Conformity and its Effects on a Society
During a Pandemic

Dr. Manon Bolliger, ND
48 min readJun 23, 2021

Dr. Manon Bolliger, ND
Naturopathic Medical Doctor, CEO & Founder of Bowen College


This article provides general information and discussions about health and related subjects. The information and other content provided in this article, or in any linked materials, are not intended and should not be construed as medical advice, nor is the information a substitute for professional medical expertise or treatment.

If you or any other person has a medical concern, you should consult with your health care provider or seek other professional medical treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something in this article or in any linked materials. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or emergency services immediately.

Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information shared through this article, the information may inadvertently contain inaccuracies or typographical errors, outside links may have changed or have become inactive, and because scientific, technological, and business practices are constantly evolving, I am not responsible for the accuracy of this article, or for any errors or omissions that may occur.

(NB: In compliance with my regulatory Board, I will share the same narrative as our governing Minister of Health. As a naturopathic physician, I have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath of “First Do No Harm” and “Informed Consent.” With a background in law and a quest for truth and justice, I am a seeker of information and patterns. As a citizen of this world, a mother, a daughter, and a sister, I am compelled to share the trends I see.)

Psychology Today defines conformity as the tendency for an individual to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours with those of the people around them. Conformity is how we ‘fit in’ with our social groups, co-workers, and society. It is a set of rules, spoken or unspoken, that we follow to become part of the group.

As social animals, from the time we are born, we are taught to conform to society’s rules either consciously or subconsciously from our peers, parents, teachers, bosses, TV, and now the Internet. It may be in the form of law, such as stopping at red lights. If you choose not to conform to this law, you may receive a fine or ticket from the authorities.

However, conformity also can be subconscious, resulting from internal pressures, such as dressing the same as your peers to ‘fit in’, or seeking like-minded individuals to avoid conflict of interest. Though social conformity is valuable to group cohesion and to our evolutionary success, our default setting is not always the best response and even well-honed evolutionary dispositions have their trade-offs that need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Regardless of how conformity appears in your life, the pressure to conform can often be overwhelming and has the power to change how large groups behave, think, act, etc., and can even lead to atrocities against humanity as displayed during acts of war.

Cass R. Sunstein, a Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard and founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School, argues in his book, Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, that the key to making sense of living in this fractured world lies in understanding the idea of conformity―what it is and how it works―as well as the countervailing force of dissent.

He also observes that without those who buck against conformity, though often seen as selfish dissenters, there would be no one to question what we are conforming to, which can lead society to extremism. Is this what we are seeing in today’s society where healthy debate and questioning of the current narrative are now labelled in a way to discredit and dismiss even when based on facts.

Let’s examine the current push for conformity prevalent in today’s social norms in the form of attitudes toward mRNA injections, masks, lockdowns, and social distancing as well as the effect this is having on society and individuals. Let’s also question where the information promoting these norms is coming from and how it is funded.

Are the COVID-19 Numbers Being Inflated?

According to the CDC’s cause of death table, under comorbidities and other conditions, causes of deaths are listed as COVID-19 associated[i]. On the death certificate, only 5% of all deaths listed COVID-19 as the only cause, and on average there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. However, all the deaths were counted as COVID-19 deaths.

These statistics, if accurate, would reduce the actual death toll from COVID-19 by 95% reducing the world death rate as of June 18th, 2021, from 3,836,828 (according to the World Health Organization)[ii] to 191,841. Never has a secondary illness before been counted as the cause of death when other comorbidities have excited[iii].

For example, suppose someone diagnosed with stage 4 lymphatic cancer comes into contact with SARS-CoV-2, then develops pneumonia-causing an acute myocardial infarction leading to a pulmonary embolism and death. The death certificate would list pulmonary embolism as the cause of death due to an acute myocardial infarction. Pneumonia, COVID-19, and stage 4 lymphatic cancer would be listed as conditions contributing to death, but not directly causing death.

In March 2020, the CDC released a directive instructing medical practitioners to ascribe the cause of death as COVID-19 for ALL deaths, regardless of whether they had other comorbidities or inciting causes.

CDC — National Vital Statistics System. “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.” COVID-19 Alert №2, March 24, 2020 —

Why are all the current COVID-19 deaths with comorbidities, and deaths where the patient was not even tested for the COVID-19 virus, being counted as strictly a COVID death by the CDC, governments, and mainstream media?

Is the PCR Testing an Accurate Gauge of Active Cases?

Throughout the pandemic, many have questioned the validity of the PCR test for the number of amplification performed, or the testing ‘cycle threshold’ which in most cases has been 35–40 cycles. According to an article published by Oxford Academic at the end of September[iv], their findings showed that if someone tested positive for COVID-19 at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person being infected is less than 3%, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.

According to an article in the New York Times[v], “In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles.” Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, when referring to 37–40 cycles, says: “Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left”. So, if between 85 and 90% of the tests are likely false positives, that would lower the actual case count from 140,322,903[vi] to approximately 14,032,290 to 21,048,435, worldwide. If accurate, that would mean, in the worst-case scenario, just over 21 million people tested positive and had a viral load in their body that could be considered contagious.

What is furthermore confounding is that the lab directives given by the CDC to test the post-vaccinated population sets its PCR cyclical rate at < or = to 28. How will that decision to change post-vaccine PCR cycles, impact research later on the “efficacy” of the vaccine?[vii]

Will the research comparing pre-and-post CPR “positive” tests using the new cycle level PCR exclusively for post vaccine assessment not skew the data? This current study, which is promising, what cycles of CPR are they using?[viii]

Clinically, the PCR tests were never intended to be used for diagnostic purposes, but rather to identify a virus in a sick person[ix],. Why have researchers who have warned against the use of the PCR test[x],[xi] not being covered by our media? So, why has the world been subjected to lockdowns and restrictions? Which numbers do we trust?




[iv] Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciaa1491,

[v] Mandavilli, Apoorva. “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2020,


[vii] Ioannidis, John P. A. “Reconciling Estimates of Global Spread and Infection Fatality Rates of COVID‐19: An Overview of Systematic Evaluations.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 9 Apr. 2021,

[viii] Mallapaty, Smriti. “Can COVID Vaccines Stop Transmission? Scientists Race to Find Answers.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 19 Feb. 2021,

[ix] Knightly, Kit. “WHO (Finally) Admits PCR Tests Create False Positives.” OffGuardian, 9 Feb. 2021,

[x] Engelbrecht , Torsten, and Konstantin Demeter. “COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless.” Bulgarian Pathology Association, 1 July 2020,


Lockdowns Vs. No Lockdowns

As COVID-19 spread around the world, some countries chose to enforce lockdowns which included banning non-essential activities, closing of shops and businesses deemed non-essential, curfews, and limiting social gatherings. However, looking at 35 separate scientific studies[i] on the effectiveness of lockdowns on minimizing the spread of COVID-19, the reductions in the number of critical cases, and overall mortality all concluded that lockdowns did not help in the reduction of cases, severity, or mortality.

“Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study,” by R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst. Nature, March 5, 2021. “A recent mathematical model has suggested that staying at home did not play a dominant role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. The second wave of cases in Europe, in regions that were considered as COVID-19 controlled, may raise some concerns. Our objective was to assess the association between staying at home (%) and the reduction/increase in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in several regions in the world…. After preprocessing the data, 87 regions around the world were included, yielding 3741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis. Only 63 (1.6%) comparisons were significant. With our results, we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34…. We were not able to explain the variation of deaths/million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analyzed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.

All studies note the serious harm lockdowns have caused to the economy and the fact that many countries were already seeing a decline in numbers before lockdowns were in place.

An open letter from the World Doctors Alliance calls on the UK Government, governments of the world and the citizens of the world to stop all lockdown measures immediately.

World Doctors Alliance: “There has been a catalogue of unscientific, non-sensical [sic] policies enacted which infringe our inalienable rights, such as — freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These draconian totalitarian measures must never be repeated.[ii]

As of May 3, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lifted the states’ lockdowns orders including abolishing mask and social distancing without requiring the population to reach a certain percentage of vaccinations. As of June 17th, 2021, only 54% of the population in Florida has received at least one dose of the mRNA injection[iii] yet the case count for COVID-19 has continued to drop[iv]…without lockdowns.

In comparison, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe has placed restrictions on removing lockdowns based on 70% of the population receiving at least one dose of the mRNA injection[v] before lockdowns will be removed. As of June 3rd, 2021, ninety-one percent over 80 years of age received at least one dose, seventy-seven percent of those over the age of 40 have received their first dose. Seventy-two percent of those 30+ have received their first dose. Sixty-six percent of those 18+ have received their first dose, while 63 percent of those 12+ have also received their first dose[vi] yet restrictions remain in place.

Both locations have seen a continued drop in active cases, yet one remains locked down and one doesn’t. This information further brings to question the effectiveness of lockdowns and vaccination against Sars-Cov-2.

[i] American Institute for Economic Research, Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence — Dec.19, 2020-


(downloaded from the currently blocked site)





Vaccines & mRNA Injections Vs. Natural Immunity

When our body’s specialized cells, called T cells detect a virus in the body, they immediately go on the attack to try and eliminate the threat. They do this through three methods; cytotoxic cells kill cells that are infected with viruses with toxic mediators; small proteins called interferons play a role in immune protection against viruses; and antibodies that neutralize or eradicate the virus[i].

Antibodies are the body’s natural defence against viruses and are normally formed when the T cells have encountered a virus in the past and are able to recognize the threat and eliminate it before it causes harm. However, a study posted on Science Direct[iii] had scientists baffled when researchers tested blood samples taken years before the pandemic and discovered the subjects’ T cells were already tailored to detect the proteins on the surface of COVID-19. In fact, 40%-60% of unexposed individuals had T cells tailored to fight SARS-CoV-2.

This raises the question of whether people should be tested for immunity prior to the COVID-19 mRNA injection. What are the effects on someone who already has T cells that recognize the virus protein? Should they submit to receiving the mRNA injections and why would someone need an mRNA injection if they already test positive for having immunity?

Vaccines, on the other hand, are scientifically designed to imitate a viral infection allowing the body’s T cells to recognize the threat in the future should you ever be exposed to the “wild virus” and subsequently eliminate it. Vaccine makers have attempted to make viral vaccines for coronaviruses in the past with no success due to a “cytokine storm” that was caused when the vaccinated person and/or animal was exposed to the “wild virus”[iv]. This cytokine storm phenomenon, called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED)[v], is when the body’s immune system goes into overdrive and attacks the body itself instead of just the virus, often leading to death.

The data submitted to the FDA by Pfizer[vi] and Moderna[vii] to the FDA for their Emergency Use Authorization does not include data on ADE/VED nor does it show proof of the vaccine companies’ ability to solve the cytokine storm problem. A more recent study states:

Going forwards[sic], it will be crucial to evaluate animal and clinical datasets for signs of ADE, and to balance ADE-related safety risks against intervention efficacy if clinical ADE is observed. Ongoing animal and human clinical studies will provide important insights into the mechanisms of ADE in COVID-19. Such evidence is sorely needed to ensure product safety in the large-scale medical interventions that are likely required to reduce the global burden of COVID-19.[viii]

The Emergency Use Authorization data submitted by the above companies also does not include data on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the duration of “protection” from SARS-CoV-2, or the prevention of mortality from COVID-19. It does not even account for when the spike protein production will be deemed to wear off, how it will stop and whether it will not cause long-term issues. Only now research is surfacing that the spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier.[ix] What about the possibility that through reversed transcriptase, it might affect our genes?

The first-ever post-mortem study of a previously symptomless 86-year-old man vaccinated against COVID-19 has revealed that viral RNA was found in every organ of the patient’s body. Although he did not present with any COVID-19-specific symptoms, he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before he died. Post-mortem molecular mapping by real-time polymerase chain reaction revealed relevant SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values in all organs examined (oropharynx, olfactory mucosa, trachea, lungs, heart, kidney, and cerebrum) except for the liver and olfactory bulb.[x]

“In summary, the results of our autopsy case study in a patient with mRNA vaccine confirm the view that by the first dose of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity can already be induced, while sterile immunity is not adequately developed,” the study concluded.

In other words, although the COVID-19 vaccine triggered an immune response within the body, it didn’t appear to stop the spread of the virus nor the spread of harmful viral spike proteins, throughout the body.

This questions the efficacy of these mRNA synthetic injections if they do not protect the vaccinated from contracting COVID-19, nor prevent transmission or mortality. As of April 30, 2021, approximately 101 million persons in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19[xi]. However, during the surveillance period, SARS-CoV-2 transmission continued at high levels in many parts of the country, with approximately 355,000 COVID-19 cases reported nationally during the week of April 24–30, 2021[xii].

A total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections had been reported from 46 U.S. states and territories as of April 30, 2021, and based on preliminary data, 2,725 (27%) vaccine breakthrough infections were asymptomatic, 995 (10%) patients were known to be hospitalized, and 160 (2%) patients died. According to the CDC, a small percentage of fully vaccinated persons (i.e. received all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine) will develop symptomatic or asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19[xiii].

