Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath
Dear Readers,
Welcome to my Substack “Conspiracy Facts With Jeffrey Rath”.
By way of introduction, I hold Honors degrees in Political Science and Law from the University of Alberta and the University of London, London School of Economics and Political Science. I am a Barrister practicing in the area of constitutional litigation. I regularly practice in the Senior Appellate Courts of Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada. I have spent much of the last three years developing a new appreciation as to the degree to which the “administrative state” has overtaken our democratic institutions and has succeeded in elevating the administrative law concept of the “reasonable” bureaucrat over the basic fundamental human rights of the individual citizen.
This Substack is intended as a, sometimes, tongue in cheek exposition of various political and social issues as they relate to the world in which we live. By necessity, as all “politics are local” there will be a focus on Canada and my home province of Alberta – but I believe that the lessons that can be extracted from the vantage point of the foothills of Alberta have international scope and importance. I firmly believe that if we can save Alberta from the stupidity of those who believe that eliminating Alberta’s 0.24% contribution to global CO2 output will have any effect on climate change, we can save the world.
Is what we are experiencing in Alberta being driven by direct influences on the government of Canada and Alberta funded in large part by hedge fund billionaires with inordinate unelected and non-transparent influence over all of our democratic institutions to the direct detriment of individual citizens? Are we being forced to subsidize and support the schemes of the Davos Cult without any real evidence of any direct or indirect benefit to ourselves or our families? Do Canadian government climate policies actually encourage and support slave labor in Africa and China? Are we being governed by a cabal of idiots or are we being governed by corrupt billionaires with access to the machinery of government far beyond the contemplation of our constitutional order?
I intend to address these broad questions in a manner that provokes critical thought without too much concern for “fact checkers” or other forms of troll who are not willing to look beyond the orthodoxy of the state sponsored religion of the alleged “Public Good” at the expense of individual rights and freedoms that we all used to take for granted
Have fundamental human rights such as the freedom to own property, freedom to earn a living, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of mobility, freedom to preserve one’s own bodily autonomy been eroded by the administrative state with the active acquiescence and support of the judiciary. Do we live in a world where the “precautionary principle” allows for citizens rights to be stripped or eroded simply on the basis that a “reasonable decision maker” makes a decision violating constitutional rights that falls within a range of possible “reasonable decisions” as suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dore v. Barreau de Quebec ? Is this acceptable or do we need to elect governments willing to enact strong legislative and constitutional changes to protect citizens from a bureaucracy run amok?
Have constitutionally protected rights become illusory and can be supplanted any time a bureaucrat makes a “reasonable” decision that falls within a range of possible “reasonable” bureaucratic decisions? Does the circularity of this form of subjectivism have Kafka and Orwell saying “I told you so and it’s your own damn fault for not listening to us ?”
I have always had a deep and abiding interest in the study of economics, history and geopolitics and have a tendency to view the world through somewhat satirical spectacles. I deeply believe that if we can’t laugh at our world and the people who purport to run it that we would spend most of our time shaking with anger or crying in frustration.
This Substack was borne out of my concerns regarding the degree to which government censorship and propaganda in the form of carefully designed psychological manipulation pervades all forms of modern media. Do Trudeau Bills C-18 and C-11 constitute the largest assault on freedom of thought and expression in the history of Canada? Will columns like this even be legal in 6 months?
Until the advent of the so-called “COVID-19 Pandemic” I generally tuned out whenever anyone would espouse any form of discussion that smacked of “conspiracy theories”. The reason for this is that many of the people spouting off were long on “theory” or hypothesis and woefully short of actual, objectively verifiable facts. As much as possible, I will endeavour to ensure that the questions I ask are grounded in verifiable facts while trying to stay away from topics that are long on speculation without being grounded in reality.
I have always been a big believer in the application of “Occam’s Razor” to complicated questions. When faced with competing theories is the one based on the fewest hypotheses generally correct? The problem we have to address in the post-COVID-19 world is the question of whether the simplest and most likely explanation for that state current state of the world may be:
Is a cabal of billionaires led by the children and grandchildren of former Nazi’s really trying to enact Hitler’s policy of “lebensraum” by depopulating the world for their collective future benefit?
Will Klaus Schwab, Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland ever be held accountable for conspiring to destroy the Canadian economy for the benefit of their personal benefactors ?
Has a media “kill switch” been thrown such that any broad, critical examination of the degree to which we have all been criminally misled by COVID bureaucrats and their captured politicians been excised from the Canadian press including so called “independent” sources like the “Western Standard” ?
Are elected officials and unelected bureaucrats desperately trying to avoid public inquiry into their failed and deadly lockdown and vaccine policies ?
