lifesitenews--2020-06-04--The “strange,” astounding fight by world-leading infectious disease doctor and others to continue “s

The “strange,” astounding fight by world-leading infectious disease doctor and others to continue “spectacular” results saving covid-infected lives using cheap, safe medication

June 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) –Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) as a possible cure for COVID-19 was prohibited in France on May 27 because of a recent study published on May 22 by The Lancet .
The study cast doubts on the safety of the drug , which it says has no positive effects on the health of patients who swallowed it after being infected by the Chinese coronavirus .
It also claimed that mortality of hospitalized patients went up from over 9 percent of the control group to 23 percent of patients receiving the drug in combination with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding the data collected for the study , their use and the company that did the statistical work , Surgisphere , both the World Health Organization and France reacted immediately .
WHO stopped a study of the drug and it took French Health Minister Olivier Véran only one day after the publication by The Lancet to ask the French High Council for Public Health ( HCSP ) to decide whether hydroxychloroquine should continue to be allowed to be prescribed in hospitals to COVID-19 patients .
HCSP came back with its answer on May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be stopped , it said .
Serious doubts had immediately been cast on the validity of the Lancet study in various countries , leading to the medical journal ’ s publishing of an “ Expression of concern ” on June 3 .
The World Health Organization has since decided to resume its study .
No such thing has happened yet in France where one of the world ’ s top specialists on infectious diseases , Pr Didier Raoult , has been targeted by Véran as “ irresponsible ” and “ f…king things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting hydroxychloroquine with azithromycine as a treatment for COVID-19 .
Pr Raoult of Marseille said the Chinese coronavirus ’ game was up on February 25 This is just the latest step in a strange sequence of events that had its climax in February , just before the coronavirus pandemic went into full swing in Europe .
It was at that point that Pr Didier Raoult of the Marseille special university hospital unit for in infectious diseases , IHU Méditerranée Infection , announced that a Chinese study had shown that 500 mg of hydroxychloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as patients were tested positive had “ spectacular results ” against the virus .
It should have been no surprise , since that same drug had been found to be effective against SARS-CoV-1 ( the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome linked to a coronavirus outbreak in 2003 ) .
In his video dated February 25 , Raoult smilingly explained that the new Chinese coronavirus had been beaten , not by a vaccine that will take years to develop , but by a well-known drug that has been prescribed for various conditions for decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the easiest respiratory infection of all to treat.
” But that is not what happened .
Instead , in France Raoult was ridiculed despite his status as a world-famous specialist of infectious disease .
And in many countries , treating COVID-19 patients with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine was discouraged by health authorities , and in many cases was even severely restricted .
Why was hydroxychloroquine severely restricted in many countries ?
Why ?
This is a difficult question to answer if one is prepared to believe that public health authorities and political leaders actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind , be it with the recommendations given to COVID-19 patients , or with their decision to “ stop the world ” and totally disrupt its economic equilibrium through a lockdown aimed not at isolating those who are contagious , but at keeping healthy people from the streets and preventing them from worshipping , earning their living , travelling , and so on .
The situation and its developments in France , including a number of facts that appear hard to explain as well as the frank hostility with which Pr .
Didier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about the motivations of our civic leaders .
Similar scenarios played out in the US , Germany , Netherlands and elsewhere .
In several countries , prescription of hydroxychloroquine is only officially permitted when a stage of severe pulmonary infection has been reached – a point at which the treatment is known not to be effective .
Over-the-counter sales of “ safe ” HCQ were banned in France in January When Raoult announced “ game over ” for the Chinese coronavirus on February 25 , it came to public attention that hydroxychloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of chloroquine which is itself a pharmaceutical drug derived from quinine , was no longer available over-the-counter in France since January 13 , following a regulation published by delegation for Health Minister Agnès Buzyn by the General Director of Health , Jérôme Salomon .
Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) , known as “ Plaquénil ” in France , was developed in Germany roughly at the same time as chloroquine in the 1930s and has been efficiently used as an anti-malaria drug since then until resistant forms of malaria appeared .
It is currently used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doctors have more than 80 years experience with prescribing this cheap molecule that was never considered to be a dangerous medication – until the beginning of this year .
The surprising inscription of HCQ on the list of poisonous substances , only dispensable with a prescription .
only weeks before the coronavirus was identified as having entered into France , led many to wonder whether the move had been deliberate in this context .
It was underscored in particular that Buzyn ’ s husband , Yves Lévy , until recently head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical research ) was a member of the French delegation present at the opening of the Wuhan P4 “ high security ” laboratory that conducts research on dangerous viruses , and that he also had a personal axe to grind against Didier Raoult who was one of the first to complain about a conflict of interests when Buzyn was named Health Minister and became supervisor of the INSERM – and of her own husband .
These accusations were brushed aside by the mainstream press .
Questions regarding favoritism for some drug companies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatments , such as Remdesivir by the American laboratory Gilead , were also raised .
This led , - according to Raoult - to the publication of at least one questionable scientific paper .
The treatment would cost about 1 US dollar per day while hydroxychloroquine costs 0.08 US dollars per day .
A New England Journal of Medicine study financed by Gilead , said Raoult , only proved that Remdesivir has dangerous side effects that led Gilead to stop treatment of 8 percent of patients involved .
In total , 60 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 percent serious side effects .
No comparative data was available that would have allowed to assess the efficiency of the drug , said Raoult .
Remdesivir was approved for emergency use on hospitalized COVID-19 patients by the American Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) on May 1 , and Japan also authorized it on May 8 , with positive comments and without special warnings .
The FDA authorized emergency use of hydroxychloroquine on hospitalized COVID-19 patients on March 28 , though not in combination with azithromycine as recommended by Raoult , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strategic National Stockpile .
The FDA ’ s explanation of the authorization came with a warning that “ hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19.
” What was known ahead of the pandemic ’ s outbreak ?
Buzyn – under whose express authority the January 13 regulation restricting sales of HSQ was signed – abruptly left the Health Ministry in mid-March in order ( unsuccessfully ) to campaign on behalf of the presidential party “ La République en Marche ” for the post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s previous candidate having been obliged to step down because of a sex tape he had sent a female journalist he was having an affair with : her boyfriend , a Russian contemporary artist , published it on social media .
The fact that Buzyn was forced to step down from her post as Health Minister in the middle of a major health crisis in order to run for the municipal elections also seemed strange .
In a tearful interview with Le Monde on March 16 , depressed at leaving her post as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were to take place despite the epidemic , only one day before lock-down , Buzyn stated that she had warned President Emmanuel Macron about the dangerousness of the new coronavirus in China as early as January 11… weeks before it became public news .
This was put forward on social media as “ proof ” that HCQ was restricted because of its possible efficiency against the novel coronavirus .
The same mainstream press ridiculed those suggestions .
“ Fact-checkers ” remarked that the decree bore the date of January 13 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a several month long process that had been initiated before the epidemic started in Wuhan , China .
In fact , the French health security agency , ANSES , had been asked it to qualify HCQ as a poisonous , prescription-only drug in the course of October 8 , 2019 , two months before the novel coronavirus made its appearance .
It agreed to do so on November 12 .
Is this conclusive ?
While it can not be affirmed that the COVID-19 episode was known of beforehand or planned ahead , international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic to occur sooner or later .
In fact , globalists have said such a pandemic would be a useful step toward their goal .
In 2009 , Jacques Attali , counselor of nearly all recent French presidents and mentor of president Emmanuel Macron , openly described a worldwide pandemic as an opportunity – thanks to fear of dying – to advance towards world government , with a world police and a world tax system .
He published those comments in L ’ Express , a left of center weekly , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 , “ Event 201 ” took place in New York .
The “ high-level pandemic exercise ” was hosted by the Johns Hopkins Centre for health security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
It was of course a fictional exercise , but it showed how these institutions were then promoting a global , supra-national response .
The fictional pandemic in the exercise took 65 million lives .
COVID-19 is said to have claimed 379,941 victims worldwide as of June 3 , with deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is presently in its descending phase .
A 2003 “ Lancet ” paper showed HCQ to be useful against coronaviruses Another interesting factor is a paper published in November 2003 by The Lancet about chloroquine and its derivative , hydroxychloroquine , showing that both molecules are useful in fighting viral infections , including coronaviruses .
The study stated : “ Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine has a well-studied toxicity profile .
The half-century-long use of this drug in the therapy of malaria demonstrates the safety of acute administration of chloroquine to human beings .
The use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prophylaxis showed a low incidence of adverse events during chronic administration of this drug for periods of up to a few years .
In these cases , the most serious toxic effect is a macular retinopathy , which depends on the cumulative dose rather than on the daily dose , and permanent damage may be prevented with regular visual monitoring during treatment .
A recent study provided encouraging results on the safety of a high dosage of the drug ( up to 500 mg of chloroquine base per day ) even during pregnancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presents limited and well-preventable toxicity and may thus result in a low risk/benefit balance at least when it is used in life-threatening conditions.
” A study published in November 2019 by Ashutosh Shuklan in Drugs in context concluded that chloroquine and HCQ were “ ready for a new chapter in their life ” because “ over the last six decades of clinical use , CHQ and HCQ compounds have shown excellent safety profile with good long-term tolerance in not only the general population but in certain special populations as well , including among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Applications in rheumatology , but also infectious diseases , kidney diseases and oncology were shown to be probable or possible .