Dr. Larry Corey, who oversees the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 vaccine trials said on November 11, 2020: “The studies aren’t designed to assess transmission. They don’t ask that question, and there’s really no information on this at this point in time.” [xiv]

Research also suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses and showed that the vaccine altered the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells following stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli[xv]. They concluded that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses. This could have long-term effects on our total health and wellbeing as our immune system is our first and best defence against all bacteria, viruses, disease, etc.

This ineffectuality, along with adverse effects reported to VAERS[xvi], included 4,331 deaths from COVID-19 mRNA gene inoculations, reported by the National Vaccine Information Center as of June 17th, 2021, one-third of which occurred within 48 hours[xvii]. These numbers show there is a risk that the COVID-19 mRNA injections cause adverse reactions including death with no proven long-term health benefit demonstrated to date. Vaccine makers also invalidated their own studies of the COVID-19 mRNA injection safety by unblinding their trials and giving the control groups the active mRNA injections, claiming it is “unethical” to withhold an “effective” vaccine. This action was taken despite the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA), of which the FDA is a member, which issued a statement supporting the continuation of randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine trials in late November 2020.

“Unless maintaining participants in their randomized treatment groups (vaccinated or control) after a vaccine is approved is clearly infeasible, we recommend that clinical trials should proceed as initially planned with a follow-up of at least one year or more from completion of assigned doses,” the ICMRA stated.[xviii]

Without long-term studies on the possible side effects of COVID-19 mRNA injections, the public has no information regarding long-term risk and therefore is unable to make an informed risk/benefit assessment. As the number of “vaccine” injuries and deaths keeps rising, it becomes even more imperative to allow a self-selected group of individuals to be part of the study as a “placebo” group. There are many hypotheses of long-term issues that we can not possibly detect at this stage and may only surface in 10+ years such as the neurodegenerative, auto-immune diseases, etc. as well as the long-term impacts on children that are being injected.

Furthermore, all efforts should be put into helping keep the population healthy and better able to handle this virus or any future one. In fact, efforts should be focused on good health and the decrease of co-morbidities which represented a large part of the population affected. It is noteworthy that many private insurance companies to date are not willing to cover injuries in the USA that come from the vaccine. In fact, it would be worth checking with your own insurance company to see whether you are covered in case you or a family member in your care has been adversely impacted. The pharmaceutical companies have full immunity.


[iii] Grifoni, Alba, et al. “Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals.” Cell, Cell Press, 20 May 2020,

[iv] Soy M;Keser G;Atagündüz P;Tabak F;Atagündüz I;Kayhan S;, Soy. “Cytokine Storm in COVID-19: Pathogenesis and Overview of Anti-Inflammatory Agents Used in Treatment.” Clinical Rheumatology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30 May 2020,

[v] Smatti, Maria K., et al. “Viral-Induced Enhanced Disease Illness.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 19 Nov. 2018,



[viii] Lee, Wen Shi, et al. “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Therapies.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 9 Sept. 2020,

[ix] Buzhdygan, Tetyana P, et al. “The SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier.” Neurobiology of Disease, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc., Dec. 2020,

[x] Hansen T, Titze U, Kulamadayil-Heidenreich NSA, et al. First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 [published online ahead of print, 2021 Apr 16]. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;107:172–175. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.053



[xiii] COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections Reported to CDC — United States, January 1–April 30, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:792–793. DOI: icon


[xv] The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses. F. Konstantin Föhse, Büsranur Geckin, Gijs J. Overheul, Josephine van de Maat, Gizem Kilic, Ozlem Bulut, Helga Dijkstra, Heidi Lemmers, S. Andrei Sarlea, Maartje Reijnders, Jacobien Hoogerwerf, Jaap ten Oever, Elles Simonetti, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Leo A.B. Joosten, Bart L. Haagmans, Reinout van Crevel, Yang Li, Ronald P. van Rij, Corine GeurtsvanKessel, Marien I. de Jonge, Jorge Domínguez-Andrés, Mihai G. Netea medRxiv 2021.05.03.21256520; doi:


[xvii] Information Center, National Vaccine. “Found 3,544 Cases Where Vaccine Targets COVID-19 (COVID19) and Patient Died.” Search Results from the VAERS Database, 2021, Database, VAERS. “Found 3,544 Cases Where Vaccine Targets COVID-19 (COVID19) and Patient Died.” Search Results from the VAERS Database, 2021,

[xviii] Rita Rubin, MA. “The Challenge of Conducting Placebo-Controlled Trials as COVID-19 Vaccines Become Authorized.” JAMA, JAMA Network, 9 Mar. 2021,

Social Distancing and Masks

Many governments have instituted mandatory masks and social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With mandatory health restrictions, the assumption was that COVID-19 positive numbers would decline; however, that has not happened.

A new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID deaths as of late July 2020[i]. The study included 25 U.S. states and 23 countries. It concluded that the data trends observed above likely indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — e.g., lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates — do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall[ii]. These finding questions the effect of masks on stopping the spread of COVID-19, and why governments are using mask mandates within the COVID-19 guidelines. A more recent study examining many of the non-pharmaceutical measures in place concludes that “The emerging picture reveals that no one-size-fits-all solution exists, and no single NPI (non-pharmaceutical interventions) can decrease Rt (effective reproduction number, Rt, of COVID-19) below one[iii]. The bigger question might be whether the resultant social and economic impact outweighs the potential positive impact of containing Sars-Cov-2? The American Institute for Economic Research does not think so.[iv]

Social distancing and lockdowns are preventing physical contact with loved ones or seeing them in person, depriving people of the basic human need for touch. A study, entitled “Relational and Health Correlates of Affection Deprivation,” posted in the Western Journal of Communication Volume 78, 2014 — Issue 4, found that the lack of regular human touch can have serious and long-lasting effects including loneliness, depression, stress, alexithymia, preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment styles, and a number of personality disorders, mood and anxiety disorders, and secondary immune disorders. [v]

In other words, humans are wired for touch and connection, which means that continued denial of human connection causes long-lasting and harmful effects on both health and mental wellness. With so much evidence on the harm that denying touch can cause, why are people quick to conform to mandates that prevent them from hugging their loved ones? Why is the healthy population being locked down? How could the vulnerable be better protected?


[ii] Miller, Stephen. “Lockdowns and Mask Mandates Do Not Lead to Reduced COVID…” AIER, 19 Jan. 2021,


[iv] Boudreaux, Donald J. “The Covid-19 Emergency Did Not Justify Lockdowns.” AIER, 4 May 2021,

[v] Floyd , Kory. “Relational and Health Correlates of Affection Deprivation.” Taylor & Francis, 15 July 2014,

Freedom of Debate

Debate has existed for centuries as a healthy way to inquire about reality in all areas of society, ranging from government to social media. Healthy debate brings up new questions, allows others to share their views, and advances findings in sciences and education. Without debate, there would be no need for further questioning or study on any subject as what is presented would be immediately taken as truth.

