Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Independent researcher Jessica Hockett recently posted a note about elderly deaths during lockdowns, and this brought back a lot of memories for me as I had become quite obsessed throughout the lunacy in 2020-2021. As an ordinary plebian dummy, terms such as “all-cause mortality” had not entered my mind until that time. One of the earliest voices pointing to this data was Denis Rancourt, who encountered difficulty in having papers published on the topic due to censorship.

The term itself is rather self explanatory, representing a total number of all deaths no matter the underlying cause of death. But who cares? The reason it’s so important is simple: it’s the most reliable dataset you can get, it has the fewest confounders. It’s just how many people died, period. Attributing a cause of death accurately can be difficult, and as we’ve seen with the use of PCR, the purported numbers of “cases” and “covid-related” deaths can be unreliable at best for a variety of reasons. So looking at all-cause mortality trends can be useful in validating whether anything unusual really is happening.

Timeline

For context, let’s recall what the story and its timeline was. We were told in December 2019 that an alleged novel, highly contagious pathogen with a high mortality rate had been identified and was sweeping the world - it was emphasized in an authoritative manner that this was spreading exponentially and that everyone was vulnerable. Another new term then arrived: 2 weeks to flatten the curve. This idea was dispensed in tandem with another key notion dubbed: asymptomatic transmission. These ideas, and indeed the whole story is fraught with many problems, but for the sake of this discussion let’s suspend our disbelief and grant the initial premise.

On March 11 2020, a global pandemic was declared.

Purveyors of this story insist PCR is a gold standard for identifying viruses. Readers of this stack may object to that sentiment, and rightly so. But remember, those who would have you believe this whole story absolutely believe in using PCR in this way. At least they appear to, when it suits the fear they peddle and the control they’re obsessed with. But what about when it doesn’t fit?

Researchers analyzed sewage samples from Spain, Italy and Brazil and found supposed evidence of this pathogen from as far back as March 12 2019 (Archive 1, 2, 3). This is just one of a number of such reports. If you know of an even earlier example than March 2019, please let me know so I can amend this article.

Why does this matter?

As we discuss below, there was no departure from normal mortality trends - until well after the WHO declaration - by which time it should’ve been ravaging the world for at least a whole year, if one is to accept the established premise.

Data

As the story goes, we hear about Wuhan, China, then northern Italy and New York City. Being in Canada, my focus will be on the official data from the Government of Canada and that of its provincial governments. What does this data show, and does it support the story we’ve been told? And what about all the surrounding areas, according to the prevailing paradigm of viral transmission, they must inevitably be impacted? Are they?

Canada all-cause mortality 2014-2024

Statistics Canada provides all-cause mortality here. In case that link gets taken down, see archived version here, here or here.

This is what it currently looks like for 2014-2024:

This gives us a broad overview for the entire population. We can immediately see that the number of total deaths has grown steadily each year, with some noteworthy departures from the normal trend. The first thing I’d draw your attention to is the spring 2020 peak. Secondly, notice that even larger early 2022 peak.

Canada all-cause mortality 2020

What happened in 2020? Let’s get a better view:

The mortality trend only changed after March 14 2020, a few days after the WHO declaration, returning to normal by June 13 2020.

That also happens to coincide with when many abhorrent mandates and policies were imposed, like:

• Denying family members access (Archive 1, 2, 3) to their loved ones

• Sending sick people into said facilities (Archive 1, 2)

• Stopping nursing home patients from going to the hospital (Archive 1, 2)

They also had many employees refusing to work (Archive 1, 2, 3) in these already under-staffed facilities due to the massive fear campaign:

The home was chronically understaffed, and turnover was high. As the home continued to operate with very little protective equipment after its first identified case, staff began to stay home out of fear, which caused the residents’ needs to be further neglected.

The investigator noted that, at one point, only three staff were available at Residence Herron to care for 133 residents, many of whose basic needs were clearly not met.