Undesirable by-effects , the study remarked , are now well-known and easy to handle .
Hydroxychloroquine only became “ dangerous ” when used to treat COVID-19 So , what happened that suddenly transformed HCQ into a dangerous drug in the public discourse ?
It was only when it started to be used against COVID-19 that this narrative took hold in the media .
In Marseille , Raoult refused to follow suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last months , he has repeated that millions of people “ eat ” hydroxychloroquine every year , as one of the more widely prescribed drugs the world over .
36 million doses of HCQ were swallowed last year in France , he often recalled .
Raoult also noted that many drugs are “ poisonous ” when overdosed .
Overdoses through home use of the common painkiller paracetamol ( also known as acetaminophen ) , an over-the-counter drug , cause large numbers of intoxications , liver damage and is even responsible for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 95,000 hospital admissions and over 200 deaths in Australia between 2007 and 2017 ) .
It is even , at present , one of the most common causes of intentional and unintentional poisonings the world over .
When the COVID-19 pandemic started to hit hard in France , where to date , over 29,000 deaths have been officially attributed to the coronavirus , Pr Raoult became a media and even more a social media phenomenon .
His videos claiming that an HCQ treatment ( 500 mg to 600 mg a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2003 Lancet paper quoted above ) , associated with a widely used antibiotic , azithromycin , administered as soon as testing showed that patients were positive , brought down the viral load within six days and obtained good results in preventing lung infection from following .
In a more recent video published on May 25 , Raoult added that the adjunction of zinc to his protocol was giving even better results .
Here is a short video interview of Pr Raoult in English by a member of the IHU-Méditerranée in which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 17 , and his explanation of the efficiency of the drug : Controversy immediately set in , with “ official ” voices accusing Raoult of lying , exaggerating his success , acting like a guru or promoting his own – highly original – personality .
They also insisted that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous medication , some of them suddenly even adding that its association with azithromycin made it particularly unsafe .
Cardiac and retinal problems were quoted , even though the latter have always been associated with a prolonged administration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restriction , off-label prescription of hydroxychloroquine was illegal because of an existing law in the Health Code .
On March 25 and March 26 , prescription of HCQ for COVID-19 patients was made legal for treatment of COVID-19 patients , but rigorously restricted to severe cases in hospitals only .
On May 25 , it was banned altogether for COVID-19 patients in France .
The situation was even worse than that , since doctors were de facto being commanded not to treat patients with mild symptoms at all , even if a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tried various medications .
At the same time , official guidelines imposed minimal testing , meaning that many people with flu-like symptoms never knew whether they had COVID-19 or not , probably leading to a number of pointless decisions to self-isolate on the part of active citizens who were still allowed to work despite lock-down .
Health Minister Olivier Véran said on March 22 : “ Testing does not prevent the virus from spreading .
( … ) Confinement is the only way of curbing its spread.
” He added that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was lifted .
This went directly against Raoult ’ s recommendation to test massively and then isolate only the infected and above all , treat them .
The same absence of testing applied for many health-workers , including those looking after the dependent elderly in specialized institutions where , not unsurprisingly , mass contaminations and deaths took place among the residents in some parts of France .
From the beginning of lockdown on March 17 , official guidelines required people who presented possible symptoms of COVID-19 to remain at home – together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only paracetamol against fever , and only to call emergency services when experiencing serious respiratory distress .
They would then be admitted to hospital ( except for most residents of rest-homes for the elderly for whom treatment was largely not available ) : they could then receive oxygen , intubation and other emergency treatment .
At this point , the lung infection would have progressed so far that a fatal outcome would become more likely .
Incidentally , hydroxychloroquine would be much less efficient at that point , even though there are documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICU ’ s who were near death and who were given HCQ , which has anti-inflammatory effects .
By the end of March , one week after confinement was imposed , the government ’ s prohibition to use HCQ as soon as a patient tested positive , combined with a refusal to test patients who were not ( yet ) in a severe condition , lead to protests , petitions and even an emergency appeal before the Council of State asking for a temporary modification of HCQ ’ s product license .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a lawyer known for his successful legal campaigns against pornographic films accessible to minors .
He asked the Council of State to allow off-label prescription of hydroxychloroquine , as the only existing treatment that patients themselves should have the opportunity of accepting or refusing through informed consent .
His appeal was rejected but the slight easing of restrictions on 25 and 26 March brought a political answer to his process , when the new Health Minister , Olivier Véran allowed Raoult ’ s protocol to be used , but only in hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included former high-ranking French public health officials as well as former health minister , Philippe Douste-Blazy , a physician specialized in cardiology and a professor of epidemiology at the university of Toulouse .
Several petitions were launched , including one led in the beginning of April by Douste-Blazy , that has received nearly 580,000 signatures at the time of writing .
Physicians resist political restrictions A European study of four different treatments for COVID-19 was also announced and should have produced results by the end of April .
“ Discovery , ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yield its data .
One of the main problems encountered by its promoters was that COVID-19 patients refused to join because they did not want to find themselves in the control group , and especially because most of them wanted to receive Raoult ’ s treatment .
Over the weeks , a number of hospitals and family doctors decided to go ahead and prescribe hydroxychloroquine anyway .
At the beginning of this month , at least one of those local doctors was threatened with disciplinary action on the part of the College of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its official therapeutic indications .
At Pr Raoult ’ s infectology institute , patients are monitored for side-effects In Marseille , Didier Raoult published successive papers claiming to have good results with his protocol , which – contrary to government guidelines – involved massive testing of all those who presented themselves at the IHU , and electrocardiograms before and during treatment with hydroxychloroquine ( ECG ’ s were done every 48 hours on treated patients ) .
The treatment was adapted for patients who would be more prone to its cardiac side effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raoult consistently rejected criticism that his work had no scientific value because he was not doing research on “ randomized ” samples of patients and because he had no control group .
He repeated that he was not acting as a researcher , but as a doctor who has the responsibility to give the best possible state-of-the-art treatment and the mission of healing patients .
Raoult has also repeatedly criticized “ randomized ” studies in which patients are chosen at random to receive treatment or a placebo , explaining that they are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Randomized ” studies are “ a scientific fashion among others , ” he wrote in Le Quotidien du médecin .
“ The first duty of a doctor is healing , not experimenting , ” he added .
Raoult has personally developed ten widely-used treatments without ever using randomized studies , but “ anecdotal observation ” – looking at what happens to patients in real life – and “ observation of correctly analyzed series.
” He added that 99 percent of treatments developed for infectious diseases were the result not of randomized studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his large team of doctors at the IHU-Méditerranée , he signed a statement saying that he was committed to treating his patients because of his Hippocratic oath , and that he would do so regardless of official guidelines .
Didier Raoult was also severely criticized in the international press and in the blogosphere , in particular in this article published by “ For Better Science ” which called him a “ witchdoctor… barking mad and dangerous.
” The article says chloroquine “ kills , ” which is at best a wild exaggeration given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 80 years .
In any case Raoult uses the better-tolerated form of hydroxychloroquine .
The article accuses Raoult of all sorts of misconduct including irregularities in scientific papers , bullying , sexual harassment under his authority , and of treating people would not have been very sick anyway .
It accuses him of having refused to treat patients who were very ill : whether this is true or not , it certainly squares with the fact that Raoult has always said that his protocol should be used at the beginning of infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14-year-old children with “ chloroquine ” as if that were a crime , even though hydroxychloroquine is only deemed more dangerous for children less than six years old .
The black-out on hydroxychloroquine ’ s 80-year widespread use The article talked about “ human experiments ” and “ human guinea pigs ” without recalling that HCQ has been prescribed and sold over-the-counter for many decades , a fact that obviously means that its use at the IHU was not related to unknown or potentially dangerous molecules .
Dr Raoult has himself prescribed hydroxychloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without negative results .
At the same time , no other treatment was being recommended anywhere in France where COVID-19 patients were being left to wait and see whether their condition would get worse or not , and many eventually lost their lives – a fact that “ For Better Science ” does not recall .
In fact , the tone of the “ For Better Science ” article is militant and aggressive – something that Raoult is not in his interviews and videos – and should be assessed in view of Raoult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epidemic in Marseille , that we shall look at further on .
It appears that he is paying the price for being politically incorrect : Raoult has made statements casting doubt on manmade “ global warming ” because he is very wary of “ modelization , ” be if for climate change or for epidemics .
Indeed , the wildest forecasts have been made about COVID-19 , with Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College in the UK predicting that without heavy lockdown restrictions , up to 500,000 people would die of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than the present world count , at a time when the epidemic is slowing down fast in many regions .
Raoult has repeatedly slammed computer modelling of epidemics , because it is often widely off mark , as Ferguson ’ s statements have proved .
But it was Ferguson ’ s forecasts that prompted Boris Johnson to choose confinement for the UK .
Raoult : looking for a vaccine for a “ non immunizing ” disease is an “ idiotic challenge ” Raoult has also suggested that looking for a vaccine for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – that is , a disease you can get more than once because antibodies are only efficient for a limited time or even no time at all – is an “ idiotic challenge.
