BY MICHAEL THOMAS

According to a new peer-reviewed study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), sixty per cent of young people who were hospitalized with Myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine still showed signs of this disease six months after being injected.

Some 307 out of 333 patients they started with had their health data collected from April 2021 to November 2022. The time between injection and follow-up varied, with a median of 178 days, almost six months.

What is worse is the study authors are said to be making fun of the seriousness of the findings. They are calling the results reassuring and describing these cases of Myocarditis as mild.

Who are these study authors? Why are they acting so recklessly? Critics said that some of those study authors who published their report in The Lancet on September 6^th, 2024, also have ties to the government and the big drug companies that may have influenced the research.

One such person is lead author Dr Supriya S. Jain, a pediatric cardiologist and researcher at Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, New York. Daniel O’Conner of Trial Site News criticized the FDA as the study’s funder. “The FDA is not keeping up with its tradition of ‘patient safety first,’” he said.

O’Conner said he believes the outcome is much more severe than is reported, and The FDA study authors do not have the urgency they should, given the vulnerabilities of the population.

Chief Scientific Officer of The Children’s Health Defense Brian Hooker agreed, saying he was “disgusted” by the study authors’ downplaying of cardiac harm caused by the COVID-19 mRNA injections. Hooker is quoted as saying, “You get vaccinated, get Myocarditis, and then have a ticking time bomb in your chest for the rest of your life.”

Some of the most vital questions here concerning these injected youths, and the injected population is “What happens as they age?” or “Where do they go from here?”

It is important to know that medical researchers have pointed out that studies show Myocarditis can be life-threatening and can also cause critical changes and scarring of the heart.

“I don’t feel that any incidence of vaccine-induced Myocarditis is reassuring,” Heather Ray, a science and research analyst with CHD told a reputable news source. “Additionally, we have all witnessed several anecdotal, or personal reports of individuals who died from vaccine-induced cardiac issues over the past four years.”

Dr Peter McCullough said, as a cardiologist, he was “Greatly concerned,” that COVID-19 vaccine heart damage in most of the young people studied had not resolved at the time of follow-up. McCullough said that he disagreed with the author’s reports calling this finding mild, “Even small areas of damage invisible to cardiac MRI could put vaccine recipients at risk for a future cardiac arrest.”

It is amazing that with all these findings and recommendations to date, COVID mRNA Injections are still very intentionally and maliciously pushed on the population quietly worldwide, this is especially true here in Canada.

It may interest readers to know that the same people behind these mRNA injections in the Western world have decided to look at Africans as lab rats too. The World Health Organization has approved so-called mpox injections for use in adults and said it can be used for: babies, children, teens, and pregnant women in Africa.

Brian Hooker called the WHO’s approval of the shot for infants and children in Africa “A train wreck in the making.”

Recently here in Canada, Global News is now warning that the CDC is telling folks that COVID injections, and heart inflammation issues between injected teens are related. This is something that Toronto Caribbean Newspaper has been warning Canadians about for years now.

Again, Global News has reported, “Myocarditis is noted by the Canadian Pediatric Society as a possible side effect of mRNA injections.” https://old.bitchute.com/video/EFDWj1rHrX6v/

Now more than ever it is vital that folks think for themselves and quit relying on compromised professionals who are in positions of power but are wolves in sheep’s clothing working for Big Pharma.

A rule of thumb is to question everything because history has shown that liars usually suffer from short memory.

BY PAUL JUNOR

The launch of the new course “Black Childhoods in Canada” in the School of Early Childhood Studies at Toronto Metropolitan University is positive and encouraging. Details of the launch of this groundbreaking course were revealed in a post by Clara Wong on May 8^th, 2024. For many students it will be the first time formally studying Black experiences; encountering Black scholarship, or even being taught by a Black professor. It was introduced in the winter term of 2024 and was one of the first courses in TMU’s Black Studies minor, which is offered by the Faculty of Community Services.

The course is coded as “CLD540” and details of its content are noted.

“An introduction to Black Canadian Studies in the context of childhoods. Childhoods are considered via Black feminism, Black studies, anti-racism, and de-colonial theoretical and practical frameworks and pedagogy. Students engage in a range of textual, experiential and multi-modal learning opportunities.”

Some of the topics covered include:

• Black acts and media
• Black Canadian histories
• Black families and mothering
• Black girlhood
• Blackness and disability
• Blackness and ECEC and education
• Black play
• Black queer activism
• Global anti-Black racism

Professor Rachel Berman was inspired to enlarge the Black studies content in early childhood studies and reached out to her colleague, Janelle Brady to collaborate on the development of the course. This was financed through the Faculty of Community Services Anti-Black Racism Curriculum Development Fund, which ensured that it was ready.

Professor Berman states, “I’m thrilled now to see the course come to life. It’s long overdue. There’s a deficit assumption about Black children-that Black boys make trouble during play, or that Black girls are made to seem more mature than they are. We need to counter those narratives and understand Black children’s humanity.”

Professor Brady notes, “The course doesn’t resolve everything, but it’s a start in breaking the ‘preschool-to-prison’ pipeline for Black children.”

