing more big pharma and Pfizer profiteering, trying to mass inject everyone and their unborn baby.
Spike Protein Biodistribution Concerns00:05:03
Stay tuned as we dive into public health messaging and the government invented war on misinformation next.
All right, now joining me is Dr. Byram Bridle.
He's a virologist, immunologist, and vaccinologist who, for expressing simple concerns over biodistribution data that he discovered through access to information requests and simply trying to express those concerns and share those novel scientific findings, has been deemed this spreader of myths and disinformation.
And Dr. Breidel, you have been slandered, you've been smeared, you've had your career canceled and have faced ad hominem attacks.
And the list really goes on and on at how you have been personally, there's been a personal vendetta launched against you by the people who say to be this holy grail of truth and the science, as we've seen.
And now it's basically been two years to the date since May of 2021 when your clip first went viral expressing this biodistribution data, which essentially showed that the novel mRNA injections don't stay in the shoulder as was previously espoused by the quote-unquote experts, and rather it was showing to distribute throughout the body and actually accumulate in certain parts of the body and certain organs more than others.
Where are you now after two years of this idea that just sharing concerns and questioning the narrative is deemed as diss and misinformation?
Yeah.
So first of all, thanks for having me, Tamara.
Yeah, when I look back on everything that's happened over the last two years, it's, you know, I'm just flabbergasted still.
You know, here we sit almost two years, like you said, since I just did my job as an academic faculty member and, you know, tried to make the science accessible to the public and indicated that these lipid nanoparticles that are being used to deliver these mRNAs, right?
This technology we're calling vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines.
You know, I showed people the data, the Pfizer's own data that they had submitted to the Japanese government's health regulatory agency, indicating these went through all throughout the body.
Now, I'd say two years later, this phenomenon is well accepted in the scientific literature.
It's published all over the place.
In fact, interestingly, there was a paper just published very recently, which actually highlighted in that interview that I gave, I was only able to get to cover one, one of many potential mechanisms of harm that I saw coming from this information.
But even that one, and that was one of my sort of the weaker arguments and one of my lesser concerns.
But at the time when I gave that interview, I linked to this distribution, systemic biodistribution, the concern that if the spike proteins were to get systemically distributed, that could be quite dangerous because the spike protein, I said it at the time, and boy, I got in a lot of trouble for referring to it as a toxin.
But I hear it referred to as a toxin all the time now.
We're now up to about 14 or 15 different known potential mechanisms of harm that the spike protein can mediate in various parts of the body.
And people attacked me at the time because they thought my major concern was about free, free circulating spike in the blood.
My major concern at the time was actually that these things are designed, these lipid nanoparticles are designed to fuse with cells and get our cells to show the protein on the surface.
And that would make them a target. of the immune response, right?
The antibodies and T cells that then get induced.
And so we'd actually be killing off our own cells that way.
But this is the point.
A paper was just recently published showing that there was no question.
They were studying vaccine-induced cases of myocarditis.
And they were finding the spike protein present in the heart tissue of these people that were suffering, you know, severe heart inflammation after the vaccine.
They ruled out natural infection by looking for other components of the virus, right?
If there were other components other than spike protein, you would suspect natural infection.
But if it's only the spike protein and none of the other parts of the virus, then you know it's the vaccine.
And at the end of this paper, right, they highlight that the myocarditis, you know, they expressed it as disconcertingly high levels, high concentrations of the spike protein, free-floating in the blood, in circulation.
And they believe that this is the mechanism, probably the major mechanism of harm when it comes to myocarditis.
Backfire Effect Debunked00:15:35
So that is precisely what I said almost two years ago.
It was so unpopular then.
Now people are publishing papers and actually building up their CVs and helping get research funding for saying what I said two years ago.
And my life was turned into a living hell, if I'm honest with you.
I'm still, you asked me where I am almost two years later.
Well, I'm literally, right now I'm sitting on the back deck of my house.
So I'm not exactly where I was shortly after I made that announcement because I've been banished to the basement of my house for almost two years.
I have not been, the administration of my university has not allowed me back to my office or my laboratory to be able to properly do my job for almost two years now.
And so I've been working in this tiny little, I don't know, eight foot by 10 foot office in my basement.
So I'm almost there, but on a great day like this, I decided rather than being in my dark, dingy basement, I'd come out here.