” In an interview on April 30 , Raoult said : “ Nearly $ 30 billion was spent on the one against HIV , and look at the result !
( … ) It is already difficult to vaccinate properly against the flu , so against a new virus… Honestly , the chance of a vaccine for an emerging disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to zero.
” Part II will be published on Friday and will discuss issues such as “ Lancet-Gate ” , Dr. Stephen Smiths ’ revelation that HCQ is “ an absolute game-changer , ” Texas Dr Ivette Lozano ’ s fight to have her prescriptions honored , The efficient use of HCQ in Senegal , Burkina Faso , South Korea ... and much more .

This is Part I of a 2-Part report by LifeSite's France correspondent revealing disturbing efforts by medical and political authorities to smear or otherwise stop physicians who found a very effective way to treat coronavirus infection using falsely maligned hyrdoxychloroquine.
See Part II here
June 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a possible cure for COVID-19 was prohibited in France on May 27 because of a recent study published on May 22 by The Lancet. The study cast doubts on the safety of the drug, which it says has no positive effects on the health of patients who swallowed it after being infected by the Chinese coronavirus. It also claimed that mortality of hospitalized patients went up from over 9 percent of the control group to 23 percent of patients receiving the drug in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.
Despite many issues surrounding the data collected for the study, their use and the company that did the statistical work, Surgisphere, both the World Health Organization and France reacted immediately. WHO stopped a study of the drug and it took French Health Minister Olivier Véran only one day after the publication by The Lancet to ask the French High Council for Public Health (HCSP) to decide whether hydroxychloroquine should continue to be allowed to be prescribed in hospitals to COVID-19 patients. HCSP came back with its answer on May 26: all prescriptions in this context should be stopped, it said.
Serious doubts had immediately been cast on the validity of the Lancet study in various countries, leading to the medical journal’s publishing of an “Expression of concern” on June 3.
The World Health Organization has since decided to resume its study. No such thing has happened yet in France where one of the world’s top specialists on infectious diseases, Prof. Didier Raoult, has been targeted by Véran as “irresponsible” and “f…king things up” in repeated attacks against his promoting hydroxychloroquine with azithromycine as a treatment for COVID-19.
Prof. Raoult of Marseille said the Chinese coronavirus’ game was up on February 25
This is just the latest step in a strange sequence of events that had its climax in February, just before the coronavirus pandemic went into full swing in Europe. It was at that point that Pr Didier Raoult of the Marseille special university hospital unit for in infectious diseases, IHU Méditerranée Infection, announced that a Chinese study had shown that 500 mg of hydroxychloroquine taken for 10 days when prescribed as soon as patients were tested positive had “spectacular results” against the virus.
It should have been no surprise, since that same drug had been found to be effective against SARS-CoV-1 (the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome linked to a coronavirus outbreak in 2003). In his video dated February 25, Raoult smilingly explained that the new Chinese coronavirus had been beaten, not by a vaccine that will take years to develop, but by a well-known drug that has been prescribed for various conditions for decades, and that COVID-19 “is probably the easiest respiratory infection of all to treat.”
But that is not what happened. Instead, in France Raoult was ridiculed despite his status as a world-famous specialist of infectious disease. And in many countries, treating COVID-19 patients with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine was discouraged by health authorities, and in many cases was even severely restricted.
Why was hydroxychloroquine severely restricted in many countries?
Why? This is a difficult question to answer if one is prepared to believe that public health authorities and political leaders actually have the public's best interests in mind, be it with the recommendations given to COVID-19 patients, or with their decision to “stop the world” and totally disrupt its economic equilibrium through a lockdown aimed not at isolating those who are contagious, but at keeping healthy people from the streets and preventing them from worshipping, earning their living, travelling, and so on.
The situation and its developments in France, including a number of facts that appear hard to explain as well as the frank hostility with which Prof. Didier Raoult was treated, indeed raise serious questions about the motivations of our civic leaders.
Similar scenarios played out in the US, Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere. In several countries, prescription of hydroxychloroquine is only officially permitted when a stage of severe pulmonary infection has been reached – a point at which the treatment is known not to be effective.
Over-the-counter sales of “safe” HCQ were banned in France in January
When Raoult announced “game over” for the Chinese coronavirus on February 25, it came to public attention that hydroxychloroquine, a safer and better tolerated derivate of chloroquine which is itself a pharmaceutical drug derived from quinine, was no longer available over-the-counter in France since January 13, following a regulation published by delegation for Health Minister Agnès Buzyn by the General Director of Health, Jérôme Salomon.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), known as “Plaquénil” in France, was developed in Germany roughly at the same time as chloroquine in the 1930s and has been efficiently used as an anti-malaria drug since then until resistant forms of malaria appeared. It is currently used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Doctors have more than 80 years experience with prescribing this cheap molecule that was never considered to be a dangerous medication – until the beginning of this year.
The surprising inscription of HCQ on the list of poisonous substances, only dispensable with a prescription. only weeks before the coronavirus was identified as having entered into France, led many to wonder whether the move had been deliberate in this context.
It was underscored in particular that Buzyn’s husband, Yves Lévy, until recently head of the INSERM (National Institute for health and medical research) was a member of the French delegation present at the opening of the Wuhan P4 “high security” laboratory that conducts research on dangerous viruses, and that he also had a personal axe to grind against Didier Raoult who was one of the first to complain about a conflict of interests when Buzyn was named Health Minister and became supervisor of the INSERM – and of her own husband. These accusations were brushed aside by the mainstream press.
Questions regarding favoritism for some drug companies and a strange readiness to promote other experimental treatments, such as Remdesivir by the American laboratory Gilead, were also raised. This led, – according to Raoult – to the publication of at least one questionable scientific paper. The treatment would cost about 1 US dollar per day while hydroxychloroquine costs 0.08 US dollars per day. A New England Journal of Medicine study financed by Gilead, said Raoult, only proved that Remdesivir has dangerous side effects that led Gilead to stop treatment of 8 percent of patients involved. In total, 60 percent of patients experienced side effects, and 23 percent serious side effects. No comparative data was available that would have allowed to assess the efficiency of the drug, said Raoult.
Remdesivir was approved for emergency use on hospitalized COVID-19 patients by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 1, and Japan also authorized it on May 8, with positive comments and without special warnings.
The FDA authorized emergency use of hydroxychloroquine on hospitalized COVID-19 patients on March 28, though not in combination with azithromycine as recommended by Raoult, and only using products obtained from the Strategic National Stockpile. The FDA’s explanation of the authorization came with a warning that “hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19.”
What was known ahead of the pandemic’s outbreak?
Buzyn – under whose express authority the January 13 regulation restricting sales of HSQ was signed – abruptly left the Health Ministry in mid-March in order (unsuccessfully) to campaign on behalf of the presidential party “La République en Marche” for the post of mayor of Paris, LREM’s previous candidate having been obliged to step down because of a sex tape he had sent a female journalist he was having an affair with: her boyfriend, a Russian contemporary artist, published it on social media.
The fact that Buzyn was forced to step down from her post as Health Minister in the middle of a major health crisis in order to run for the municipal elections also seemed strange.
In a tearful interview with Le Monde on March 16, depressed at leaving her post as Health Minister and worried about municipal elections that were to take place despite the epidemic, only one day before lock-down, Buzyn stated that she had warned President Emmanuel Macron about the dangerousness of the new coronavirus in China as early as January 11… weeks before it became public news.
This was put forward on social media as “proof” that HCQ was restricted because of its possible efficiency against the novel coronavirus.
The same mainstream press ridiculed those suggestions. “Fact-checkers” remarked that the decree bore the date of January 13, but that the publication was the result of a several month long process that had been initiated before the epidemic started in Wuhan, China. In fact, the French health security agency, ANSES, had been asked it to qualify HCQ as a poisonous, prescription-only drug in the course of October 8, 2019, two months before the novel coronavirus made its appearance. It agreed to do so on November 12.
Is this conclusive? While it cannot be affirmed that the COVID-19 episode was known of beforehand or planned ahead, international organizations and superpowers were clearly expecting a coronavirus pandemic to occur sooner or later.
In fact, globalists have said such a pandemic would be a useful step toward their goal. In 2009, Jacques Attali, counselor of nearly all recent French presidents and mentor of president Emmanuel Macron, openly described a worldwide pandemic as an opportunity – thanks to fear of dying – to advance towards world government, with a world police and a world tax system. He published those comments in L’Express, a left of center weekly, on March 3, 2009.
On October 18, “Event 201” took place in New York. The “high-level pandemic exercise” was hosted by the Johns Hopkins Centre for health security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It was of course a fictional exercise, but it showed how these institutions were then promoting a global, supra-national response. The fictional pandemic in the exercise took 65 million lives. COVID-19 is said to have claimed 379,941 victims worldwide as of June 3, with deaths occurring following a characteristic bell-shaped curve that is presently in its descending phase.
