Communist China used state loyal, partisan media to slander and attack organizers of freedom protests in Hong Kong. This despicable practice is perpetrated by traitorous ideologically slanted media companies and journalists in order to prevent citizens from peacefully protesting against their governments. Shaming techniques, slandering tactics via assignment of nasty labels, presenting protestors and their organizers as threats to public safety, inevitably escalating to the point where the state can justify fining said organizers, and ultimately criminalizing behaviour practically everyone would have deemed fundamental in a healthy democracy just a few months earlier.
This is how democracy and freedom dies. This is how freedoms and liberties are stripped from society. When presented in the best interests of public safety, apparently the masses are eagerly willing to throw away rights and freedoms they would have once been willing to fight and die to protect.
Unfortunately for Canada and for Canadians, we are falling for these same tricks right now. We tolerated Black Lives Matter protests during a pandemic, from radical Marxist, flagrantly Anti-Canadian protestors, without question. Our politicians and police participated in said protests, and our ministers of public health determined that these protests represented zero threat to public safety – even as they labelled all Canadians as bigots, tore down our statues, while shaming and re-positioning our history. Protestors however who disagree with our governments public health policies, are labelled dangerous far alt right conspiracy theorists who represent an existential threat to public safety. The media label and shame them, our politicians condemn them, and our police punish them.
I originally raised the alarm back in October, when, on Canadian Thanksgiving, a Canadian citizen was charged for a violation of our public health policies. It was done explicitly to target an organizer of protests, but, was not so thinly camouflaged as a public health violation. Simply put, Canadians would not have tolerated such behaviour by our government officials. Fast forward a few months, and today, we are openly charging organizers of peaceful protests, without even a whimper from the Canadian public. Our media are flagrantly permitted to slander good, law abiding, tax paying citizens of Canada, simply for protesting our governments policies.
Whats absolutely shameful, is the Canadian citizens, who are so gripped by fear, who not only allow this to happen, but, have begun cheerleading the dismantling of our freedoms in Canada and the shredding of our constitution. What will be left of Canada if we allow this to continue will be unrecognizable.
Today I speak out in support of Mark Friesen. A regular Canadian who is standing up for what he believes in and is standing up to defend Canada and the rights of all Canadians. For his effort, he has become the target of flagrant and slanderous hit pieces.
Today I dissect one such hit piece, by Press Progress. I expose Press Progress for the radical, Marxist supporting organization they are and for their shameful efforts to dismantle freedom and democracy in Canada.
CH1 Podcast Andrew Rouchotas – EP023 – Press Progress
Podcast available on all of your favourite podcast platforms (iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, etc). You can also listen to the podcast in your browser directly from the CH1.ca platform.
Press Progress labels those peacefully protesting the Canadian government as “far alt right racist conspiracy theorists”, but, shames those who speak out against the Marxist Far Left Black Lives Matter protests – https://pressprogress.ca/tag/black-lives-matter/
Press Progress is a project of the Broadbent Institute – and NDP think tank – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadbent_Institute
Press Progress calls the Great Reset a “conspiracy theory” – Wikipedia – Great Reset – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset
50,000 of the worlds leading subject matter experts sign The Great Barrington Declaration, which explicitly oppose our governments public health policies – https://gbdeclaration.org/
Scientific Evidence clearing demonstrating the lack of scientific efficacy with respect to masking in order to prevent contamination
Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.”Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”