When as a nation did we replace critical thought and reason with the worship of pronouncements of “moistly speaking” politicians like we are all members of a cargo cult worshipping a coke bottle washed up on a beach ?
Can we as a country ever get back to a place where if a politician or bureaucrat who continually contradicts themselves or blatantly lies to our faces says something is “safe and effective” - that we all collectively just call “bull sh*t” and move on with our lives?
Over the last 3 years, I, like many of you, have had to sort out immense piles of fiction and literal “fake news” in order to chart the best path forward. I continually wrestle with the extent to which much of current experience can be defined by alleged conspiracies which now have the look of prophecy.
“Conspiracy… /. A combination or confederacy of two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
It is a question of some nicety as to whether any combination of government bureaucrats or politicians taking “decisions” to violate the rights of citizens as a matter of “policy” may in fact by definition be involved in a criminal “Conspiracy”. It is certainly an open question when unelected, non-government actors like Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum brag about co-opting governments - followed by these same governments restricting the rights of citizens or foisting punitive economic policies on their citizens to the collective detriment of an entire country. Real questions exist as to the degree to which these same policies are primarily for the benefit of the billionaires that have the opportunity to front run investments into sectors that only make economic sense with massive government subsidies and punitive taxation of competitive traditional technologies and resource sectors.
I look forward to our discussion.
Jeffrey R.W. Rath B.A. (Hons.), LL.B. (Hons.)
Foothills, Alberta, Canada
16 January, 2023
ALBERTA EXPECTS REAL CHANGE
Jeffrey R.W. Rath, B.A.(Hons.), LL.B.(Hons.)
Foothills, Alberta
The UCP Caucus needs to internalize the degree to which rural Albertans and Albertans generally expect Premier Smith to keep her promises with regard to the reform of Healthcare in Alberta. They also expect Premier Smith to ensure that the people who gave Premier Kenney and Ministers Shandro and Copping such horrible advice are held accountable.
Apologies from Premier Kenney and Premier Smith for the needless lockdowns, the useless rights infringements in the name of public health, and the unjustifiable discrimination against the unvaccinated do not amount to holding the people responsible accountable. There needs to be some truth before we can have reconciliation.
Rachel Notley appointed Deena Hinshaw. Rachel Notley and Deena Hinshaw both support vaccinating children with COVID vaccines even though children are statistically more likely to be killed by the vaccines than by COVID-19 (Pfizer FDA Briefing Document – see Table 14).
Both the Pfizer and Moderna Emergency Use Authorization Trials noted that children injected with those products had as much as a 4 times greater likelihood of contracting RSV, a respiratory virus far more deadly to children than COVID-19.
In fact, in a recent Medicine Net article on RSV mortality rates it was noted that “in healthy children the reported (RSV) mortality rate is about 0.5 to 1.7 percent” and that “in children with suppressed immunity the mortality rate is higher at about 60 percent.” Conversely, the COVID-19 death rate in “children” under the age of 20 is 0.000001 or 1/10,000th of a percent.
In other words Rachel Notley’s chosen Chief Medical Officer of Health was advising her “patients” to inject their children with a product that will make them four times more likely to contract an illness that is at least 100,000 times more likely to kill them than COVID-19.
These simple facts underline the grossly unethical approach to informed consent that has been the hallmark of the entire pandemic.
What parent of an immunocompromised child would ever consent to having their child injected with a product that would increase by 4 times, their child’s chances of contracting a disease that might have a 60% chance of killing them? What parent would consent to having a healthy child injected with a product that would make them 4 times more likely to contract a disease that was 100,000 times more deadly than the disease that the injectable product was intended to ameliorate rather than prevent?
How many parents would have had their children injected if they knew that the alleged “vaccine” did not “stop the spread”, prevent their child from being infected with COVID or prevent their child from infecting grandma or grandpa?
How many parents would have had their children injected at Deena Hinshaw’s urging if they knew that the vaccines would put 34 times more children into ICU per million with myocarditis than would hypothetically die “from” COVID-19?
The simple fact is that most rational parents properly advised would not have consented to having their children vaccinated if they hadn’t been the subject of a fear and manipulation campaign orchestrated by the NDP appointed Hinshaw saving child death announcements only tangentially COVID related for the eve of her next childhood vaccine rollout. None of this can be blamed on Premier Kenney or Ministers Copping or Shandro. They were all completely misled by the NDP-AHS establishment. As Justice Dunlop noted in the recent CM v. Alberta decision on re-masking our kids, parents thinking that masks protect their immunocompromised children have been the victims of “misinformation and misunderstanding.” Every member of AHS that has been guilty of perpetuating “misinformation and misunderstanding” on both re-masking our kids and continuing to push vaccine products on our kids that are more harmful than COVID-19 itself need to be hauled out of their offices and shown the door.