A 2003 “Lancet” paper showed HCQ to be useful against coronaviruses
Another interesting factor is a paper published in November 2003 by The Lancet about chloroquine and its derivative, hydroxychloroquine, showing that both molecules are useful in fighting viral infections, including coronaviruses. The study stated:
“Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine has a well-studied toxicity profile. The half-century-long use of this drug in the therapy of malaria demonstrates the safety of acute administration of chloroquine to human beings. The use of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in rheumatic diseases and for antimalarial prophylaxis showed a low incidence of adverse events during chronic administration of this drug for periods of up to a few years. In these cases, the most serious toxic effect is a macular retinopathy, which depends on the cumulative dose rather than on the daily dose, and permanent damage may be prevented with regular visual monitoring during treatment. A recent study provided encouraging results on the safety of a high dosage of the drug (up to 500 mg of chloroquine base per day) even during pregnancy.
“We conclude that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine administration presents limited and well-preventable toxicity and may thus result in a low risk/benefit balance at least when it is used in life-threatening conditions.”
A study published in November 2019 by Ashutosh Shuklan in Drugs in context concluded that chloroquine and HCQ were “ready for a new chapter in their life” because “over the last six decades of clinical use, CHQ and HCQ compounds have shown excellent safety profile with good long-term tolerance in not only the general population but in certain special populations as well, including among pregnant individuals and those with renal failure.” Applications in rheumatology, but also infectious diseases, kidney diseases and oncology were shown to be probable or possible. Undesirable by-effects, the study remarked, are now well-known and easy to handle.
Hydroxychloroquine only became “dangerous” when used to treat COVID-19
So, what happened that suddenly transformed HCQ into a dangerous drug in the public discourse? It was only when it started to be used against COVID-19 that this narrative took hold in the media.
In Marseille, Raoult refused to follow suit. In his frequent video interviews over the last months, he has repeated that millions of people “eat” hydroxychloroquine every year, as one of the more widely prescribed drugs the world over. 36 million doses of HCQ were swallowed last year in France, he often recalled.
Raoult also noted that many drugs are “poisonous” when overdosed. Overdoses through home use of the common painkiller paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen), an over-the-counter drug, cause large numbers of intoxications, liver damage and is even responsible for a number of deaths (for instance: more than 95,000 hospital admissions and over 200 deaths in Australia between 2007 and 2017). It is even, at present, one of the most common causes of intentional and unintentional poisonings the world over.
When the COVID-19 pandemic started to hit hard in France, where to date, over 29,000 deaths have been officially attributed to the coronavirus, Prof. Raoult became a media and even more a social media phenomenon. His videos claiming that an HCQ treatment (500 mg to 600 mg a day, which is considered safe according to the 2003 Lancet paper quoted above), associated with a widely used antibiotic, azithromycin, administered as soon as testing showed that patients were positive, brought down the viral load within six days and obtained good results in preventing lung infection from following. In a more recent video published on May 25, Raoult added that the adjunction of zinc to his protocol was giving even better results.
Here is a short video interview of Prof. Raoult in English by a member of the IHU-Méditerranée in which he described his experience with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on March 17, and his explanation of the efficiency of the drug:
Smear campaigns against Didier Raoult
Controversy immediately set in, with “official” voices accusing Raoult of lying, exaggerating his success, acting like a guru or promoting his own – highly original – personality. They also insisted that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous medication, some of them suddenly even adding that its association with azithromycin made it particularly unsafe. Cardiac and retinal problems were quoted, even though the latter have always been associated with a prolonged administration of the drug.
After the January 13 restriction, off-label prescription of hydroxychloroquine was illegal because of an existing law in the Health Code.
On March 25 and March 26, prescription of HCQ for COVID-19 patients was made legal for treatment of COVID-19 patients, but rigorously restricted to severe cases in hospitals only. On May 25, it was banned altogether for COVID-19 patients in France.
French guidelines: no testing, no treating
The situation was even worse than that, since doctors were de facto being commanded not to treat patients with mild symptoms at all, even if a number of them ignored the March 26 decree and tried various medications.
At the same time, official guidelines imposed minimal testing, meaning that many people with flu-like symptoms never knew whether they had COVID-19 or not, probably leading to a number of pointless decisions to self-isolate on the part of active citizens who were still allowed to work despite lock-down. Health Minister Olivier Véran said on March 22: “Testing does not prevent the virus from spreading. (…) Confinement is the only way of curbing its spread.” He added that a testing campaign would be launched once confinement was lifted.
This went directly against Raoult’s recommendation to test massively and then isolate only the infected and above all, treat them.
The same absence of testing applied for many health-workers, including those looking after the dependent elderly in specialized institutions where, not unsurprisingly, mass contaminations and deaths took place among the residents in some parts of France.
From the beginning of lockdown on March 17, official guidelines required people who presented possible symptoms of COVID-19 to remain at home – together with those living with them – and use only paracetamol against fever, and only to call emergency services when experiencing serious respiratory distress. They would then be admitted to hospital (except for most residents of rest-homes for the elderly for whom treatment was largely not available): they could then receive oxygen, intubation and other emergency treatment. At this point, the lung infection would have progressed so far that a fatal outcome would become more likely.
Incidentally, hydroxychloroquine would be much less efficient at that point, even though there are documented cases of sudden improvement of patients in ICU’s who were near death and who were given HCQ, which has anti-inflammatory effects.
By the end of March, one week after confinement was imposed, the government’s prohibition to use HCQ as soon as a patient tested positive, combined with a refusal to test patients who were not (yet) in a severe condition, lead to protests, petitions and even an emergency appeal before the Council of State asking for a temporary modification of HCQ’s product license.
The emergency appeal was led by André Bonnet, a lawyer known for his successful legal campaigns against pornographic films accessible to minors. He asked the Council of State to allow off-label prescription of hydroxychloroquine, as the only existing treatment that patients themselves should have the opportunity of accepting or refusing through informed consent. His appeal was rejected but the slight easing of restrictions on 25 and 26 March brought a political answer to his process, when the new Health Minister, Olivier Véran allowed Raoult’s protocol to be used, but only in hospitals and only for severe cases.
Protesters included former high-ranking French public health officials as well as former health minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, a physician specialized in cardiology and a professor of epidemiology at the university of Toulouse. Several petitions were launched, including one led in the beginning of April by Douste-Blazy, that has received nearly 580,000 signatures at the time of writing.
Physicians resist political restrictions
A European study of four different treatments for COVID-19 was also announced and should have produced results by the end of April. “Discovery,” as it was dubbed, has yet to yield its data. One of the main problems encountered by its promoters was that COVID-19 patients refused to join because they did not want to find themselves in the control group, and especially because most of them wanted to receive Raoult’s treatment.
Over the weeks, a number of hospitals and family doctors decided to go ahead and prescribe hydroxychloroquine anyway. At the beginning of this month, at least one of those local doctors was threatened with disciplinary action on the part of the College of medicine for having prescribed HCQ outside of its official therapeutic indications.
At Prof. Raoult’s infectology institute, patients are monitored for side-effects
In Marseille, Didier Raoult published successive papers claiming to have good results with his protocol, which – contrary to government guidelines – involved massive testing of all those who presented themselves at the IHU, and electrocardiograms before and during treatment with hydroxychloroquine (ECG’s were done every 48 hours on treated patients). The treatment was adapted for patients who would be more prone to its cardiac side effects because of their prior health condition.
Raoult consistently rejected criticism that his work had no scientific value because he was not doing research on “randomized” samples of patients and because he had no control group. He repeated that he was not acting as a researcher, but as a doctor who has the responsibility to give the best possible state-of-the-art treatment and the mission of healing patients.
Raoult has also repeatedly criticized “randomized” studies in which patients are chosen at random to receive treatment or a placebo, explaining that they are no better than “observational” studies. “Randomized” studies are “a scientific fashion among others,” he wrote in Le Quotidien du médecin. “The first duty of a doctor is healing, not experimenting,” he added. Raoult has personally developed ten widely-used treatments without ever using randomized studies, but “anecdotal observation” – looking at what happens to patients in real life – and “observation of correctly analyzed series.”
He added that 99 percent of treatments developed for infectious diseases were the result not of randomized studies but of individual initiative.
Hippocratic oath
Together with his large team of doctors at the IHU-Méditerranée, he signed a statement saying that he was committed to treating his patients because of his Hippocratic oath, and that he would do so regardless of official guidelines.
Didier Raoult was also severely criticized in the international press and in the blogosphere, in particular in this article published by “For Better Science” which called him a “witchdoctor… barking mad and dangerous.” The article says chloroquine “kills,” which is at best a wild exaggeration given its widespread and safe use over more than 80 years. In any case Raoult uses the better-tolerated form of hydroxychloroquine.
The article accuses Raoult of all sorts of misconduct including irregularities in scientific papers, bullying, sexual harassment under his authority, and of treating people would not have been very sick anyway. It accuses him of having refused to treat patients who were very ill: whether this is true or not, it certainly squares with the fact that Raoult has always said that his protocol should be used at the beginning of infection. It also accuses him of treating 14-year-old children with “chloroquine” as if that were a crime, even though hydroxychloroquine is only deemed more dangerous for children less than six years old.
The black-out on hydroxychloroquine’s 80-year widespread use
The article talked about “human experiments” and “human guinea pigs” without recalling that HCQ has been prescribed and sold over-the-counter for many decades, a fact that obviously means that its use at the IHU was not related to unknown or potentially dangerous molecules. Dr Raoult has himself prescribed hydroxychloroquine with azithromycine “thousands of times” without negative results.
