David Whitehead, Cult of the Medic |531|

is this real? are they be sarcastic? is this mainstream?
This is real. Keep in mind the Prime Minister was on Quebec TV shortly before this calling for the same thing.

Here is an analysis by a Montreal Lawyer who vetted the clip.

 
is this real? are they be sarcastic? is this mainstream?
Quebec has always had a ridiculous amount of authoritarianism in its bones.
Weird to come from the history of France and Liberty!
I remember they nearly lied their way by messing up the ballots for Independence from Canada and said they had the right to keep referendum's coming until Canada had them as an independent country.... YET when an aboriginal person asked if they could vote to be separate from Quebec, they refused to even consider the option. Quebec is indivisable! LOL
 
Quebec has always had a ridiculous amount of authoritarianism in its bones.
Weird to come from the history of France and Liberty!
I remember they nearly lied their way by messing up the ballots for Independence from Canada and said they had the right to keep referendum's coming until Canada had them as an independent country.... YET when an aboriginal person asked if they could vote to be separate from Quebec, they refused to even consider the option. Quebec is indivisable! LOL
Quebec elites supported the Vichy Regime in France during WWII, not the resistance movement against Hitler. That pro-fascist stance is still influencing Canadian politics today. Look at the history of our current PMs father.

https://www.amazon.ca/Young-Trudeau-1919-1944-Quebec-Father/dp/0771067496

This book shines a light of devastating clarity on French-Canadian society in the 1930s and 1940s, when young elites were raised to be pro-fascist, and democratic and liberal were terms of criticism. The model leaders to be admired were good Catholic dictators like Mussolini, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, and especially Pétain, collaborator with the Nazis in Vichy France. There were even demonstrations against Jews who were demonstrating against what the Nazis were doing in Germany.

Trudeau, far from being the rebel that other biographers have claimed, embraced this ideology. At his elite school, Brébeuf, he was a model student, the editor of the school magazine, and admired by the staff and his fellow students. But the fascist ideas and the people he admired – even when the war was going on, as late as 1944 – included extremists so terrible that at the war’s end they were shot. And then there’s his manifesto and his plan to stage a revolution against les Anglais.

This is astonishing material – and it’s all demonstrably true – based on personal papers of Trudeau that the authors were allowed to access after his death.What they have found has astounded and distressed them, but they both agree that the truth must be published.

Translated from the forthcoming French edition by William Johnson, this explosive book is sure to hit the headlines.

https://www.amazon.ca/Myths-memory-lies-intelligentsia-temptation/dp/1552070085

This book opens the window of history wide on the pro-Vichy, pro-fascist sentiments and acts of the Quebec intelligentsia during and after WW II. Using previously-unpublished documents gleaned from archives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the FBI and the US State Department, the author, a Quebec historian, gives an entirely new reading to contemporary Quebec history. Widley acclaimed and controversial, this book should be read by anyone interested in modern Quebec or WW II.
 
Quebec has always had a ridiculous amount of authoritarianism in its bones.
Weird to come from the history of France and Liberty!
I remember they nearly lied their way by messing up the ballots for Independence from Canada and said they had the right to keep referendum's coming until Canada had them as an independent country.... YET when an aboriginal person asked if they could vote to be separate from Quebec, they refused to even consider the option. Quebec is indivisable! LOL
interesting. I just did an interview with Dr. Mario Beauregard about his career doing parapsychology research in quebec... definitely supports what you're saying
 
interesting. I tend to agree... but how does it square w/ what the same authors are saying here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOmm2E3asZk
The book you linked to was actually based on the author's doctoral dissertation at Laval University (which interestingly delayed approval of her thesis for 2 years). The book documents antisemitism and support of fascism among Quebec nationalists and intellectuals during the 1930s and '40s.

I would say this work supports her later work by giving it more context.

The full title of the book is:

The Traitor and the Jew: Anti-Semitism and the Delirium of Extremist Right-Wing Nationalism in French Canada from 1929–1939
by Esther Delisle
 
Last edited:
Funny how this isn't making the MSM. The CBC actually lied about the protest, suggesting the truckers wanted better highways to drive on. They couldn't admit that people don't agree with the government on forced vaccinations.


 
Last edited:
I'm a Peterson fan. Always a good listen to my mind.
On the whole I agree! Howver, it would be nice if he could get his throat fixed!
His warnings regarding authoritarianism, the same echoed by many here, is valid and worth diligence. This is a consistent point of his if you've listened to him at all. He's a student of 20th century Marxist/Communist experiences, and an obvious critic of them. I believe justifiably so.

A couple other points:

He theorizes that the motivation behind the various public health policies we've seen across the globe these past couple years were a) motivated by fear and b) indicative of our unpreparedness. Note: He doesn't mention any conspiratorial element; no mention of the concept of a "plandemic" as is so often cheekily tossed about here. I said about as much at the onset of this thing. I used terms like "humans bumbling about" and similar. That while we may very well be screwing the proverbial pooch in our response, it wasn't purposeful in that regard. It was much more likely the result of humans just being messy.

Well not everyone has thought about all the evidence. To take just one example:

Before the pandemic/plandemic began, I was warned from two completely different sources to keep topped up with vitamins C and D. This has been shown in several studies to reduce substantially death and serious disease in people with COVID, and to protect against actually catching the disease. I followed that advice.