She observed further that the impact of teaching the course has influenced her greatly. She adds, “It motivated me to do even more and seek more resources. There were so many informal discussions among students inside and outside of class. There’s a real hunger for spaces like this. It was inspiring to see how much students are already engaged in anti-Black racism work, and I feel I was learning just as much as they were.”

There are many testimonials from students who have been enrolled in this extraordinary course. Faizi Ali, an undergraduate student in the early childhood studies program states, “Any forum that allows Black students to lift their voice is cause for celebration. The course provides so much space for us to exchange ideas and thoughtful dialogue. I’ve gained many new perspectives and techniques to better support students.”

Magdalena Grammenopoulos, a media production undergraduate student, talked about the insight that left the biggest impression on her from the course. She states, “The concept of Black ‘futurity.’ It’s about imagining a stronger future for Black children through the ways we live day-to-day-ways that counter the stereotypes and discrimination which prevent Black children from living as freely as others. I want to implement futurity by always taking it upon myself to create safer spaces for Black children, whether it be my friends, family, or strangers.”

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

Each year, millions of Canadians travel abroad, and we carry our personal devices (computers, tablets, and smartphones). These devices contain highly sensitive and private information about who you are, reflecting your: lifestyle, beliefs, relationships, finances, and health.

What you may not know is that even though your personal device is very personal, and highly sensitive because of the information on it, section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act allows Canadian Border Officers to search these devices without any reasonable suspicion. This law was recently challenged by two travelers, Jeremy Pike and David Scott, who were charged with possessing and importing child pornography after their devices were searched. Now, although it is a good thing that this type of behaviour was caught, the key question in their appeal is whether this law is constitutional.

On August 12^th, 2024, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in R v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608, holding that section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which authorizes border officers to search electronic devices without any reasonable basis, is unconstitutional because it violates the section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. CCLA was an intervener in the case.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is a human rights organization committed to defending the: rights, dignity, safety, and freedoms of all people in Canada. CCLA is the pre-eminent voice advocating for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians and all persons living in Canada. They are leaders in protecting rights and have earned widespread respect for their principled stand on such issues as: national security, censorship, capital punishment, and police and state accountability with a fearless voice on civil liberties, human rights and democratic freedoms.

Shakir Rahim, Director of the Criminal Justice Program, made the following statement, “CCLA applauds this important ruling, which makes it clear the border is not a Charter-free zone. As CCLA argued, standardless limitless searches of electronic devices, which contain highly private information, violate the Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.”

I had a chance to review the decision, and I found direct references of CCLA’s submissions at paragraphs:

• 63: The Crown’s related counterargument that travelers’ “choice” to travel with digital devices merits a lower threshold also fails. Because digital devices are our “constant companion[s]” (Bykovets, at para. 1), travelers need to bring them across borders to work and communicate. As the trial judge ruled, leaving them behind is not a meaningful choice. Neither is declining to leave and re-enter Canada, which, as the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association (the “CCLA”) submits, is not merely a choice but a section 6 Charter Just as “Canadians are not required to become digital recluses” to preserve their privacy (R. v. Jones, 2017 SCC 60, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 696, at para. 45), they also should not have to surrender the ability to enter and leave Canada with an indispensable instrument of modern life.
• 66: The law’s low threshold increases this risk because, as the CCLA submits, low threshold powers are the easiest for officers to wield to target, whether intentionally or not, racialized and disadvantaged people: R. v. Landry. While the law’s good faith purpose test offers some protection against this risk, its subjective nature makes that risk harder to detect because officers do not have to point to objective facts to justify the search and help negate the possibility of discrimination.
• 73: Simmons held that the state’s interest in suppressing the trafficking of drugs produced in other countries that had to be transported across the physical border to enter Canada justified the strip search law: at pp. 526-529. In contrast, digital contraband, even when downloaded to a device, is usually also stored on external servers and can be electronically transmitted into Canada, a mode of transmission that the Agency admits it has no mandate to control.

(They refer to Professor Steven Penney’s article “Mere Evidence? Why Customs Searches of Digital Devices Violate Section 8 of the Charter” and an article by Professor Robert Diab “Protecting the Right to Privacy in Digital Devices: Reasonable Search on Arrest and at the Border” (2018)

• 89: Manual searches can still invade large amounts of highly private information and, if officers invest the time, can be almost as revealing as forensic searches. Further, officers could easily use manual searches as a backdoor to gain information that would meet the higher threshold to conduct forensic searches.

They refer to an article by Bingzi Hu, “Border Search in the Digital Era: Refashioning the Routine vs. Nonroutine Distinction for Electronic Device Searches” (2022)

“Parliament must legislate a stringent standard with clear safeguards for the state to search an electronic device at the border. This reflects the fact that electronic devices are a trove of our most personal, intimate, and sensitive information,” shares Shakir.

The pandemic showed how willing our government is to overlook and ignore our rights and freedoms. This is why the Toronto Caribbean Newspaper will always keep you “In the Know,” when it comes to how to truly live as a FREE Canadian.

REFERENCES:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca608/2024onca608.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc60/2017scc60.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCLA-Intervener-Factum-R.-v.-Pike-Scott-COA-23-CR-0023-C70656.pdf