Canadian Doctors Living Their Ethics: Speaking Out Against Unscientific Lockdowns and the Health and Societal Harms Occurring Because of Them

 

Author: Tracey Young. (March 7, 2021). Canadian Doctors Living Their Ethics: Speaking Out Against Unscientific Lockdowns and the Health and Societal Harms Occurring Because of Them. Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. Retrieved from: https://canadianadvocacycentre.blogspot.com/2021/03/canadian-doctors-living-their-ethics.html. 

Introduction

Very few doctors in Canada are speaking out against the many unscientific, new and draconian measures being carried out in Canada under the guise of public health management of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19. Those who do are often facing complaints and persecution from the public, and their regulatory colleges. 

This is why the courage of Dr. Gill, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. Lamba must be supported, and applauded as they break their silence to shed light on the unscientific and never-before-used approach of lockdowns, and the health and societal harms that doctors all over Canada are observing within health care systems. Please watch the trailer and/or the full interview with all three. 

Sources That Report the Harms of Lockdowns

Medical Censorship & Harms of Lockdowns

Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1td-O4-C43pKP6xABr_YQxKTGkTXAo1D2qN9c6_BaJyc/edit.

Research on Effectiveness of Lockdowns as a Public Health Measure

“... no evidence that more restrictive interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain or the United States in early 2020.”

Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19.

Bendavid, E. Oh, C. Battacharya, J. and Ionnidis, J.P.A. (Jan. 5, 2021). European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484.

Abstract

The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less‐restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).

Results

Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a nonsignificant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, for example, the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95% CI: −5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden and + 13% (−12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.

Conclusions

While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions.

Videos

Trailer: Medical Censorship & Harms of Lockdowns: An Exclusive Interview with 3 Canadian Frontline Doctors.

WholeHeartedMedia. (Feb. 21, 2021). Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPDIaDhLC7g. 

Full Interview: Medical Censorship & Harms of Lockdowns: An Exclusive Interview with 3 Canadian Frontline Doctors.

WholeHeartedMedia. (Feb. 21, 2021). Youtube. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MynuWhCslys.

Details about the video

Freedom of expression is enshrined in our Constitution, and is imperative in a free and democratic society, as it underpins other human rights, such as the freedoms of thought, conscience, association and assembly. Free expression is vital to robust and open debate in order to formulate sound and reasoned public policy. 

This video reveals the disturbing, and dangerous, trend of how peaceful voices of frontline physicians who dissent, and disagree, with state policy regarding COVID directives, are being silenced. Dr. Gill, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. Lamba have all come under attack for their expression that public health directives and mandates are grossly flawed and misguided, and for calling attention to the incredible harms of the governments' forced lockdowns. 

Their desire to speak about the research they know, and the harms they witness, is driven by their conscience. Their only purpose in doing so is to live up to their oath "to do no harm". They have no other motive. They stand to gain no profit, and in fact, to lose everything. 

Copyright © 2020-2021.Tracey Young/Canadian Advocacy Centre for Health, Safety and Justice. All Rights Reserved.