Without questioning, there would be no advancement in science, education, law, government, and other sectors of society, to its detriment. Today, debate has been taken to social media with people from all walks of life being able to address the government, media, and the general public on a variety of topics, asking questions or reporting their own findings on a subject. This tradition of debate, however, has turned into a cul-de-sac on its own. What is “allowed” to be said is now monitored and controlled by fact-checkers and social media sites. Any comment or study that contradicts the conformed narrative is banned[i].

Why are debates no longer allowed? Is it really that detrimental to society for someone to voice their expertise and concerns with important matters such as government policies, health orders, restrictions? Should people contributing a different perspective with the intention to bring more solutions to be publicly attacked for their views or even be de-platformed if they do not conform?

The detrimental effect of censorship is proven in Facebook’s censorship of social media posts suggesting the Sars-Cov-2 virus was developed in a lab. Up until May 2021, Facebook’s fact-checkers automatically banned any post suggesting the virus was man-made, however, it has come to light that three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report[ii].

The banning of all talk about the virus being made in a lab has possibly slowed the origin research which could have exposed Fauci’s involvement in the Wuhan lab[iii] much sooner and could have allowed for the possibility of origin studies leading to better treatments and prevention.

What was once considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ has now been proven accurate which brings to question how many other censored materials are actual facts and is censorship destroying our right to information?




Living in Constant Fear

Fear in one’s body, whether real or imagined, triggers the fight or flight response, which in turn releases the stress hormones cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline. These hormones increase heart rate, pumping extra blood to the extremities, heart and lungs, should we need to flee from danger. Fear can save our life should we be in immediate life-threatening danger.

But what happens to people who are exposed to constant fear, such as being routinely reminded of COVID-19 deaths and infection rates by the media and government, told not to leave their homes or to gather in a social setting for fear of catching COVID-19, or threatened with fines or arrest if they do?

At the 2017 Neuroscience Education Institute Congress, Mary D. Moller, PhD, DNP, ARNP, PMHCNS-BC, CPRP, FAAN, associate professor, Pacific Lutheran University School of Nursing, and Director of Psychiatric Services, Northwest Center for Integrated Health, presented on physiology of fear and its impact on wellness[i].

She outlined the potential consequences of constant exposure to fear on overall, physical, emotional, environmental, and spiritual health. The findings from her report included:

● Immune system dysfunction

● Endocrine system dysfunction

● Autonomic nervous system alterations

● Sleep/wake cycle disruption

● Eating disorders

● Alterations in hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis

● Dissociation from self

● Inability to have loving feelings

● Learned helplessness

● Phobic anxiety

● Mood swings

● Obsessive-compulsive thoughts

● Continued living in fear-generating situations due to uncertainty of moving out and unknown associated dangers

● Inability to find safe housing

● Fear of leaving home because of paranoia

● Bitterness/fear toward God or others

● Confusion/disgust with God or religion

● Loss of trust in God and/or clergy

● Waiting for God to fix it

● Despair related to perceived loss of spirituality

When living in a constant state of fear, the effects on health and wellbeing are numerous and can be long-lasting. So why are governments and media not promoting healthy lifestyles, exercise[ii], and healthy eating[iii] to preserve or raise immune levels, rather than focusing on promoting fear?

[i][i] Rosenberg, Jaime. “The Effects of Chronic Fear on a Person’s Health.” AJMC, 11 Nov. 2017,

[ii] RJ;Campbell JP;Gleeson M;Krüger K;Nieman DC;Pyne DB;Turner JE;Walsh NP;, Simpson. “Can Exercise Affect Immune Function to Increase Susceptibility to Infection?” Exercise Immunology Review, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 26 Aug. 2020,


Herd Immunity

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of herd immunity is a reduction in the risk of infection with a specific communicable disease (such as measles or influenza) that occurs when a significant proportion of the population has become immune to infection (as because of previous exposure or vaccination) so that susceptible individuals are much less likely to come in contact with infected individuals.[i]

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines herd immunity, also known as “population immunity”, as the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. The WHO supports achieving “herd immunity” through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.[ii]

Both state that herd immunity can be achieved through either previous exposure or vaccination. However, the WHO focuses on vaccination as the best choice even though none of the current vaccination models using gene therapies are proven to or claim to prevent contraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The WHO Chief Scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan stated in a media conference, “I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.” [iii]

These words have now been demonstrated to be true. In fact, there is mounting evidence that the new strands that are coming to light are directly linked to the impact of “vaccinating” during an epidemic, giving rise to stronger strains as we have seen in the microbe universe of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

Swaminathan’s comment came after the media questioned whether people who get vaccinated would still need to be quarantined when visiting countries with low transmission rates.[iv] In short, according to Swaminathan, COVID-19 mRNA injections have not proven to protect against catching the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Are the benefits of mRNA injections, not approved by the FDA (authorized for emergency use only), worth the risk, since the main impact of the injection is only to reduce the symptoms, not provide immunity? Therefore, would it not be natural immunity that will provide “herd immunity” whether “vaccinated” or not?

Vaccination passports have also been talked about within the media and social media platforms with support for both sides of the conversation. However, are they just? Do they violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called domestic vaccine passports an “unprecedented erosion” of Charter-protected mobility rights[v] that would likely not stand up to a legal challenge.

Several states in the USA are also banning vaccine passports via legislation or governors’ executive orders to protect individuals’ privacy and promote economic recovery[vi]. Plus, a senior World Health Organization official said that so-called “vaccine passports” for COVID-19 should not be used for international travel because of numerous concerns, including ethical considerations that coronavirus vaccines are not easily available globally[vii].

The question that no one seems to be asking is should vaccine passports be mandated, where does it go from there? Where do people who are unable to be vaccinated or who choose not to be vaccinated fall within the passport scenario?

“Our Body, Our Choice” is something all citizens should be fighting for because once vaccination passports become law, the governments control our freedom of movement by controlling what we put in our bodies.





[v] Government of Canada. Department of Justice/ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 6 — Mobility rights.



Treatment of COVID-19

Currently the consensus treatment for a person testing positive for COVID-19, but not showing severe symptoms, is to go home and quarantine without in-home treatment. Should the person develop more severe symptoms or be in medical distress, they are then admitted to the hospital for treatment.

Is there no viable treatment before hospitalization occurs?

Peter McCullough, MD, MPH is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine for internal medicine and cardiovascular disease, specializing in treating patients with complicated internal medicine problems that have affected important organs including the heart and kidneys. He recently testified at the Texas HHS Committee (Exclusive Vaccine Focus at Expense of Therapeutics Killed Up To 85%).[i]

He explains that COVID-19 can and should be treated before it leads to hospitalization. He has published two separate studies on the subject entitled “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection”[ii] and “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection COVID-19”[iii]. Respectively, these studies clearly state that there are treatments for COVID-19 beyond what is publicly available.