Keep all that in mind as we dive into this data.

Let’s see how the mortality trends look broken down by age group:

Canada: all-cause mortality 2014-2024 (0-44 years old)

Canada: all-cause mortality 2014-2024 (45-64 years old)

Canada: all-cause mortality 2014-2024 (65-84 years old)

Canada: all-cause mortality 2014-2024 (85+ years old)

As you can see, the lion’s share of the spring 2020 peak is in the 64-84 and 85+ year old groups. But this is still a high level, nationwide view.

Let’s sort by province, so we can get a bit better visibility into where this took place.

Quebec

Ontario

Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick

No other Canadian province, not even in the most vulnerable groups, has the spring 2020 peak seen in Quebec and Ontario. Here’s a quick snap of a few other provinces so you can see what I mean:

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020

What happened in Quebec? Why does it have most of the spring 2020 death?

They have their own provincial government institution equivalent to Statistics Canada called Institut de la statistique du Québec. The used to have an all-cause mortality dashboard posted here, but it has since been taken down.

It is still possible to view an archived version here, here or here.

You can see it features the prominent spring 2020 peak:

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (70+ years old)

Most of that spring 2020 deaths are indeed in the 70+ years old group:

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (50-69 years old)

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (0-49 years old)

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (Montreal & Laval)

This data shows that a significant proportion of spring 2020 deaths were from these specific regions, Montreal and Laval:

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (Lanaudiere, Laurentides & Monteregie)

To a lesser extent, some of that peak also being from these regions:

Quebec: all-cause mortality 2010-2020 (other regions)

Interestingly, “the virus” was not interested in any other region:

Throughout 2019 and 2020, nothing happened until after the WHO declared a pandemic.

Whatever happened immediately following that declaration happened almost exclusively in a few specific locations.

I’m not telling you what to think. But this is the official data directly from the government. You can click over there and see for yourself, I haven’t changed or manipulated this information in any way.

Ask yourself if their own data supports the story we’ve all been told.

Ask yourself if the data supports the notion that we were “in an emergency” on March 11 2020.

Ask yourself if, somehow that was all justifiable, why even greater death through 2022-2023 is not also an “emergency”.

If you appreciate this information, please share it!

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Pierre Poilievre, now the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, has not committed to pulling out of Agenda 2030, and has reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Throughout the covidian lunacy, Poilievre did even worse than merely stand idly by. He in fact criticized Justin Trudeau (archive 1, 2, 3) for not locking Canada down harder and not vaccinating more Canadians even sooner:

Amazingly, despite this he positioned himself as some freedom hero.

He announced he will run for Prime Minister, bringing us all this nauseating video, which has since been scrubbed from his now defunct campaign website pierre4pm.ca:

“See, here’s the problem - Trudeau thinks he’s your boss. He’s got it backwards, you’re the boss. That’s why I’m running for Prime Minister, to put you back in charge of your life. Together, we will make Canadians the freest people on Earth.

….

You are the master of your fate, you are the captain of your soul.”

No one is more despicable than those who pretend to be all about freedom.

His campaign manager, John Baird just so happens to be a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. Of course, that too has been scrubbed:

But don’t worry, it’s still possible to find:

Poilievre also specifically set up a website withpierre.ca/stopthegreatreset - clearly to appeal to a certain demographic, yeah? Interestingly, that website has also been taken down and replaced with a basically blank registration form that doesn’t even work. But there again, it is still possible to find what they had up there:

So he collected people’s personal information - name, email, phone, address for his little “petition” to supposedly stop The Great Reset. I’m sure that’s in good hands. Why did they take down both pierre4pm.ca and withpierre.ca?

Keep in mind the lengths which Poilievre goes to in order to position himself as some sort of freedom savior figure.

Now consider how incredibly untenable it is that somebody in his position doesn’t know what UN SDG / Agenda 2030 is. An utterly preposterous notion.