At the same time, no other treatment was being recommended anywhere in France where COVID-19 patients were being left to wait and see whether their condition would get worse or not, and many eventually lost their lives – a fact that “For Better Science” does not recall.
In fact, the tone of the “For Better Science” article is militant and aggressive – something that Raoult is not in his interviews and videos – and should be assessed in view of Raoult’s results with his treatment of the epidemic in Marseille, that we shall look at further on.
It appears that he is paying the price for being politically incorrect: Raoult has made statements casting doubt on manmade “global warming” because he is very wary of “modelization,” be if for climate change or for epidemics. Indeed, the wildest forecasts have been made about COVID-19, with Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College in the UK predicting that without heavy lockdown restrictions, up to 500,000 people would die of the disease in France alone: that is more than the present world count, at a time when the epidemic is slowing down fast in many regions. Raoult has repeatedly slammed computer modelling of epidemics, because it is often widely off mark, as Ferguson’s statements have proved. But it was Ferguson’s forecasts that prompted Boris Johnson to choose confinement for the UK.
Raoult: looking for a vaccine for a “non immunizing” disease is an “idiotic challenge”
Raoult has also suggested that looking for a vaccine for a disease that is “non-immunizing” – that is, a disease you can get more than once because antibodies are only efficient for a limited time or even no time at all – is an “idiotic challenge.”
In an interview on April 30, Raoult said: “Nearly $30 billion was spent on the one against HIV, and look at the result! (…) It is already difficult to vaccinate properly against the flu, so against a new virus… Honestly, the chance of a vaccine for an emerging disease becoming a public health tool is close to zero.”
See Part II here which discusses issues such as “Lancet-Gate”, Dr. Stephen Smiths’ revelation that HCQ is “an absolute game-changer,” Texas Dr Ivette Lozano’s fight to have her prescriptions honored, The efficient use of HCQ in Senegal, Burkina Faso, South Korea… and much more.
Share
Your support makes stories like this possible! LifeSiteNews is completely donor supported, allowing us to report on what truly is happening in the world, free of charge and uncensored. A donation to LifeSite will ensure millions around the world can continue to come to our site to find the truth people are so desperately searching for on life, faith, family and freedom. $ Donate Now
Related Articles


lifesitenews--2020-06-04--German govt official suspended after accusing political leaders of overreacting to pandemic

PETITION : Yes to reform .
No to riots & revolution !
Sign the petition here .
BERLIN , Germany , June 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A German Interior Ministry official was suspended after he prepared an almost 100-page analysis of what he said was the government ’ s overblown response to the coronavirus and then leaked the document publicly after sending it to various officials .
Stephan Kohn characterized the government ’ s predictions of COVID-19 victims as a “ serious failure of crisis management ” and a “ false alarm.
” His analysis was first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kohn said the German government was responsible for “ the disinformation of the population.
” “ One accusation could be : The state has proven to be one of the biggest fake-news producers in the coronavirus crisis , ” he wrote in his analysis .
The document essentially accused the government of overplaying the dangers of COVID-19 .
At the same time , the measures intended to slow the spread of the disease , the text argued , have caused more damage than the coronavirus itself would have caused without the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 and sent by Kohn to leaders within the interior ministry , who did not do anything about it .
From there , it was leaked to the media .
Kohn , a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany , was subsequently suspended .
The analysis compiled by Kohn and his team pointed out how the coronavirus “ presumably did not pose a risk to the population beyond the normal level at any time ( the parameter of comparison being the usual death rate in Germany ) .
” According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 was overestimated.
” Compared to 1.5 million deaths during the flu season of 2017 and 2018 , “ no more than 250,000 deaths ” have been recorded worldwide in relation to the coronavirus .
Since that writing , the number has risen to about 370,000 .
“ The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses , ” Kohn and his team continued .
“ In all probability , we are dealing with a global false alarm that has gone undetected for a long time.
” Collateral damage caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than its discernible benefit .
This statement is not based on a comparison of material damage to personal injury ( human life ) !
A simple comparison of previous deaths caused by the virus with deaths caused by the protective measures decreed by the state ( both without a reliable database ) substantiate the findings.
” In another section , the document looked at the health impacts of the lockdown measures imposed throughout Germany on March 22 .
As of today , Germany has officially counted 8,581 deaths due to COVID-19 .
Postponing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , according to experts , could have caused , and still cause , between 5,000 and 125,000 deaths .
The analysis cautioned , however , that the mortality rate due to postponed surgeries “ can not be reliably estimated.
” Canceled treatments for people suffering from cancer and other illnesses was also named as a contributing factor to the mortality rate induced by the lockdown .
Care recipients , especially the elderly , are not only living in nursing homes in Germany .
Those who live in their own homes are visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , or even daily .
In this context , a lowered level of care , with just one-tenth of one percent of those in need of care dying , would amount to 3,500 deaths .
The document indicated suicides would be more likely amid psychological tensions that can be attributed to the lockdown , including loss of employment .
Apart from deaths caused in this immediate way by the lockdown , the analysis pointed out other health implications , for instance , the lack of social interaction , which particularly affects the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even overall life expectancy could be reduced , thanks to a significantly negative development of the economy .
The Robert Koch Institute , which is the German government agency for disease control and prevention , has found that , statistically , high unemployment leads to a lower life expectancy .
Certain restrictions such as social distancing are still in place in Germany and other parts of the world .
On May 7 , the analysis had already called on the government to remove all limitations in the immediate future “ in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular unnecessary additional deaths.
” The German interior ministry went into damage control mode , saying Kohn was not authorized to prepare the analysis and that it does not represent the views of the interior ministry .
Kohn , however , had for several weeks corresponded with co-workers , including his superiors .
He was never prohibited from working on the analysis , which not only criticized the government but also the media for essentially regurgitating what they were given by Chancellor Angela Merkel and other public authorities .
“ The almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular to any activity of the Chancellor , no matter what she was announcing and how and with what timing she was presenting or even changing her position on certain issues as without alternative , unfortunately confirms negative prejudices about the press , ” Kohn and his team wrote .
“ The vast majority of the ( free ) press seems more or less useless as a corrective for undesirable developments , for instance in suboptimal crisis management , ” the analysis continued .
“ From the perspective of the state as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning signal .
It is highly recommended that future adjustments of the legal or general conditions should be aimed at restoring greater independence and critical faculties.
” According to the document , it is highly unlikely “ that the press would unanimously criticize the government on a massive scale in a one-sided and unjust manner.
” The chance of having the media agitate against the government and “ trigger a change in political power is likely to be close to zero.
” “ There is a very high risk that the population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them by most of the media , and will uncritically adopt it.
” Kohn ’ s scathing critique of the media was vindicated immediately after the publication of the analysis .
Many media outlets simply repeated the interior ministry ’ s spin that Kohn acted on his own and was not authorized to publish , or even compose , the document .

Interior Ministry official Stephan Kohn accused the German govt of being ‘one of the biggest fake-news producers.’
PETITION: Yes to reform. No to riots & revolution! Sign the petition here.
BERLIN, Germany, June 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A German Interior Ministry official was suspended after he prepared an almost 100-page analysis of what he said was the government’s overblown response to the coronavirus and then leaked the document publicly after sending it to various officials.
Stephan Kohn characterized the government’s predictions of COVID-19 victims as a “serious failure of crisis management” and a “false alarm.” His analysis was first reported by Tichys Einblick on May 9.
Kohn said the German government was responsible for “the disinformation of the population.”
“One accusation could be: The state has proven to be one of the biggest fake-news producers in the coronavirus crisis,” he wrote in his analysis.
The document essentially accused the government of overplaying the dangers of COVID-19. At the same time, the measures intended to slow the spread of the disease, the text argued, have caused more damage than the coronavirus itself would have caused without the lockdown.
The analysis was finalized on May 7 and sent by Kohn to leaders within the interior ministry, who did not do anything about it. From there, it was leaked to the media. Kohn, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, was subsequently suspended.
The analysis compiled by Kohn and his team pointed out how the coronavirus “presumably did not pose a risk to the population beyond the normal level at any time (the parameter of comparison being the usual death rate in Germany).”
According to the document, “The danger of COVID-19 was overestimated.” Compared to 1.5 million deaths during the flu season of 2017 and 2018, “no more than 250,000 deaths” have been recorded worldwide in relation to the coronavirus. Since that writing, the number has risen to about 370,000.
“The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses,” Kohn and his team continued. “In all probability, we are dealing with a global false alarm that has gone undetected for a long time.”
Collateral damage caused by the lockdown “is now higher than its discernible benefit. This statement is not based on a comparison of material damage to personal injury (human life)! A simple comparison of previous deaths caused by the virus with deaths caused by the protective measures decreed by the state (both without a reliable database) substantiate the findings.”
In another section, the document looked at the health impacts of the lockdown measures imposed throughout Germany on March 22.
As of today, Germany has officially counted 8,581 deaths due to COVID-19. Postponing 90 percent of surgeries in April and May, according to experts, could have caused, and still cause, between 5,000 and 125,000 deaths. The analysis cautioned, however, that the mortality rate due to postponed surgeries “cannot be reliably estimated.”