The following is an excerpt from Dr. McCullough’s testimony:

Now I’m a COVID survivor, my wife in the galley is a COVID survivor, my father in a nursing home is a COVID survivor. You get handed a diagnostic test. It says, here, you’re COVID positive, go home. Is there any treatment? No. [Are] there any resources I can call? No. Any referral lines, hotlines? No. Any research hotlines? No. That’s the standard of care in the United States. And if we go to any one of our testing centers today in Texas, I bet that’s the standard of care. I bet that’s the standard of care.[sic] No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment. They honestly think there’s no treatment. They don’t even know about these EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) antibodies.[iv]

Ivermectin has been administered in Mexico City to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths. Hospitalizations were down by as much as 76%, according to research by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation, Mexico’s Ministry of Health, and the Mexican Social Security Institute.

Another study on the efficacy of ivermectin published in the American Journal of Therapeutics[v] analyzed “18 randomized controlled treatment trials,” finding “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin” as prophylaxis. In addition, the researchers discovered that the drug elicited “large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance” in COVID patients.

In India, a hospital-based matched case-control study was conducted among healthcare workers of AIIMS Bhubaneswar, India, from September to October 2020. Profession, gender, age, and date of diagnosis were matched for 186 case-control pairs. Cases and controls were healthcare workers who tested positive and negative, respectively, for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. That study concluded that two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month[vi].

If treatment is available, why is it not publicly known? Why are doctors not aware of, or prescribing these treatments to their COVID-positive patients before they become hospitalized? Are doctors not aware or are they being silenced?

Why are the recommendations from the CDC for those sick with COVID-19 focused on wearing a mask, isolation, hydrating, and pain medications instead of treatment[vii]?

Why have treatments such as HCQ and Ivermectin, drugs that have been used safely for decades, being deemed unsafe and not granted “emergency use” while a synthetic injection of mRNA with unknown short and long-term impacts, under the same orders, are given interim approval?

Why are some governments, like that of British Columbia, blocking the use of drugs such as bamlanivimab even after National Emergency Use approval for the treatment of COVID-19?[viii]

The discovered-in-B.C. therapy provides the body with antibodies that block the virus that causes COVID-19. Data from clinical trials of more than 4,000 patients show that bamlanivimab reduces hospitalizations by 70 percent in high-risk patients recently diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19.”

In the USA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has authorized mRNA vaccine use under “emergency use” which is only to be in effect until there are no other alternative treatments available. Given the many options that have been published that reduce the need for hospitalization, shorten hospital stays, and decrease deaths, why is the FDA still granting emergency use of mRNA injections?

The Secretary may issue an authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of a product only if, after consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)), the Secretary concludes-(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition.[ix]

[i] McCullough, Peter. “Peter McCullough MD Testifies to HHS Committee (Exclusive Vaccine Focus at Expense of Therapeutics Killed Up To 85%).” Odysee, 14 Apr. 2021,



[iv] McCullough, Peter. “Peter McCullough MD Testifies Exclusive Vaccine Focus Killed Up To 85%.”, 14 Apr. 2021,

[v] American Journal of Therapeutics: May/June 2021 — Volume 28 — Issue 3 — p e299-e318, doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377

[vi] Behera P, Patro BK, Singh AK, Chandanshive PD, S R, Pradhan SK, Pentapati SSK, Batmanabane G, Mohapatra PR, Padhy BM, Bal SK, Singh SR, Mohanty RR. Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study. PLoS One. 2021 Feb 16;16(2):e0247163. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247163. PMID: 33592050; PMCID: PMC7886121.

[vii] CDC, CDC. “What to Do If You Are Sick.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Mar. 2021,

[viii] Zussman, Richard. “B.C. to Start Clinical Trials for Previously Rejected COVID-19 Treatment.” Global News, Global News, 9 Feb. 2021,

[ix] Title 21 — Food and Drugs, CHAPTER 9 — FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT — SUBCHAPTER V — DRUGS AND DEVICES — Part E — General Provisions Relating to Drugs and Devices — Section 360bbb-3: Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies —

Informed Consent

According to the Canadian Patients Book of Rights[i], patients have the right to be informed of and ask questions about all benefits, risks, and alternative treatments available when receiving medical treatment, whether a procedure, medication, vaccine, mRNA injections, and the like.

For consent to be valid, it must be ensured that

● The patient is legally competent to consent to the procedure/treatment

● The patient has the opportunity to ask questions and to receive answers that satisfy his/her understanding

● Informed consent is based on accurate representation of the relevant information

● Consent is obtained voluntarily, free of coercion or undue influence[ii],[iii]

Free of coercion or undue influence as defined by the American Bar Association is a follows:

“Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered:

  1. Vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency where the influencer knew of, or should have known of, the alleged victim’s vulnerability.
  2. The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification
  3. The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

a. Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information or sleep.

b. Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion.

c. Initiation of changes in person or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting change. [iv]

Note that the above-bolded statement in section 3a, clearly states that evidence of undue influence includes controlling the necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interaction with others, and access to information or sleep.

Lockdowns restrict interactions with others. Social media platforms restrict access to information by blocking and/or banning anything they consider to be ‘fake news’ which includes scientific studies and hypotheses. [v]

Section 3b refers to the use of affection, intimidation, or coercion. Merriam-Webster’s definition of coerce is as follows;

  1. to compel to an act or choice
  2. to achieve by force or threat
  3. to restrain or dominate by force

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, has been seen on multiple news stations reporting that people who are vaccinated will be allowed more freedoms than those who are not vaccinated and will be allowed to go back to their normal lives[vi]. At the end of the interview, Dr. Fauci states that things will re-open when two people are vaccinated, but when talking about the risk to the grandmother of having virus’ in her nasal passages, he clarifies that the risk is for the grandchild, whom as we know has 0.00% chance of contracting the condition.

The Centre for Effective Practice also directs physicians on exactly what to say in order to ensure patient confidence with the mRNA injections. Included in the report was the following statement:

Vaccination is the only way to end this pandemic. I and all the members of the healthcare team around you have gotten/will be getting immunized. You can protect yourself, your loved ones, and your community by getting vaccinated.[vii]

The report entitled “Ensuring Patient Confidence in Vaccines” also states that:

Pregnant and breastfeeding individuals require special considerations for COVID-19 vaccination. Because they were not included in the Phase III clinical trials, there is no data on adverse outcomes of the vaccines on this patient population at this time, though mRNA and viral vector vaccines are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant. [viii]

However, further along in the report, it obfuscates on the risk for pregnancy and breastfeeding, stating that, “should a patient ask if taking the COVID-19 vaccine is safe if they are pregnant or breastfeeding, the response from physicians should be: “All of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada are safe and highly effective for use in pregnant and breastfeeding people.”[ix]

In other words, there is no clinical trial data on possible adverse reactions or long-term effects of the mRNA gene inoculation on pregnant or breastfeeding individuals, yet physicians are to tell their patients it is safe and highly effective.