Mark Friesen met Poilievre at an event and asked him to clarify his position on it. He pretended not to know anything about it:

This was just going to be a short mention about the WEF scrubbing Young Global Leader John Baird from their site, but I got carried away. As you can see there is a lot of ground to cover.

Now, if you don’t think anything is wrong with the UN, the WEF, Paris Agreement, Agenda 2030, SDGs etc - that’s all well and good, I’m not here to tell you what to believe. In fact I specifically hope you won’t blindly accept anything I say. We all owe it to ourselves and each other to remain skeptical by default and make the most of our own critical faculties to discern the world, rather than latching onto any character, dissident or otherwise, to make up our minds for us; a behavior that is certainly responsible in no small part for the way the world is today.

This was posted on Pierre Poilievre’s campaign for Prime Minister website, pierre4pm.ca. That URL now just redirects to conservative.ca. But it used to show his campaign promise including a video where he promises to make Canada the freest nation on Earth, specifically mentioning health freedom including vaccine choice.

I wonder why this got scrubbed?

This clownery is a perfect demonstration and reflection of the fakery of the entire system. I’m preserving the full video here in all its glory so you can bask in the absurdity.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Burke co-authored one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry, The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934 and went on to spend over three decades as senior chemist at the National Cancer Institute.

We say to hell with that.

Archived on: Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Listen and make up your own mind.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

Give it a listen and make up your own mind.

Will you able to see through the fakery of “left vs right”?

This is what he says:

“You deserve better. You deserve a government that’s gonna continue to say: get vaccinated. And you know what? If you don’t wanna get vaccinated, that’s your choice. But don’t think you can get on a plane, or a train, beside vaccinated people and put them at risk!

We need to be strong in the decisions we’re taking going forward, and we need to put people first, which we have always done.

…

The counter to tyranny, is democracy, is election - and that’s exactly what we’re putting forward.”

Incredible, mind-bending lunacy and double speak by the Crime Minister of Canada.

Super duper “safe ‘n effective vaccines”, so super “effective” in fact, that even if you are an absolute believer in viruses, contagion, mainstream notions of viral transmission - you can take multiple shots of the miracle potion and still be “put at risk” by an unvaccinated person that happens to sit next to you. Amazing!

The threat is so great, even in spite of the miraculous shots, that segregating society on the grounds of one’s medical status is obviously totally justifiable! But at the same time you gotta keep “stepping up”, because your loving overlords are keeping you so safe. Is your head exploding yet?

The counter to tyranny is “democracy”, he says. We don’t really have any such thing, but even if we did, it’s tantamount to mob rule which brings inevitable tyranny of its own. And he says all this while himself going on a tyrannical rampage upending millions of lives infringing on the utmost basic of liberties.

Archived on Odysee, Bitchute and Rumble.

In this prescient 2014 interview that keeps being taken down from mainstream platforms like YouTube, Harry Vox discusses the Rockefeller Foundation document known as “Lock Step” that was published by the Global Business Network in their Scenarios For The Future Of Technology And International Development which also keeps being scrubbed from the internet.

The document and this video describe in great detail, precisely what ended up transpiring from 2020.

While Harry Vox’s website, voxnews.com seems to be gone, it can still be seen on the Wayback machine.

Read the original Lock Step document also on the Wayback machine. In case that also disappears, I will reproduce the text below. As always, make up your own mind:

A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009's H1N1, this new influenza strain - originating from wild geese - was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.

Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet - though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States's initial policy "strongly discouraging" citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better - China in particular. The Chinese government's quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.

Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems - from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty - leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty - and their privacy - to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different - and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens' overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well - and in some cases tragically - in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.

There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to "approved" technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider "best" for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as "second hand." Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were "sure bets" (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers - a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.

Especially in the developing world, acting in one's national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests - whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China's investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.

By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.

Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away - largely in developing countries - incited civil unrest. In 2026, protesters in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world's governments had worked so hard to establish.