Canceled treatments for people suffering from cancer and other illnesses was also named as a contributing factor to the mortality rate induced by the lockdown.
Care recipients, especially the elderly, are not only living in nursing homes in Germany. Those who live in their own homes are visited by mobile nursing services several times per week, or even daily. In this context, a lowered level of care, with just one-tenth of one percent of those in need of care dying, would amount to 3,500 deaths.
The document indicated suicides would be more likely amid psychological tensions that can be attributed to the lockdown, including loss of employment.
Apart from deaths caused in this immediate way by the lockdown, the analysis pointed out other health implications, for instance, the lack of social interaction, which particularly affects the elderly, as well as domestic abuse.
Even overall life expectancy could be reduced, thanks to a significantly negative development of the economy. The Robert Koch Institute, which is the German government agency for disease control and prevention, has found that, statistically, high unemployment leads to a lower life expectancy.
Certain restrictions such as social distancing are still in place in Germany and other parts of the world. On May 7, the analysis had already called on the government to remove all limitations in the immediate future “in order to prevent harm to the population – in particular unnecessary additional deaths.”
The German interior ministry went into damage control mode, saying Kohn was not authorized to prepare the analysis and that it does not represent the views of the interior ministry.
Kohn, however, had for several weeks corresponded with co-workers, including his superiors. He was never prohibited from working on the analysis, which not only criticized the government but also the media for essentially regurgitating what they were given by Chancellor Angela Merkel and other public authorities.
“The almost universally positive response of the media in particular to any activity of the Chancellor, no matter what she was announcing and how and with what timing she was presenting or even changing her position on certain issues as without alternative, unfortunately confirms negative prejudices about the press,” Kohn and his team wrote.
“The vast majority of the (free) press seems more or less useless as a corrective for undesirable developments, for instance in suboptimal crisis management,” the analysis continued. “From the perspective of the state as a whole, this must be seen as a warning signal. It is highly recommended that future adjustments of the legal or general conditions should be aimed at restoring greater independence and critical faculties.”
According to the document, it is highly unlikely “that the press would unanimously criticize the government on a massive scale in a one-sided and unjust manner.” The chance of having the media agitate against the government and “trigger a change in political power is likely to be close to zero.”
“There is a very high risk that the population will believe everything that is served up to them by most of the media, and will uncritically adopt it.”
Kohn’s scathing critique of the media was vindicated immediately after the publication of the analysis. Many media outlets simply repeated the interior ministry’s spin that Kohn acted on his own and was not authorized to publish, or even compose, the document.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-04--Trudeau accused of ‘child abuse’ for pushing to ban help for gender-confused kids

DROP Disney+ : New teen film 'Out ' features openly homosexual main character !
Sign the petition here .
June 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Conservative Party of Canada ( CPC ) leadership candidate and Member of Parliament ( MP ) Derek Sloan has come under fire for saying that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is legislating “ child abuse ” with Bill C-8 , which , if passed , would prohibit parents from seeking to help their son or daughter overcome gender confusion .
Yesterday , CTV News first reported that Sloan made the remarks in a virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Liberals have said ‘ no , you can ’ t get counselling and if a parent , as a parent , you take your kid to get counseling for this , you can go to jail for five years.
’ That ’ s insane , that ’ s ridiculous , ” Sloan said during the webinar .
“ But on the other hand , you 're allowed to put your kid on these , you know , invasive medical regimens , you ’ re allowed to , you know , give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to literally cut off their healthy , you know , breasts and other sex organs.
” Sloan then expanded to directly accuse Trudeau of “ child abuse ” with Bill C-8 .
“ That is child abuse .
And I accuse Justin Trudeau and his government right now of child abuse .
That 's what they 're putting into law and we need to wake up , ” Sloan said .
“ I ’ m telling you there is not a single person I know whether their conservative , liberal whatever , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can win on this issue , and we will win on this issue.
” LifeSiteNews reached out to Sloan for a comment regarding his remarks from Tuesday ’ s webinar and he said , `` I believe that sex-change operations on minors are abusive .
Minors are not old enough to drink , smoke , gamble , or vote , and they are not old enough to make life-altering decisions about surgeries that will permanently change their growth and development.
” “ The Liberals ’ Bill C-8 endorses an affirmation-only model of care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push children in the direction of hormone-blocking pills and surgeries .
If they seek counselling for their child to help explore their options , it could be construed as ‘ conversion therapy ’ and parents and therapists could go to jail for five years .
The UK has banned these surgeries for minors , and I intend to do the same . ''
Sloan ’ s comments were met with a backlash from Trudeau ’ s office , as well as from fellow CPC leadership candidate Peter MacKay .
According to the CTV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called on CPC Leader Andrew Scheer to denounce his remarks .
Ahmad was quoted as saying to CTV that Trudeau will not “ dignify these reprehensible comments , but we certainly hope that Andrew Scheer and the Conservative Party will roundly condemn what their caucus member and leadership candidate has said.
” As of publication time , Scheer has made no comments regarding Sloan ’ s remarks .
MacKay said on Twitter yesterday that “ forcing a child into ‘ conversion therapy ’ is child abuse and it absolutely must be banned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , Sloan doubled down on his comments in a message posted to his Twitter account that included a link to the CTV article .
“ Yes , Liberals are legislating child abuse with Bill C-8 .
They will outlaw counseling for children who are gender confused .
If a parent tries to get counseling for a child seeking a sex-change , the Liberals will jail parents up to 5 years .
# cdnpoli , ” Sloan said .
In early May , Sloan announced in an email that , if elected as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that will outlaw transgender surgery for children across Canada.
” He also reiterated this promise in a Twitter message today .
This is not the first time Sloan has come out against the proposed legislation in Bill C-8 .
In March , he criticized it in an email saying , “ this is madness.
” In the same email , Sloan said that if Bill C-8 is passed , parents could be jailed for trying to help their minor children , which the bill defines as those under 18 years of age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes even though Liberals have lowered the age of consent for anal sex to 16 .
Bill C-8 could punish someone for up to five years for causing a minor to undergo “ conversion therapy , ” either in or outside Canada or forcing an adult to do so .
Benefiting financially on advertising from “ conversion therapy ” is punishable by up to two years in jail .
Tabled by Justice Minister David Lametti on March 9 , Bill C-8 will make it an offense under the Criminal Code to : 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therapy , 2 ) remove a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy , 3 ) cause a person to undergo conversion therapy against his/her will , 4 ) profit from conversion therapy , and 5 ) advertise conversion therapy .
Bill C-8 defines “ conversion therapy ” as : “ a practice , treatment or service designed to change a person ’ s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender , or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.
” The bill adds , “ For greater certainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice , treatment or service that relates ( a ) to a person ’ s gender transition ; or ( b ) to a person ’ s exploration of their identity or to its development .
”

MP Derek Sloan says the Canadian Prime Minister is ‘legislating child abuse’ with new bill to ban ‘conversion therapy.’
DROP Disney+: New teen film 'Out' features openly homosexual main character! Sign the petition here.
June 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership candidate and Member of Parliament (MP) Derek Sloan has come under fire for saying that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is legislating “child abuse” with Bill C-8, which, if passed, would prohibit parents from seeking to help their son or daughter overcome gender confusion.
Yesterday, CTV News first reported that Sloan made the remarks in a virtual webinar held Tuesday with his followers.
“The Liberals have said ‘no, you can’t get counselling and if a parent, as a parent, you take your kid to get counseling for this, you can go to jail for five years.’ That’s insane, that’s ridiculous,” Sloan said during the webinar.
“But on the other hand, you're allowed to put your kid on these, you know, invasive medical regimens, you’re allowed to, you know, give them these puberty blockers, you're allowed to literally cut off their healthy, you know, breasts and other sex organs.”
Sloan then expanded to directly accuse Trudeau of “child abuse” with Bill C-8.
“That is child abuse. And I accuse Justin Trudeau and his government right now of child abuse. That's what they're putting into law and we need to wake up,” Sloan said.
“I’m telling you there is not a single person I know whether their conservative, liberal whatever, that agrees with that policy, we can win on this issue, and we will win on this issue.”
LifeSiteNews reached out to Sloan for a comment regarding his remarks from Tuesday’s webinar and he said, “I believe that sex-change operations on minors are abusive. Minors are not old enough to drink, smoke, gamble, or vote, and they are not old enough to make life-altering decisions about surgeries that will permanently change their growth and development.”
“The Liberals’ Bill C-8 endorses an affirmation-only model of care, which means that therapists can only push children in the direction of hormone-blocking pills and surgeries. If they seek counselling for their child to help explore their options, it could be construed as ‘conversion therapy’ and parents and therapists could go to jail for five years. The UK has banned these surgeries for minors, and I intend to do the same.”
Sloan’s comments were met with a backlash from Trudeau’s office, as well as from fellow CPC leadership candidate Peter MacKay.
According to the CTV report, Trudeau communications director Cameron Ahmad called on CPC Leader Andrew Scheer to denounce his remarks.
Ahmad was quoted as saying to CTV that Trudeau will not “dignify these reprehensible comments, but we certainly hope that Andrew Scheer and the Conservative Party will roundly condemn what their caucus member and leadership candidate has said.”