But so I'm literally in the same place, literally working from my home, banished to my home for almost two years as an academic faculty member because I told the truth when apparently most of the world didn't want to hear it.
And now it's well accepted.
You know, who knew that somebody with genuine deep expertise in an area would actually be correct in the early stages, actually be able to look at the data that was available at the time and see where it was going?
Well, and as we see that this is validated and your concerns come to fruition and the science really starts to back it up, because there's a lag there in the science and the rollout of something that is novel and experimental, you need to wait for that real world data to start moving in to discern and decide the safety and things like this.
And as your concerns from two years ago remain to be validated, why aren't we seeing more of a robust discussion about that?
And why are you still facing this slandering and smearing of your character and your simple questions?
Yeah, so that's a question I've been pondering now for almost two years.
All I can really comment on with great confidence is the science.
And I can tell you with confidence that when it comes to COVID-19 and our COVID-19 policies, we have not been following the science for a very, very long time.
And we never had the scientific backing for any of the draconian mandates that were put in place.
So that leaves me with wondering.
So if it's not the science that we're following, why are we doing these things?
And I honestly don't know, Tamara.
That's a place where, you know, I'd be getting outside of my expertise.
I can certainly express personal opinions because we're not following the science.
I guess put it this way.
I start worrying, are there more nefarious reasons?
I don't know, or is it sheer incompetence?
To me, if we're not following the science, it's got to be one of those other two.
And what I can also share with you is even though there's an avalanche of data now showing that there was good reason to be very concerned about the COVID science as it was being portrayed by our politicians and public health officials, I can also say that for some reason they do not want to recognize that those that they have been incessantly attacking for the two years were right.
They don't want to recognize this.
I can tell you actually, the common strategy still utilized against me is people will ignore the avalanche of data that has come out and they simply look back and they will refer to the numerous fact checks, for example, that were that were put out there about me.
I also had an open letter that was written by, I think it was signed by something like 83 or 88, somewhere around that ballpark of my colleagues at my university, where they claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about when I gave that interview, right?
And now it's very clear, but nobody has apologized.
And instead, like I said, the strategy seems to be pointing to the fact checks at the time.
Look, people identified that this guy did not know what he was talking about way back there, two years ago.
And we're going to ignore all the current facts that show he was right, right?
We have all this documentation that apparently seems to prove that he didn't know what he was talking about, and we'll leave it at that.
And we will ignore the current evidence.
So I'm not sure, but one thing that's interesting, Tamara, you probably noticed the Liberal caucus recently held a three-day meeting.
It was sort of very quietly planned and done.
And information has been coming out about this, right?
And one of the things that they apparently voted in favor of was the idea of potentially putting into policy again mechanisms that would force every Canadian that they missed to receive these COVID-19 vaccines, right?
They're talking about the potential to close down our borders again, to travel, our interprovincial borders, and making businesses, especially non-essential businesses, force people to show vaccine passports if they're going to access the businesses and so on.
We are in Canada for some reason, we are stepping back.
It's almost as though we want to go back to two years ago, back to 2021, and relive it all over again.
And it just makes no sense.
I mean, especially in the context, I mean, you hear about that, what our government is proposing right now.
And this is in the context of the World Health Organization just declaring the pandemic over.
So I honestly don't know.
But what I do know is for those of us who really know what we're talking about, these terms misinformation and disinformation are being thrown around very freely.
And it's being used to label individuals who simply had differences of opinion that were based on scientific truth.
And you've tried to reach out and perhaps even host a debate against some of these individuals who, again, say that they're the purveyors of the truth and the science.
And what has been the culmination there of those efforts?
Yeah, okay.
So, tomorrow, that's very interesting.
So, initially, when all this happened, one of the strategies, if you're being bullied, if you're being harassed, if you're being defamed, One of the natural strategies is to avoid people, to avoid people who hate you, right?
Avoid people who are hurting you.
And so my initial response was to, for all those accusing me of disseminating misinformation, I tried to engage in discussions, conversations with them.
Not one person would.
In fact, a friend of mine that I made over the past three years, right, even offered people up to $2 million to have a public discussion with me, to prove that they were so confident that I was conveying misinformation to prove it in public.
And people wouldn't even adopt that.