To become familiar with what informed consent might include, have a look at the questions asked by Vaccine Choice Canada[x]. Have you been given access to the actual inserts given by the pharmaceutical companies? Do you believe that you are receiving an accurate representation of the relevant information? Why is the media not sharing any of the research or concerns?[xi]

Are people being coerced into getting mRNA injections in order to once again see their loved ones and live ‘normal lives’? Are long-term impacts of these inoculations being withheld to facilitate compliance? Should we not be waiting for results of studies underway evaluating the impact on male sterility post covid inoculation, to see what the research finds? [xii]Is restricting access to loved ones, withholding information, threatening loss of employment (implicitly or explicitly) and compelling people to receive mRNA injections not the definition of coercion?

Never in our history have rewards such as donuts, vacations, lotteries, ice cream, and more been offered for a ‘vaccination’. This alone should concern the entire population as there would be no need for a reward if the science-backed up the validity of the vaccine. Laws were changed in 2020 to allow children 11 and up to get vaccinated without parental consent in the US[xiii] and in Canada children 12 and up can now choose to vaccinate as well. Taking away all parental control over what goes into our children’s bodies should be a major concern for every citizen yet somehow these changes are seen as for the benefit of society. How far will the Governments go to coerce our children and remove parental rights?

[i] Rozovsky L. Canadian Patient’s Book of Rights. Toronto, ON: Doubleday Canada Limited; 1994

[ii] Rozovsky LE. The Canadian law of consent to treatment. 3rd ed. Toronto, ON: Lexis Nexis Canada Inc.; 2003

[iii] Health Care Consent Act. Ontario, 1996 (Amended 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2010)

[iv] Quinn, Mary Joy. “Defining Undue Influence.” American Bar Association, 1 Feb. 2014,

[v] Walker, K. “GOP Commentator Suspended from Twitter for Citing a Mask Study. Just One Problem.” Liberty Unyielding, 21 Apr. 2021,


[vii] “COVID-19: Vaccines.” COVID-19: Vaccines | Centre for Effective Practice — Digital Tools, Centre for Effective Practice (CEP)

[viii] “COVID-19: Vaccines.” COVID-19: Vaccines | Centre for Effective Practice — Digital Tools, Centre for Effective Practice (CEP) Pregnant and breastfeeding individuals section

[ix] “COVID-19: Vaccines.” COVID-19: Vaccines | Centre for Effective Practice — Digital Tools, Centre for Effective Practice (CEP) Pregnant and breastfeeding individuals section


[xi] Suzuki, Yuichiro J., and Sergiy G. Gychka. “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human Host Cells: Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 11 Jan. 2021,

[xii] NCT04665258, Clinical trial. “COVID-19 Vaccine and Impact on Fertility Study — Full Text View.” Full Text View —, 2021,

[xiii] Washington Post — D.C. Council approves bill allowing children to get vaccines without parents’ consent-

Access to information

It is also noteworthy and very disconcerting that in the actual Pfizer trial named “A Phase 1/2/3 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals[i]”, section 8.3.5., that there is a provision of potential transference of the mRNA injections from a vaccinated person to a non-vaccinated one. According to Pfizer, simply by being exposed to a family member who has received the vaccine, through touch or inhalation, the non-vaccinated person might be impacted. In the trial report, Pfizer says the following:

8.3.5. Exposure During Pregnancy or Breastfeeding, and Occupational Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness. Exposure During Pregnancy An EDP occurs if:

  • A female participant is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.
  • A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception. (emphasis added)
  • A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. (emphasis added)

Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

  • A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact. (emphasis added)
  • A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

The investigator must report EDP (Exposure During Pregnancy) to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of the investigator’s awareness, irrespective of whether an SAE has occurred. (emphasis added). The initial information submitted should include the anticipated date of delivery (see below for information related to termination of pregnancy).

· If EDP occurs in a participant or a participant’s partner, the investigator must report this information to Pfizer Safety on the Vaccine SAE Report Form and an EDP Supplemental Form, regardless of whether an SAE has occurred.

Since “vaccine” shedding is accounted for in the report presented to the FDA, is it not incumbent on the laws that govern informed consent to inform everybody of the risk of this ”un-informed” spread? Though the phenomenon of vaccine shedding is well known, is this gene therapy, spike protein transmitting information to those not “vaccinated” without this being discussed? Are people being told that should their partners get the inoculation; it might shed to their pregnant wife or to their newborn child? Will it affect the breastfeeding mother? Why is the media not covering this? Is it now to be expected that we are to become researchers or journalists?

[i] p.67

COVID-19 and Youth: The Risks Vs. The Benefits

According to the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 daily epidemiology update, as of April 20th, 2021, 0.0% of children aged 0–19 have died due to COVID-19[i]. Let that number sink in…0.0%.

However, according to McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, there has been a steady increase in youths in crisis being admitted to hospital over the last four months[ii]. They report that pandemic safety measures have had a negative impact on some aspects of children’s and teens’ health, with the following is the result:

  1. Youth admitted for medical support after a suicide attempt has tripled over a four-month period, compared to last year
  2. Patients are staying in hospital longer due to more serious attempts
  3. Youth admitted with substance use disorders has doubled compared to last year. In particular, the use of potentially deadly opioids has increased
  4. The number of cases admitted to hospital with predominant symptoms of psychosis has doubled, with the large majority related to substance use
  5. Referrals to their Eating Disorders Program has increased by 90% in a four-month period, compared to last year

McMaster Children’s Hospital report. “A large number of these youth have reported COVID-related issues such as lack of social interaction, increased conflict at home, and the inability to rely on friends as main contributors.” [iii]

These statistics are not solely reported by McMaster Children’s Hospital as new research from The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), which also reports that COVID-19 lockdowns are having a detrimental effect on youth. [iv]

The majority of children and adolescents in this study experienced deterioration in their mental health during the initial phase of the implementation of the emergency measures. Further, children with pre-existing MH and/or ASD diagnoses experienced comparable changes in status across domains compared with children/adolescents without pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses. The strongest predictor of deterioration of mental health was experiencing increased stress from social isolation. Efforts to maintain or adapt, rather than cancel, children’s activities should be encouraged. Public policy, educational systems, and mental health sectors need to balance the risk of infection with the deterioration in child and adolescent mental health noted in this first wave as decisions are made about re-entry to school and recreational activities and other normative activities. [v]

Furthermore, according to the numbers coming out of Israel, the country with the highest percentage of population vaccinated at the time of writing, vaccinated youth are faring worse than those not vaccinated.[vi]

When the statistics show that children are at very little risk of serious side effects from COVID-19, yet their mental health is deteriorating due to lockdown measures, why are governments continuing to close schools[vii] and restrict children from social interactions with their peers?