As of publication time, Scheer has made no comments regarding Sloan’s remarks.
MacKay said on Twitter yesterday that “forcing a child into ‘conversion therapy’ is child abuse and it absolutely must be banned. Derek’s remarks are reprehensible.”
Today, Sloan doubled down on his comments in a message posted to his Twitter account that included a link to the CTV article.
“Yes, Liberals are legislating child abuse with Bill C-8. They will outlaw counseling for children who are gender confused. If a parent tries to get counseling for a child seeking a sex-change, the Liberals will jail parents up to 5 years. #cdnpoli,” Sloan said.
In early May, Sloan announced in an email that, if elected as Prime Minister, he will “propose legislation that will outlaw transgender surgery for children across Canada.” He also reiterated this promise in a Twitter message today.
This is not the first time Sloan has come out against the proposed legislation in Bill C-8. In March, he criticized it in an email saying, “this is madness.”
In the same email, Sloan said that if Bill C-8 is passed, parents could be jailed for trying to help their minor children, which the bill defines as those under 18 years of age, recognize their biological sex. This comes even though Liberals have lowered the age of consent for anal sex to 16.
Bill C-8 could punish someone for up to five years for causing a minor to undergo “conversion therapy,” either in or outside Canada or forcing an adult to do so. Benefiting financially on advertising from “conversion therapy” is punishable by up to two years in jail.
Tabled by Justice Minister David Lametti on March 9, Bill C-8 will make it an offense under the Criminal Code to: 1) cause a minor to undergo conversion therapy, 2) remove a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy, 3) cause a person to undergo conversion therapy against his/her will, 4) profit from conversion therapy, and 5) advertise conversion therapy.
Bill C-8 defines “conversion therapy” as: “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”
The bill adds, “For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates (a)to a person’s gender transition; or (b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-04--Canadian province moves to strengthen parents’ right to homeschool

EDMONTON , Alberta , June 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Premier of one of Canada ’ s largest provinces announced a bill last week that strengthens homeschooling and charter school options for parents as well as reaffirms that parents , “ not politicians , ” are best to choose how to educate their kids .
In a May 28 press conference , Alberta Premier Jason Kenney of the United Conservative Party ( UCP ) announced Bill 15 , the Choice in Education Act .
Bill 15 re-words the preamble sections of the Alberta Education Act to include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights ( Section 26.3 ) that says “ parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
” Bill 15 also amends the language in the Education Act to allow a group seeking to establish a new charter school or homeschooling options to bypass the local school board and apply directly to the Alberta minister of education .
At a May 28 morning press conference , Kenney said this change in wording makes it the first law in Canada that explicitly recognizes this universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to be some in Alberta , special interest groups , and political parties who want to undermine this fundamental human right .
This legislation wo n't ’ let them do so in the future , ” Kenney said at the press conference .
“ We believe that parents know better than politicians or bureaucrats about what ’ s in the best interest of their kids.
” Bill 15 was introduced in the Alberta Provincial Legislature on the afternoon on May 28 by Alberta education minister Adriana LaGrange .
She said that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alberta Education Act to expand education choice for parents and solidify their right to choose where to send their kids to school .
It also keeps both the status and funding for independent schools .
“ This proposed legislation will affirm that parents , not politicians , have the right to choose the kind of education they feel will be best for their children , ” LaGrange said in the legislature on May 28 .
“ This bill shows our government ’ s commitment to offering education options that allow parents to select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their children.
” LifeSiteNews contacted LaGrange ’ s office for comment , but as of publication time , there has been no response .
The new legislation will expand and allow more options for parents who choose to homeschool their children , which was welcomed by the Alberta Home Education Association .
“ Parental choice being enshrined within the Education Act as promised , and home education being equally acknowledged as an option for families deciding which education model they feel best suits each individual child , is a welcome step forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Alberta Home Education Association in the May 28 press release .
Bill 15 amends the preamble section “ a ” of the Education Act to say : “ WHEREAS parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that may be provided to their children.
” Preamble “ b ” is amended to say : “ WHEREAS the Government of Alberta recognizes public schools , separate schools , Francophone schools , private schools , charter schools , early childhood services programs and home education programs as being valued and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students and parents.
” Bill 15 came about as part of an election promise from Kenney ’ s UCP Party to both strengthen choice in education as well as reaffirm parents as the primary educators of their children .
In 2019 , the Alberta Ministry of Education conducted a survey of more than 50,000 Albertans that gathered their views on education choice .
The survey found that 62 percent of respondents were “ satisfied with the amount of educational choice in Alberta ” and 59 percent were “ satisfied with the amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s largest union for teachers , the Alberta Teachers Association ( ATA ) , fought back against Bill 15 , saying that opening more homeschooling options was “ concerning.
” “ Unsupervised home education should be a concern to all Albertans .
A child ’ s right to a quality education must not be sacrificed in the name of parental choice , ” said the association ’ s president , Jason Schilling , in a May 28 statement .
“ Parents in Alberta already have significant choice , and the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 press conference , Kenney said choice in education means competition , which leads to “ better outcomes.
” “ A top-down command and control monopoly public education that some would like would undermine freedom , choice , pluralism , and diversity and would result in less competition and worse outcomes , ” Kenney said .
Shortly after Bill 15 was announced , Gil McGowan , the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour , and an NDP candidate in the 2015 Alberta provincial election , said on Twitter that the new legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go unchecked .
In a May 28 twitter message , McGowan said , “ UCP paves the way for nutbar religious charter schools & home-schooling that doesn ’ t follow the curriculum .
They ’ re trying to create an army of brainwashed right-wing warriors .
And they accused the NDP of being too political with education !
# ableg # abpoli.
” McGowan ’ s tweet was met with a strong backlash from LaGrange .
“ It is shocking that Gil McGowan , head of NDP affiliated AFL , would call tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our government stands with parents .
Does the NDP ?
# abed # ableg , ” LaGrange tweeted on May 28 .
Yesterday , LaGrange called on McGowan as well as the NDP to apologize for his remarks both in the legislature and via Twitter .
“ It has been 6 days since NDP-affiliate Gil McGowan attacked faith-based and home education .
The NDP have had 6 days to condemn his hateful remarks but they have failed to do so .
Unlike the NDP , we stand with parents of faith-based and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ableg , ” LaGrange said .
Alberta was governed by the pro-abortion NDP government under former premier Rachel Notley from 2015 to 2019 .
Then education minister , David Eggen , demanded that faith-based schools purge religious content from their policies .
In 2017 , Eggen passed Bill 24 , or “ An Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances , ” which banned schools from telling parents if their child had joined a “ gay-straight alliance ” without the child ’ s consent , regardless of the age of the child .
This bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 under the former PC government , forced schools , including religious ones , to set up pro-homosexual “ gay-straight alliance ” clubs if requested by students .
In 2018 , a group made up of more than two dozen religious schools in Alberta fought Bill 24 for their right to not allow “ gay-straight alliance ” ( GSA ) clubs in their school , after an Alberta judge blocked them from doing so .
Bill 24 required both public and private schools to create GSAs if requested by a student and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children join a GSA unless the child consents to his or her parents knowing .
Kenney ’ s UCP government came to power in 2019 after defeating Notley with a majority government .
Shortly after , Bill 24 was repealed .
But Bill 10 remains and has yet to be repealed .

Alberta introduced a bill recognizing the parents’ right to choose the kind of education they want for their children.
EDMONTON, Alberta, June 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Premier of one of Canada’s largest provinces announced a bill last week that strengthens homeschooling and charter school options for parents as well as reaffirms that parents, “not politicians,” are best to choose how to educate their kids.
In a May 28 press conference, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney of the United Conservative Party (UCP) announced Bill 15, the Choice in Education Act.
Bill 15 re-words the preamble sections of the Alberta Education Act to include wording from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Section 26.3) that says “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
Bill 15 also amends the language in the Education Act to allow a group seeking to establish a new charter school or homeschooling options to bypass the local school board and apply directly to the Alberta minister of education.
At a May 28 morning press conference, Kenney said this change in wording makes it the first law in Canada that explicitly recognizes this universal human right.
“Unfortunately, there continue to be some in Alberta, special interest groups, and political parties who want to undermine this fundamental human right. This legislation won't’ let them do so in the future,” Kenney said at the press conference.
“We believe that parents know better than politicians or bureaucrats about what’s in the best interest of their kids.”
Bill 15 was introduced in the Alberta Provincial Legislature on the afternoon on May 28 by Alberta education minister Adriana LaGrange. She said that if passed, Bill 15 would amend the Alberta Education Act to expand education choice for parents and solidify their right to choose where to send their kids to school. It also keeps both the status and funding for independent schools.
“This proposed legislation will affirm that parents, not politicians, have the right to choose the kind of education they feel will be best for their children,” LaGrange said in the legislature on May 28.
“This bill shows our government’s commitment to offering education options that allow parents to select the path they feel will best help their children.”
LifeSiteNews contacted LaGrange’s office for comment, but as of publication time, there has been no response.
The new legislation will expand and allow more options for parents who choose to homeschool their children, which was welcomed by the Alberta Home Education Association.