Replacing Hinshaw with Mark Joffe was no answer. Mark Joffe was part of the management team at AHS that laid off unvaccinated doctors, nurses and frontline workers even though the clear scientific consensus in August of 2021 was that vaccines did not stop transmission of Delta Wave C19 and have not stopped the transmission of any subsequent variant.
Mark Joffe’s other big contribution to C19 management was to respond to Dr. Eric Payne’s extremely well thought out concerns relating to the AHS vaccine mandates by simply advising Dr. Payne that if he was concerned with the Pfizer and Moderna shots that if wanted to avoid being laid off without pay he could go take the now banned AstraZeneca or J & J injections.
Placing someone in the position of CMOH who has a proven track record for being wrong on critical public health issues and whose primary credential is that of a careerist that will do what he’s told regardless of basic medical ethics like informed consent, is a step backward. Albertans are among the most educated people in the world on the basis of years of post-secondary education per capita. People who support the UCP and who can be convinced to vote UCP see through the Joffe appointment and are questioning the degree to which Premier Smith is being bullied into making bad appointments simply to appease AHS and CBC bureaucrats and propagandists who are never going to support her anyway.
Replacing one Notley appointed CMOH by promoting someone from within AHS with similar or identical views is no answer to Albertans whose lives have been destroyed by the medical malpractice that is the hallmark of NDP sympathetic AHS management. The UCP Caucus needs to get out in front of these issues and stay there. The science has firmly shifted against the NDP-AHS Lockdown-Mask-Vaccine Agenda.
The Joffe-Hinshaw-AHS “Scientific Advisory Group” (SAG) continues to support vaccines for those under 30 notwithstanding the fact that even the COVID obsessed Australian Government announced that it was suspending boosters for people under the age of 30 because the risk of harm from the vaccine boosters for those under 30 is greater that the risk from COVID itself. SAG still only endorses Fluvoxamine’s therapeutic use in clinical trials even though the Ontario Science Table has found that it reduces COVID Mortality by 90%. A recent peer reviewed paper has found that Vitamin D reduces COVID mortality by 20-30% yet not a peep from Mark Joffe.
The fact that SAG-Hinshaw-Joffe have been so slow to endorse effective therapeutics and have not followed the guidance of Denmark, The United Kingdom, Australia, Florida, and other first world countries and jurisdictions, and completely suspended the vaccination and boosting of people under 30 is demonstrative of the group think of the vaccine pushers within AHS since the outset of the rollout of these products.
Questions need to be asked about all of the “doctors” within the ranks of AHS and the health establishment who have financially benefitted from pushing these products on Alberta kids. Keep in mind that many of these “doctors” haven’t seen a patient in years and would likely not qualify for any clinical position without substantial retraining or examination. The anger of Alberta parents will be volcanic if the UCP Caucus simply buries its collective heads in the sand and doesn’t get out in front of these issues in a meaningful way.
Questions will be asked by parents about the degree to which they were bullied, mislead and mis-advised into getting their kids injected with these potentially deadly products. The UCP Caucus needs to have the courage to get out in front of these issues and stop being guided by polls.
As previously mentioned, Justice Dunlop noted in the recent CM v. Alberta decision on re-masking our kids, parents thinking that masks protect their immunocompromised children have been the victims of “misinformation and misunderstanding.” Every member of AHS that has been guilty of perpetuating “misinformation and misunderstanding” on both re-masking our kids and continuing to push vaccine products on our kids that are more harmful than COVID-19 itself need to be hauled out of their offices and shown the door.
Premier Smith needs to officially appoint new health advisers sooner rather than later. A public inquiry needs to be empaneled as soon as possible. We need to weed out all of the Notley appointed vaccine and mask salespeople from AHS. A side benefit would be that firing 30 or 40 of them from the “Sunshine List” would more than save the 9,000,000.00 that will cease being collected when Premier Smith announces the end of the Kananaskis Parks Pass.
A public inquiry should focus on the degree to which NDP appointed and coddled health bureaucrats including the College of Physicians and Surgeons hijacked health care in Alberta and devastated the lives of Albertans and the Alberta Economy on the basis of group think promoted and supported through the AHS “Partnership” with the World Economic Forum.
Jeffrey R.W. Rath is a Barrister representing doctors and fellow Albertans being persecuted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and the Governments of Alberta and Canada for the crimes practicing medicine in accordance with medical ethics and of engaging in critical thinking in the face of government sponsored, anti-scientific propaganda.