At one point our then health secretary (before his naughty kiss) announced that there was too much evidence in favour of the value of vitamin D, and he would arrange for a special supplement of 800 iu for those who were highly vulnerable!

The stuff is dirt cheap and all that was needed was a recommendation that people bought the vitamin from their nearest supermarket.

It was observed that non-white citizens were at extra risk from COVID. It was never explained why (although some muttered darkly about social deprivation).

Somehow despite the best efforts of the BBC, the message got out, and now the relevant shelves absolutely groan with bottles of vitamin D.

As you have no doubt heard, the Omicron virus is so mild in the UK that all COVID restrictions have been removed.

Now, ask yourself - just exactly why were the health authorities here and the US so loath to mention vitamin C and D.

That is just one line of evidence that the authorities did not want to protect people against this virus, but wanted to create a huge demand for the vaccines.

David
 
Last edited:
If COVID had turned out to be a 10x or 100x killer beyond what we saw, I expect most reasonable people would have questioned your laissez faire policy as negligent. After all, at least in the U.S., the excess deaths that would have occurred while the anti-vax minded folks worked through the facts that a) viruses do exist that cause disease, b) people are dying of this new novel virus, and c) the vaccine appears to work would have been massive.

Actually they are now saying that the vaccine reduces the symptoms of COVID but does not stop its being transmitted on to others - though to be fair they ar educking and weaving on this one - it is not totally clear what the vaccine does (think of Israel with high rates of COVID and almost full vaccination).

If a vaccine were both safe and effective, almost everyone would want a shot. The problem is that its effectiveness vanes rapidly, and it is far from safe. In comparison, even the original COVID is a fairly mild disease that people cope with at home.

This is a disease that attacks elderly people with a lot of comorbidities:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/tran...omofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband

David
 
Yet all the data shows that those in hospitals dying from the disease are damn near exclusively unvaccinated. I'm not sure even counter mainstream priests are challenging this. So, if you're vulnerable there seems to be a benefit worth considering.
 
Who do we believe or trust any longer?
Amazing how things appear now, dishonesty being the norm on many mainstream outlets. Dishonesty is achieved by omission, commission or outright lying and I’m sure there are more ways to describe the many ways they corrupt the data.

Over time I have learned to trust certain individuals like Jonathan Cook, the independent reporter that tweeted this, and the chap that makes these YouTube videos, Dr John Campbell (a PhD not a medical doctor) but as Nurse trainer he is far from ignorant about medical ‘stuff’. They’re not perfect sources, of course, but I think they’re basically giving their honest opinions, which is more than can be said for the mainstream news anchors.

Who do you trust and where do you get your data from?


 
I've talked with several healthcare executives in my Midwest community

Healthcare executives? Ok, they’re a great source, bound to be telling the truth. ;)

Things may be different in the UK, but in any event, you’ve just ‘summarily dismissed’ my post in exactly the way you accuse ‘this community’ of doing.
 
Healthcare executives? Ok, they’re a great source, bound to be telling the truth. ;)
People I've known personally for years vs things you found on the internet. Yeah, I'll trust the folks I know who have nothing to gain by lying to me on their ICU stats over anything I'd find on the internet.

Your case, should the data be accurate and properly understood in its particular context, is an interesting counter point. But ask yourself this: You've likely gone "all in" on this one Twitter post. Case closed based on this one finding: vaccines don't protect against severe illness. Hell, you've probably convinced yourself the vaccines themselves are the reason those folks are in the ICU. Its bias seeking at its finest. That's what we do way too much around here. (And more broadly these days for that matter.)
 
Case closed based on this one finding: vaccines don't protect against severe illness. Hell, you've probably convinced yourself the vaccines themselves are the reason those folks are in the ICU. Its bias seeking at its finest.

Wrong again. Likely prevention against severe illness is really the one positive thing that I consider the vaccines probably do possess.
But to assume that the unvaccinated are making an obviously silly choice by not having the vaccines is ignorant imo. Its a far more nuanced picture than you’re making out. I accept that my own stance is mostly principled, partly fear of the unknown. Maybe I’ll get Covid and die, it’s possible. I’d be unlucky, but it’s possible. But I’d rather die by making a choice of my own, that being forced/ coerced into having something that I, on balance, consider unnecessary and carry unknown risks in the short/medium and long term.

We should talk more. :)
 
The Facebook "fact-checking" of the British Medical Journal has many interesting elements.

Here is a link to an article by Matt Taibbi where he provides some background and analysis and also interviews the primary author of the article in the BMJ:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-british-medical-journal-story

In a remarkable correspondence with BMJ editors, Lead Stories editor Alan Duke explained that the term “missing context” was invented by Facebook:
To deal with content that could mislead without additional context but which was otherwise true or real… Sometimes Facebook’s messaging about the fact checking labels can sound overly aggressive and scary. If you have an issue with their messaging you should indeed take it up with them as we are unable to change any of it.
“Missing context” has become a term to disparage reporting that is true but inconvenient. As Thacker notes in the Q&A below, “They’re checking narrative, not fact.”
 
Children under the age of 12 in the UK are developing natural immunity to covid (they are too young to be vaccinated).

 
Back
Top