But you know what?
I thought, fine, you know, they claim to be the experts when it comes to misinformation.
And what they kept telling us tomorrow was they aren't going to engage in public discussions with people who.
And again, what your listeners have to understand is it's not just that I wasn't expressing my personal opinions on things, right?
Individuals like myself, we were actually holding up the peer-reviewed scientific papers and we were making that science accessible to the public.
That's all we were doing.
We were just messengers of what the published peer-reviewed science was saying, and yet we were being accused of conveying misinformation.
And there has been this overriding concept shared with the public, which says that if somebody is disseminating misinformation and one were to engage in a public discussion with them, right, the argument goes that that would give the appearance of a platform to legitimize the misinformation.
And by doing that publicly, it would risk disseminating the misinformation even further.
And so, you know, if that's the argument, and if that's what their science says, then at the end of the day, we have to kind of accept, okay, they're not going to engage.
You can't force somebody to engage.
But I suddenly realized your listeners have to understand, we are getting into some very dangerous territory with these accusations of misinformation.
I saw this.
And so I actually reversed direction and I decided it's not okay to ignore the people who are accusing others of disseminating misinformation.
It's not okay.
In fact, it's dangerous to do nothing and say nothing about it.
And so what I decided instead tomorrow is do what any good scientist would, right?
I'm not a misinformation expert.
So I thought I will go to the literature supported by and promoted by our misinformation experts.
And you know what I found?
They have a very solid body of peer-reviewed, published literature to back up excellent approaches to identifying and quenching misinformation.
But you also know what I found out?
When I looked at the scientific literature that these people were promoting, they aren't following any of their own science.
I was shocked.
So, for example, with what I just said, right, they don't want to, they say they don't want to talk publicly because it just gives a platform to legitimize their misinformation and can spread it further.
But the reality is their own peer-reviewed scientific literature says the complete opposite.
It actually says that if you want to, if you want to stop the spread of misinformation, you quickly, publicly engage these people.
In fact, it's very interesting because the scientific literature to justify this is actually based on public discussions with science deniers, people who don't even accept science as a legitimate strategy to understand the world around us.
Science deniers.
So if the strategy, if speaking publicly with science deniers has a positive impact on revealing misinformation, you can imagine how much of a positive benefit it would have if somebody is a science believer, a scientist like myself, and you engage publicly.
So their own literature, their own rules of engagement says that it is important to engage publicly.
That's the way that you help the public quickly identify who the misinformation spreaders really are so that they can understand where the truth lies.
Now, this is also interesting because, see, the concern is what I was just describing, this idea of if you engage with somebody publicly who's spreading misinformation, you help spread it further, that's what they call the backfire effect.
And so these papers literally address this and say, nope, the backfire effect is not a real phenomenon.
It is nothing to be concerned about.
Even with science deniers, you can have public discussions with them, and it's not going to backfire on you.
If you hold the truth and they do not, you're going to be able to show the public that very clearly.
And so this is very important, Tamara, to understand and for your listeners to understand.
No longer should we be accepting from anybody this idea that they are going to refuse to engage with people that they're accusing of spreading misinformation.
No longer can we accept from them this idea that it would be potentially harmful if they talk publicly with us because their own science says the complete opposite.
And if these people accusing others of spreading misinformation are to follow their own science, they need to engage with us publicly.
And we need to start holding them accountable for what their own scientific foundation says.
And if they do not engage us in public discussions, then there's two things.
A, I'd say very bluntly, they're cowards.
That's what their science says.
If they fail to engage in public discussions with us, they are cowards.
That's what their science says.
Secondly, for the people who follow and support those who are accusing others of spreading misinformation, you need to start asking your misinformation experts that you love so much, why are they such cowards?
Knowing now that their science says that they should be engaging us in public discussion, why are they not doing so?
To me, Tamara, this is the equivalent of me claiming that I'm the fastest person in the world.
You know, the fastest sprinter, 100 meters.
I'm the fastest.
But you know what?
I don't have to race anybody to prove it.
I do not have to race anybody to prove it.
You know what?
If I were to race people tomorrow, I'm not going to go to the Olympics and run the 100 meters because I'm worried that there's going to be far left-leaning individuals who are going to be wearing left-leaning slogans on their t-shirts.