[ii] Hamilton, Contact. “The Other Side of COVID-19: Mental Health Challenges Prevalent in Youth.” Hamilton Health Sciences, 15 Mar. 2021,

[iii] Hamilton, Contact. “The Other Side of COVID-19: Mental Health Challenges Prevalent in Youth.” Hamilton Health Sciences, 15 Mar. 2021,

[iv] Luck, Jessamine, and Sarah Warr. “New Research Reveals Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Child and Youth Mental Health.” SickKids, 26 Feb. 2021,

[v] Cost, Katherine Tombeau, et al. “Mostly Worse, Occasionally Better: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health of Canadian Children and Adolescents.” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2021, doi:10.1007/s00787–021–01744–3.


[vii] Mitsui, Evan. “Toronto Public Health to Close 22 Schools across City Due to COVID-19 Investigations | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 6 Apr. 2021,

Censorship and Infringements of our Rights.

Within the last couple of years, the debate over who has the right, if any, to regulate speech on social media sites, public forums, and the Internet itself has exploded. Censorship has taken the main stage in many debates as some people feel their freedoms are being blatantly ignored or denied.

PART I of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the section entitled Fundamental Freedoms is as follows:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.[i]

These rights, such as freedom of expression, may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography in order to protect the public, but where do discussions on important topics such as alternative medicine, immunity, vaccines, mRNA gene therapy, and scientific research fall when it comes to freedom of expression?

The rights and freedoms, as explained by the Government of Canada below, clearly state that people are guaranteed freedom of thought, belief and expression, free to create and express their ideas, gather to discuss them and communicate them widely to other people, and free to discuss matters of public policy, criticize governments and offer their own solutions to social problems.

Under section 2 of the Charter, Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice. In addition, they are guaranteed freedom of thought, belief and expression. Since the media are an important means for communicating thoughts and ideas, the Charter protects the right of the press and other media to speak out. Our right to gather and act in peaceful groups is also protected, as is our right to belong to an association like a trade union.

These freedoms are set out in the Charter to ensure that Canadians are free to create and express their ideas, gather to discuss them and communicate them widely to other people. These activities are basic forms of individual liberty. They are also important to the success of a democratic society like Canada. In a democracy, people must be free to discuss matters of public policy, criticize governments and offer their own solutions to social problems.[ii]

Is there freedom to openly discuss a variety of thoughts and beliefs regarding the current pandemic and communicate them widely to other people on platforms such as social media? Or are perspectives, no matter how thoughtfully constructed, being censored depending on how closely they conform with the common narrative? Take a moment and look at platforms that report clinical studies, share concerns and analyze media’s choice of narrative. Should you be concerned about self-spreading mRNA vaccines amplifying menstrual disruption[iii]

In February 2019, Congressman Adam B. Schiff sent letters to the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, requesting these companies help the government censor any information about vaccines that wasn’t in line with the goals of public vaccine policy. [iv]

The letter requests censorship of all information regarding vaccines, no matter how truthful and well-grounded in science, that might lead parents to decline to follow the recommended vaccination schedule.

Many health professionals, including frontline workers, are also being censored from speaking about anything related to COVID-19, including treatments, hospital statistics, government criticism and more, in fear of losing their positions. Dr. Brooks Fallis, who was the interim medical director of critical care at William Osler, Health System, alleged he was sacked from his position for criticizing the province’s pandemic response.[v] Paul Thomas, MD, has had his medical license suspended for ensuring parents’ right to informed consent for vaccinations.[vi]

Should these physicians and others like them be censored and ultimately let go by our governments and health boards for disagreeing with public policy?

Naturopathic doctors (NDs) here in Canada are being warned and silenced regarding COVID-19. This includes sharing any information with regard to “boosting one’s immunity,” including sharing tried and true remedies and supplements that have worked for other viruses, the flu and historical pandemics. According to the CNPBC, “Any claims about prevention and treatment of COVID-19 beyond those made available by the public health authorities are inappropriate, potentially harmful, and likely to violate the College’s advertising and/or immunization standards.” [vii] NDs have been told to simply repeat the official narrative which does not offer treatments at all, just a wait and see approach, hospitalization and “vaccination.” The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) states that doctors’ opinions outside of government policies are “misinformation” and may require disciplinary action.[viii] Decide for yourself what is right. Some brave doctors are speaking out.[ix]

Currently, in Canada, Bill C-10 is under review and it would give the federal government power to remove anything citizen posts if it is deemed not to fit the narrative.[x]

Are we willingly heading towards a slippery slope of creating segregations, a type of medical apartheid[xi] to what we can access in our society based on a vaccine passport for a “virus” that has a survival rate of 99.85%?

[i]Branch, Legislative Services. “Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, THE CONSTITUTION ACTS, 1867 to 1982.” Legislative Services Branch, 30 Apr. 2021,

[ii] Heritage, Canadian. “Government of Canada.”, / Gouvernement Du Canada, 8 June 2020,

[iii] Cristián, Author Ryan, and Author Whitney Webb. “Self-Spreading Vaccines, Self-Amplifying MRNA Vaccines & COVID Vaccine Menstrual Disruption.” The Last American Vagabond, 3 May 2021,


[v] Aguilar, Bryann. “Ontario Doctor Claims He Was Fired Because He Was Critical of Province’s Pandemic Response.” Toronto, CTV News, 28 Jan. 2021,

[vi] Hammond, Jeremy R. “Dr. Paul Thomas Suspended for Practicing Informed Consent.” Jeremy R. Hammond, 19 Apr. 2021,





[xi]McGovern, Celeste. “Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ Vaccination Program Has Created a ‘Medical Apartheid,’ Distraught Citizens Say.” LifeSiteNews, LifeSite, 9 Mar. 2021,

Who Is Profiting?

There are many debates over the reasons behind the inflated COVID-19 numbers and the push for mRNA injections in the form of a vaccine, one of which addresses the issue of profit. A media briefing from Oxfam International (a confederation of 20 independent charitable organizations founded in 1942 that focuses on the alleviation of global poverty), entitled Pandemic Profits Exposed[i], broke down who is profiting during the pandemic.