“Parental choice being enshrined within the Education Act as promised, and home education being equally acknowledged as an option for families deciding which education model they feel best suits each individual child, is a welcome step forward,” said Shawna Sundal, government liaison for the Alberta Home Education Association in the May 28 press release.
Bill 15 amends the preamble section “a” of the Education Act to say: “WHEREAS parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that may be provided to their children.”
Preamble “b” is amended to say: “WHEREAS the Government of Alberta recognizes public schools, separate schools, Francophone schools, private schools, charter schools, early childhood services programs and home education programs as being valued and integral in providing choice in education to students and parents.”
Bill 15 came about as part of an election promise from Kenney’s UCP Party to both strengthen choice in education as well as reaffirm parents as the primary educators of their children.
In 2019, the Alberta Ministry of Education conducted a survey of more than 50,000 Albertans that gathered their views on education choice.
The survey found that 62 percent of respondents were “satisfied with the amount of educational choice in Alberta” and 59 percent were “satisfied with the amount of information available about school choice.”
Alberta’s largest union for teachers, the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA), fought back against Bill 15, saying that opening more homeschooling options was “concerning.”
“Unsupervised home education should be a concern to all Albertans. A child’s right to a quality education must not be sacrificed in the name of parental choice,” said the association’s president, Jason Schilling, in a May 28 statement.
“Parents in Alberta already have significant choice, and the vast majority choose public education.”
In his May 28 press conference, Kenney said choice in education means competition, which leads to “better outcomes.”
“A top-down command and control monopoly public education that some would like would undermine freedom, choice, pluralism, and diversity and would result in less competition and worse outcomes,” Kenney said.
“We won’t let that happen.”
Shortly after Bill 15 was announced, Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, and an NDP candidate in the 2015 Alberta provincial election, said on Twitter that the new legislation would help “nutbar” religious schools go unchecked.
In a May 28 twitter message, McGowan said, “UCP paves the way for nutbar religious charter schools & home-schooling that doesn’t follow the curriculum. They’re trying to create an army of brainwashed right-wing warriors. And they accused the NDP of being too political with education! #ableg #abpoli.”
McGowan’s tweet was met with a strong backlash from LaGrange.
“It is shocking that Gil McGowan, head of NDP affiliated AFL, would call tens of thousands of Alberta parents ‘nutbars. Our government stands with parents. Does the NDP? #abed #ableg,” LaGrange tweeted on May 28.
Yesterday, LaGrange called on McGowan as well as the NDP to apologize for his remarks both in the legislature and via Twitter.
“It has been 6 days since NDP-affiliate Gil McGowan attacked faith-based and home education. The NDP have had 6 days to condemn his hateful remarks but they have failed to do so. Unlike the NDP, we stand with parents of faith-based and home educated children. #abed #ableg,” LaGrange said.
Alberta was governed by the pro-abortion NDP government under former premier Rachel Notley from 2015 to 2019. Then education minister, David Eggen, demanded that faith-based schools purge religious content from their policies.
In 2017, Eggen passed Bill 24, or “An Act to Support Gay-Straight Alliances,” which banned schools from telling parents if their child had joined a “gay-straight alliance” without the child’s consent, regardless of the age of the child.
This bill strengthened Bill 10, which was passed in 2015 under the former PC government, forced schools, including religious ones, to set up pro-homosexual “gay-straight alliance” clubs if requested by students.
In 2018, a group made up of more than two dozen religious schools in Alberta fought Bill 24 for their right to not allow “gay-straight alliance” (GSA) clubs in their school, after an Alberta judge blocked them from doing so.
Bill 24 required both public and private schools to create GSAs if requested by a student and forbade schools from informing parents when their children join a GSA unless the child consents to his or her parents knowing.
Kenney’s UCP government came to power in 2019 after defeating Notley with a majority government. Shortly after, Bill 24 was repealed. But Bill 10 remains and has yet to be repealed.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-06-04--Trudeau govt orders millions of syringes in preparation for COVID-19 vaccine

PETITION : No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus !
Sign the petition here .
OTTAWA , June 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Canadian government has ordered 37 million syringes for eventual distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine to every single Canadian , Public Services and Procurement Minister Anita Anand announced Tuesday .
“ We are also continuing to work to procure the other supplies needed for eventual mass vaccinations on a systemic level , ” Anand said , CTV reported .
“ We are making sure that when a viable vaccine is discovered , Canada will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been set for delivery of the syringes , which are being supplied by Becton Dickinson Canada .
The quantity would be almost enough for the entire country ’ s population .
“ We do account for the maximum number of Canadians who may wish to be vaccinated , ” Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam said .
The news has raised concerns that taking the eventual vaccine may be compulsory , particularly in light of the fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly refused to rule out doing so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protocols will be in place , we still have a fair bit of time to reflect on that in order to get it right , ” he said in April .
Vaccines are not mandatory for most people in Canada , which experts say is for the best , both in terms of practicality ( particularly if there isn ’ t a large enough quantity for every citizen ) and of enforcement .
New Brunswick education minister Dominic Cardy is pushing legislation that would end philosophical , religious and other non-medical exemptions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it really harmed was the very low-income people who had to take time off work to get their child immunized , ” Dr. Noni MacDonald of Dalhousie University said , pointing to what happened when Australia tried to entice parents to vaccinate their children with tax credits .
“ And they got a double whammy .
They not only didn ’ t get their child immunized , which meant they couldn ’ t go to daycare or go to school , but they also didn ’ t get the child tax credit.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Association for Canadian Studies , 60 percent of Canadians believe the COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory and 40 percent do not , with the “ should be mandatory ” position turing out lower than Leger executive vice president Christian Bourque says he expected .
While the media often fixate on parents who oppose vaccines based on hotly-debated fears over side effects , they tend to overlook another group that supports vaccines in general while having an ethical conflict with vaccines derived from aborted babies ’ cells .
The Trudeau government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a COVID-19 vaccine derived from a line of cells from an aborted baby .
“ Imposing penalties on , or denying benefits to , those who refuse to receive a vaccination is a violation of the Charter section 7 right to life , liberty and security of the person , ” says the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms .
“ If a person refusing a vaccine is doing so because of their religious or conscientious beliefs , it also violates freedom of conscience and religion as protected by section 2 ( a ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have seen 93,700 cases of COVID-19 as of June 4 , with 7,636 deaths and 51,685 recoveries .
An estimated 62 percent of those deaths have been in nursing homes .
Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews ’ continuing live updates on the COVID-19 outbreak all over the world , and click here to read , sign , and share LifeSite ’ s petition against governments forcing people to take vaccines , which has collected more than half a million signatures so far .

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
OTTAWA, June 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Canadian government has ordered 37 million syringes for eventual distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine to every single Canadian, Public Services and Procurement Minister Anita Anand announced Tuesday.
“We are also continuing to work to procure the other supplies needed for eventual mass vaccinations on a systemic level,” Anand said, CTV reported. “We are making sure that when a viable vaccine is discovered, Canada will be ready for its administration.”
No timetable has been set for delivery of the syringes, which are being supplied by Becton Dickinson Canada. The quantity would be almost enough for the entire country’s population.
“We do account for the maximum number of Canadians who may wish to be vaccinated,” Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam said.
The news has raised concerns that taking the eventual vaccine may be compulsory, particularly in light of the fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly refused to rule out doing so. “As to what sort of vaccination protocols will be in place, we still have a fair bit of time to reflect on that in order to get it right,” he said in April.
Vaccines are not mandatory for most people in Canada, which experts say is for the best, both in terms of practicality (particularly if there isn’t a large enough quantity for every citizen) and of enforcement. New Brunswick education minister Dominic Cardy is pushing legislation that would end philosophical, religious and other non-medical exemptions for vaccinating schoolchildren.
“The group that it really harmed was the very low-income people who had to take time off work to get their child immunized,” Dr. Noni MacDonald of Dalhousie University said, pointing to what happened when Australia tried to entice parents to vaccinate their children with tax credits. “And they got a double whammy. They not only didn’t get their child immunized, which meant they couldn’t go to daycare or go to school, but they also didn’t get the child tax credit.”
According to a recent poll from Leger and the Association for Canadian Studies, 60 percent of Canadians believe the COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory and 40 percent do not, with the “should be mandatory” position turing out lower than Leger executive vice president Christian Bourque says he expected.
While the media often fixate on parents who oppose vaccines based on hotly-debated fears over side effects, they tend to overlook another group that supports vaccines in general while having an ethical conflict with vaccines derived from aborted babies’ cells. The Trudeau government is currently working with a Chinese firm on a COVID-19 vaccine derived from a line of cells from an aborted baby.
“Imposing penalties on, or denying benefits to, those who refuse to receive a vaccination is a violation of the Charter section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person,” says the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. “If a person refusing a vaccine is doing so because of their religious or conscientious beliefs, it also violates freedom of conscience and religion as protected by section 2(a) of the Charter.”
Canada is estimated to have seen 93,700 cases of COVID-19 as of June 4, with 7,636 deaths and 51,685 recoveries. An estimated 62 percent of those deaths have been in nursing homes.
Readers can click here for LifeSiteNews’ continuing live updates on the COVID-19 outbreak all over the world, and click here to read, sign, and share LifeSite’s petition against governments forcing people to take vaccines, which has collected more than half a million signatures so far.
Share