One of the reasons I love being the co-owner of Diverge Media is that I can choose how to approach and write on the topics that arise in the ever chaotic news cycle. It’s easy to get caught up in a cycle of reporting the “next” big story, forgetting that sometimes a story you’ve already written on needs more of your attention.
I call it the one and done cycle – the media often reports on something once or twice, only to move on to the next “big” thing that’s happening. Sometimes the topics that you’ve already reported on need more attention – like this request for an investigation into scientific fraud in Public Health policies from an independent Ontario MPP, Randy Hillier.
In this article, we will highlight what we believe to be important parts of the letter, and when applicable give you more information from the references contained in the letter.
On January 22nd, Mr. Hillier reported that he had sent a letter to the Prime Minister and all of the Premiers across Canada and their official opposition leaders.
Hillier said that the letter was “informing them about the document penned by leading professionals from across our great country and the United States, many within the intelligence communities, exposing China’s involvement with the lockdowns across the western world.”
The letter is 40 pages in total and contains over 250 articles and medical journal references in those 40 pages. We will do our best to cover these points in some detail in just 2 articles. We believe it’s important for Canadians to know what is actually in a letter from an elected official that calls for an investigation into scientific fraud.
The letter begins
“We are writing this letter to request that a federal investigation be commenced and/or expedited regarding the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis. In the course of our work, we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature and believe this investigation necessary to ensure the interests of the public have been properly represented by those promoting certain pandemic policies.”
I find the line “in the course of our work we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature” to stick out to me. The reason it sticks out is that the letter is signed by people whose opinions should carry weight on the subject of lockdowns and Covid policies.
The letter was signed by the following;
- Dr. Clare Craig FRCPATH, Consultant Diagnostic Pathologist
- Michael P. Senger, Attorney
- Stacey A. Rudin, Attorney
- Robert Spalding retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General
- Francis Hoar, Barrister at Law
- Sanjeev Sabhlok, PhD, former commissioner in an Indian State Government
- Brian O’Shea, Chief Operating Officer, Centurion Intelligence Partners
- Maajid Nawaz, Activist, author and broadcaster
- Simon Dolan, Business Leader and entrepreneur
I’ve reached out to a few on the list for comment about their involvement. Having a CEO of an Intelligence company throw their name behind an investigation request into scientific fraud is no small feat. It’s also no small ordeal to have a Consultant Diagnostic Pathologist lend their support for such a request.
The first point of the letter “Lockdowns Originated on the Order of Xi Jinping”
The letter starts by pointing out that “lockdown proponents have frequently justified their policies by comparing them to actions taken to combat the pandemic of Spanish influenza a century prior.”
The letter then cites Judge William S Stickman in his ruling in the Cnty. of Butler v. Wolf where he cited the work of preeminent historians:
“Although this Nation (the United States) has faced many epidemics and pandemics a state and local governments have employed a variety of interventions in response, there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations – much less for lengthy and indefinite periods of time….While, unquestionably, states and local governments restricted certain activities for a limited period of time to mitigate the Spanish Flu, there is no record of any imposition of a population lockdown in response to that diseases or any other in our history.”
The letter takes the position that no scientist ever publicly supported imposing lockdowns until Xi Jinping, personally authorized the lockdown of Wuhan and other cities beginning on Jan.23rd.
After the lockdown of Hubei province began the World Health Organization representative in China noted that “trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science… The lockdown of 11 million people is unprecedented in public health history. Human rights observers also expressed concerns.
The letter then goes on to say “those concerns didn’t stop the WHO from effusively praising the CCP’s “unprecedented” response just days after the lockdown began, and long before it had produced any results.”
The letter says that shortly after the visit, the WHO held a press conference advocating for China’s draconian public health approach to Covid-19. Two days after the WHO Assistant Director-General Bruce Aylward disconnected a live interview when asked to acknowledge Taiwan – he bluntly supported the draconian CCP public health approach to “containing” the virus on China Central Television (CCTV) when he said “copy China’s response to COVID-19.”
The letter then goes on to say “lockdowns are a Xi Jinping policy, and the significance of that cannot be overstated. The idea of locking down an entire state or country and forcibly shutting down its businesses and public places was never entertained, never discussed, and never implemented in any pandemic literature until it was done by General Xi in January 2020.”
The letter calls into question the modelling
This portion of the letter says that deaths from all leading causes – including heart disease, cancer, and influenza-mysteriously declined, indicating that even these low counts from the CDC and NHS are vastly overstated.”
Part of the reason for the overstatement of deaths was “there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease… this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes” of deaths.”
The author, Yanni Gu who wrote for the John Hopkins News-letter then goes on to say;
“This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
The biggest issue that the letter points out with the modelling is the Imperial model which “tended to overestimate (47.7%). The Imperial model had “larger errors, about 5-fold higher than other models.”
It was the Imperial College’s model that predicted the U.K would experience 2,000 deaths per day by mid-December. The letter draws reference to about five years earlier when Xi Jinping personally visited the Imperial College in London for the announcement of “a series of new UK-China education and research collaborations” including “nanotechnology, bioengineering, and public health.”
The trip was Xi’s only ever made to the U.K as General Secretary. The trip lasted just four days and involved just one university: The Imperial College Of London.
The letter alleges that the “deadly recommendations” for early mechanical ventilation came from China
The letter states “In early March 2020, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance documents to healthcare workers. The guidance recommended escalating quickly to mechanical ventilation as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients, a departure from past experience during respiratory-virus epidemics.”
The letter continues;
In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese journal articles, where published papers in January and February claiming that “Chinese expert consensus” called for “invasive mechanical ventilation” as the “first choice” for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress, in part to protect medical staff.
The letter also highlights the comments of whistleblower Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who had been caring for ICU patients at one of the hardest-hit hospitals in New York City.
“We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue… I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time… I don’t know the final answer to this disease, but I’m quite sure that a ventilator is not it… This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country… is actually doing more harm than good.”
The letter also points to a study from the JAMA network that showed the mortality of those mechanically ventilated that aged 18-65 and older than 65 was “76.4% and 97.2%, respectively.” That means that those aged over 65 in the study had a 97 percent likelihood of dying from the treatment for Covid – comforting.
The request letter seems to be well referenced. As such, we will continue to break down the letter and the references contained therein tomorrow. Tomorrow we will talk about the letter’s reference to “wildly-inaccurate PCR testing protocols.” We will pick up from here tomorrow.
Diverge Media does not, and will not ever accept government funding for our work. Therefore, we rely entirely on the generous donation of our readers/viewers to help us continue bringing Canadians the stories that matter. If you would like to support independent Canadian media that is dedicated to bringing you the details where other outlets don’t – please donate in the form below!
You must log in to post a comment.