In Pandemic Profiteers Exposed, Oxfam found that 17 of the top 25 most profitable US corporations, including Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Facebook, Pfizer, and Visa, are expected to make almost $85 billion more in 2020 than in previous years.” Who profits from COVID-19, and how can we use that money to help us get a vaccine? America, Oxfam. “Who Profits from COVID-19, and How Can We Use That Money to Help Us Get a Vaccine?[ii]

It is no surprise that companies such as Microsoft and Pfizer are seeing increased profits due to gene therapies and work-from-home mandates. However, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also holds stock in coronavirus vaccine companies and manufacturers which include Pfizer, BioNTech, CureVac, and Vir Biotechnology[iii]. Is this why Bill Gates is on the media promoting not only mRNA injections but also the possibility of needing a third dose against variants?

The discussion now is, do we just need to get a super high coverage of the current vaccine, or do we need a third dose that’s just the same or do we need a modified vaccine?” Gates told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor, Norah O’Donnell. [iv]

There definitely is money to be made during a pandemic, but is there not a conflict of interest when the information being conveyed comes from those who will earn that profit?

To go deeper into who is controlling the information being released to the public, we need to look at the Fact Checkers that many social media sites and internet platforms such as Facebook and Google are using to censor information.

Facebook for example released a statement that they “work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles (IFCN)”. Poynter, receives its funding from sources such as George Soros through his Foundation to Promote Open Society, the National Endowment for Democracy (which has financial links to the State Department), Google News Initiative, New York Times, Washington Post, and even Facebook themselves.

Therefore, fact-checkers are not a reliable source of ‘truth’ as they too are bought and paid for making them obviously partisan. This can be shown by doing a simple Google search on any COVID-19 topic and noting the results, all of which display the same narrative. Then do another web search on the same topic using DuckDuckGo. You will be presented with many more links to information that was filtered (censored) from Google.


[ii] Oxfam, 22 Apr. 2021,

[iii] Speights, Keith. 4 Coronavirus Vaccine Stocks the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Is Betting On, 24 Sept. 2020,

[iv] Yilek, Caitlin. “Third Shot May Be Needed to Combat New Coronavirus Variants, Bill Gates Says.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 17 Feb. 2021,


All of the information seen on mainstream media and government press conferences can be construed as a push for society to conform.

Justin Trudeau stated:

The bottom line for Canadians is the right vaccine for you to take is the very first vaccine that you are offered. The more we get Canadians vaccinated quickly and safely, the quicker we’ll be able to get back to a semblance of normality with the variants that are more severe and more transmissible increasing around the population, we need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to get through this. [i]

Dr. Anthony Fauci, during a briefing by the Biden administration’s health experts, said: “When a vaccine becomes available to you, get vaccinated. You will be making a major step in a positive way to protecting the community.[ii]

These statements, along with bonuses being offered for those who get vaccinated, such as free donuts, beer, and burgers,[iii] plus the lure of being offered more freedom[iv] compared to those who are not vaccinated, can all be seen as coercion to conform.[v]

With the advent of the vaccine passport, countries like Israel, where those who have not been vaccinated have limited participation in public life, it is all the more urgent to weigh the impacts of such measures on society.[vi]

The pressure to conform is also driven by social media and within society more broadly, where speaking against mask mandates, social distancing, or vaccines leads to a barrage of negative attacking comments and in some cases physical attacks.[vii]

Conform or be attacked seems to be the norm lately. But is unquestioned conformity bad for society?

Ever since the Enlightenment, the idea of progress, in the sciences as well as in society, has been premised on the possibility that newer, truer ideas could challenge and even displace older, less true ideas. Such progress though has always been based on the possibility of those newer ideas — however eccentric, mistaken or even dangerous they may have sounded to the guardians of the old ideas — to get a fair hearing. If dissident voices are suppressed, progress is impossible, and the truth is the lamb sacrificed at the altar of conformity.

Humans are social animals, naturally disposed to conformity. But we also are rational animals, with the capacity to question our natural dispositions. Conformity has its benefits for maintaining social cohesion, but it also has its costs. As rational animals, we can, and need to, question whether our conformity, in any specific instance, undermines our ability to get at the truth.

Imagine a world in which civil debate is welcomed. Information is freely shared. All people are offered informed consent. Instead of being led by fear and conforming, we begin asking questions, we stop judging the behaviours of others and we create a world we are proud to be a part of.

One year ago, it would have been unthinkable that the level of coercion that exists today would be acceptable. Yet, on every TV program, every news report, every Government statement, and across social media, there is a clear and present narrative to conform to take the vaccine or be pushed out of society in the form of vaccine passports and belittling. Comments and questions about the vaccine and Sars-Cov-2 are seen as conspiracy and/or censored with no real discussion allowed on most platforms.

What if the real virus is fear, censorship, and control? It is time to embrace our desires for open, honest dialogue in a compassionate manner and rekindle our connection with our own body, our family and friends, and our community.

[i] Trudeau, Justin. “Justin Trudeau COVID-19 Press Conference March 30: AstraZeneca Vaccine, Vaccine Deliveries.” Rev, 3 Apr. 2021,

[ii] Murray, Sara. “Biden Team Says It Sees First Signs of Improvement in Fight against Pandemic but It’s a ‘Daunting Challenge’.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 Feb. 2021,

[iii] Benveniste, Alexis. “Got Vaccinated? Here’s All the Free Stuff You Can Get.” CNN, Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2021,

[iv] Petrillo, Matt. “US Considers Giving Fully Vaccinated People More Freedom In Effort to Encourage More COVID-19 Vaccinations.” CBS Philly, CBS Philly, 26 Apr. 2021,

[v] Center, Justice. “Covid: The Political Pandemic.” Rumble, 10 Apr. 2021,

[vi] Cahn, Albert Fox. “Vaccine Passports Can Help the US Reopen-or Further Divide Us.” Wired, Conde Nast, 3 Feb. 2021,

[vii] Flores, Jessica. “Confrontations over Face Masks and the Psychology behind Why Some People Resist Them.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 15 July 2020,

To further explore the hordes of information available on your rights, freedoms, Sar-Cov-2, scientific studies, vaccinations, and more, here is a list of websites that are not currently censoring information*. Do your own research. Reach your own conclusions. Listen to your body. If you feel anxious, uncertain, confused, fearful, or coerced, acknowledge that and continue to ask questions in order to find your optimal health.

“We’re all agents of our own health and we can actively make a change.” — Dr. Manon Bolliger ND

*I do not warrant, endorse, guarantee, or assume responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of any information offered by third-party websites linked through this article or any website or feature linked in any banner or other advertising. I will not be a party to or in any way be responsible for monitoring any transaction between you and third-party providers of products or services.



Dr. Manon Bolliger, ND

Board-Certified Naturopathic Physician — Founder/CEO Bowen College — Best Selling Author — International Speaker