And I don't want to give a platform to spread that information.
So how dare I be asked to race them?
I'm just simply going to declare that I'm the fastest person in the world and you must accept that.
Right?
No, nobody is going to do that.
They're going to say, really, if you're the fastest and you're so confident, go race.
Blow them away.
And there'll be nobody questioning it.
And this is what we have to do with these people accusing us of Tamara.
For those who support them, the people you're supporting are cowards.
And if they really do know what the truth is and they really have the overall weight of the science on their side, then guess what?
They can get up in a public discussion and they can destroy those of us once and for all who are they're accusing of spreading misinformation.
I can guarantee you, Tamara, we know, you and I know, the reason why they're not doing this, the reason why they're pretending and they're ignoring their own science is because they know that when it comes to COVID-19 science and the way that they've been pushing the misinformation experts, have been the ones spreading the misinformation when it comes to COVID-19.
They know, so for example, they know if they get up and they are going to have a public discussion with me about vaccines and children or natural immunity, that they are going to be absolutely blown away and they will lose their platform.
But we need to hold these people to account.
That's right.
And it seems like the backfire effect would actually backfire on the messengers of the consensus rather than the messengers of the science and the evidence and the data that's come to fruition over the last few years.
Just in closing, Dr. Breidel, I saw that you were part of a European Parliament discussion last week during the third annual COVID summit that took place.
And you really put a call out and placed importance on the media and their ability to amplify or, as we've seen over the last three years, squash any sort of robust debate or discussion in this arena.
So, just in closing, what is the media's role here?
And how could, for instance, the mainstream media could correct the trajectory of how we move forward with this idea of the science and trusting it?
And especially in light of the concerning liberal legislation in terms of internet regulation and censoring anyone deemed this misinformation spreader.
Yeah, so yes, I've been watching this with great concern, and it ties in with all this idea of misinformation.
So, before I directly tackle the media issue, let me just highlight why this is so very concerning.
Why This Is Concerning00:04:17
In Canada, the misinformation, the people who claim to be the misinformation experts, right, across the country, they've started holding discussions about what to do about their perceived spread of misinformation.
And there's actually been talk of criminalizing the spread of misinformation and fining people for it.
And now, this is not just theoretical.
This is very important for your listeners to understand, Tamara.
Public health policy has now just, you know, a new medical order was just put in place in British Columbia.
It took effect on May 1st.
People may not realize this.
Misinformation has already now been criminalized in Canada.
This is incredible.
Where health professionals from British Columbia, if they are deemed by their professional colleges to have spread misinformation, they could be, get this, imprisoned for up to six months and fined up to $200,000.
So when you start talking about penalizing people for spreading misinformation, the big question becomes then: who are the arbiters of truth?
And Canadians need to be very concerned about this.
We're talking about going back to the book 1984 by George Orwell and having the truth police and this kind of thing.
This is scary.
So what we need is the media has typically been the source of open discussion, open communication, allowing dissenting voices, allowing Canadians to hear all sides of the argument and decide for themselves, you know, where they feel the overall weight of the evidence lies.
And in terms of how do we fix mainstream media, I honestly don't know, Tamara.
I mean, if we're going to fix it, there needs to be a massive overhaul.
First of all, I would say we have to take out of their hands the massive amount of federal funds that are being funneled their way.
They need to, because everybody tends to have this, it has a tendency to not bite the hand that feeds it.
And so with mainstream media, if we want them really to serve the best interests of the public, they really need to be feeling that their master is the public and not the federal government.
And especially when you look at what's just happened with this bill C-11, I mean, it's incredible, right?
What I'm hearing is that there's already talk about specifically censoring what people would label as conservative or right-wing media.
For example, the possibility of disallowing Canadians from having access to Fox News in the United States.
It's interesting because if you're wanting to go to one extreme, why wouldn't you take all the extremes?
So why not aren't they talking about banning CNN?
Is that because we have a liberal government in power now?
I mean, if we had a conservative government in power, I wouldn't want to hear them saying that we're going to disallow Canadians from accessing CNN, right?
I believe we should have open communication.
Everybody's welcome to have their views and opinions.
So when we're looking at criminalizing people who have spread misinformation and now starting to shut down the spectrum of information that Canadians are exposed to, we're reaching very, very, very dangerous territory.
And people have to stand up because I don't care where your views and thoughts are, where your political leanings are.
If you aren't, this is going to affect everybody, right?
Because there's going to come a time where every individual has an area for which they're particularly passionate about and for which they hold particularly passionate views.
And guess what?
If those views are deemed unacceptable by whoever the arbiters of truth are at that point in time, right, then the gun's going to be facing them.
They're going to be looking down the barrel of the gun.
They're going to be looking at potentially being labeled a criminal for the spreading of misinformation.
So it's very dangerous, Tamara.
This is a very important topic for us to be discussing right now.
Absolutely.
And it's a slippery slope.
So I look forward to continuing efforts on this file.
And thank you for your work.
And of course, for joining me on the Rebel platform to share your findings and the actual science and seeing how the real world data continues to validate and confirm the concerns that you tried alerting the public to two very long years ago.
It was my pleasure.
Thanks, Tamara.
And for all of our viewers at home, stay tuned as we will read some comments from earlier's live stream next.
Financial Strain on Single Income Families00:02:41
Comments from earlier's live stream hosted by David Menzies and myself.
We had a comment from Gary Waberschick, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, who says, more moms are building careers because one income is no longer enough.
And that was the sentiments that I expressed exactly in today's live stream, where I spoke about how it's no longer feasible for a family to survive off of one income.
And so when the liberals are campaigning on this idea that there's $10 a day daycare and that this is a good thing, I wonder how much quality childcare is being sacrificed at the expense of $10 a day daycare.
And also would like to know what policies are in place to help facilitate parents and mothers who would like to stay home to raise their children and rear their family and not be faced with the incessant financial requirements of a two-income family, which of course just works to generate more taxes and income for the state.
So next we have Rick James D says, do you really want to trust the government to look after your kids for 10 bucks a day?
Guaranteed, your kid will be talking about drag queen time, not worth it, parents, make other arrangements.
And that's the other thing that I was trying to get to here in researching this $10 a day childcare and sort of what is tax deductible in terms of child care.
I discovered that your direct family member, if you want to pay them to take care of your children, so a grandparent, a sibling, these payments are not tax refundable.
So when you pay into childcare, whether that be homeschooling or Montessori school or whatever sort of alternative schooling, you can claim that on your tax return only if it is not an arm's length financial transfer.
So if I wanted to pay, for instance, my parent to look after my children a few days of the week and make it lucrative for them and worth their while and help them in this financial, these harsh financial times, record inflation.
If I wanted to give them a small monetary subsidiary for their time to watch my children a few days a week, I cannot claim that on my income taxes as a child care deductible because it's a family member.
So it's funny that the liberals who claim to be upholding family and wanting to make childcare affordable won't actually let you claim an arm's length care provider at the end of year.
I find that extremely interesting.
Dissecting The COVID Hoax Narrative00:02:16
COVID is a hoax says, who cares what the Fed say about a non-existent illness?
Intelligent citizens say COVID is a hoax, but none of us will ever make the headlines here, will we?
Controlled opposition websites will only publish what their precious government tells them to post.
Yeah, and I think when I refer to COVID and hysteria and the pandemic, what I'm referring to is the way in which we responded to this purported virus.
And that's not to say that the seniors who were dying in long-term care, we know now that many of them passed due to negligence, neglect, malnutrition.
There was literally staff were so terrified that they stopped showing up to work to care for these vulnerable elderly patients.
And so there's a lot of things throughout the COVID pandemic and the narrative that don't make sense.
And when I speak about that, it's in response to this viral threat that was used as a catalyst to impose totalitarian, extreme, draconian measures onto the population.
And so I think that debating COVID as a hoax, whether the virus is real, the coach postulates whether it's been isolated, I think that this is actually just a big distraction because regardless of all of that information,
we need to continue to scrutinize and criticize and question how the government responds to any sort of threats and whether or not it is appropriate to institute harsh totalitarian measures to quash any threat to our society.
And so that is where I choose to focus my discussion, my research, and my efforts.
I don't want to wade into the weeds of this idea that COVID is a hoax because we've seen a lot of hoaxes over the last few years.
And I think that dissecting this idea of viruses not being real is part of the distraction.
Thank you for all of our viewers at home for joining us tonight on the Ezra Levant show.