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 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

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

Every time we step into a grocery store, we are greeted by a dizzying array of choices. The colorful packaging, the eye-catching claims: “sugar-free,” “natural,” “organic,” “low-calorie”—these promises seem to offer us a healthier, more sustainable option. How often do we stop and ask: what do these labels really mean?

Many of these labels are designed to make products appear better for us than they truly are. Words like “light” or “sugar-free” may sound healthy, but they often come with trade-offs—sometimes in the form of artificial ingredients, or an increase in fat, or sodium to compensate for taste. When it comes to the label “natural” It is not as regulated as you might think.

In her article “13 Misleading Food Label Claims and How Not to Be Tricked,” Grace Hussein explains that food labeling serves two main purposes: to comply with legal standards and to entice consumers to buy products. The latter, driven by the massive $14 billion that food, beverage, and restaurant companies invest annually in marketing, is where misleading labels come into play. Companies often use strategic trigger words related to flavours, ingredients, and sourcing to manipulate consumer perception, ultimately prioritizing sales over transparency. This tactic encourages customers to make purchases based on incomplete or exaggerated information.

“In the United States, the term ‘natural’ on food labels does not necessarily mean much. The FDA has no strict definition for it. All it really implies is that the product does not contain artificial colours, or synthetic ingredients, but it could still be highly processed and full of sugars or preservatives.”

So, what about “organic?” While this label does have more stringent regulations under the USDA, it’s important to note that organic doesn’t always mean healthier. Organic cookies, or chips are still cookies and chips. They may be free of synthetic pesticides, but they can still pack a punch in terms of sugar, calories, and fat.

Then there is “low-calorie.” Products that boast of being low in calories often achieve that by cutting out fat or sugar—but what they add back can be equally concerning. Sugar substitutes, or extra sodium are common replacements, which can lead to health issues of their own.

Take “sugar-free” claims. Many products labeled this way may substitute sugar with artificial sweeteners like aspartame, or sucralose, which some research has linked to long-term health risks.

I know you are going to love this one. We all want to make sure we are getting our fruits and vegetables, so when we read on a label that a product is fruit-flavored, it suggests that the product is flavored with real fruit. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Instead, these foods are typically flavored with chemicals that impart a fruity taste. I think that there is something that I should let you know here; FDA lacks any requirements for how much fruit must be present in a product with the label “Made with real fruit,” meaning that this label does not necessarily indicate that a product contains any actual fruits. You see how tricky they are, and all of this to sell a product.

So, what is a savvy shopper to do? The key is reading beyond the buzzwords. One thing that consumers can do to avoid being tricked is to largely ignore the claims being made in bright letters and large fonts on the packaging. These claims are often based on technicalities and legal standards that can be impractical and misleading. Pay attention to the full ingredient list and nutrition facts. A label like “natural” or “light” might catch your eye, but the ingredients can tell the real story about what you are eating.

The next time you’re at the store, take a moment to decode those labels. Choosing healthy foods at the grocery store can be challenging, especially when you are up against a multi-billion dollar marketing industry with expertise in selling products and misleading shoppers. One of the best ways to ensure that you are eating a healthy diet is to avoid processed foods altogether, and instead seek out primarily whole foods and plant-based foods such as products made with 100% whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

By understanding what’s behind the claims, you can make more informed choices for your health—and avoid the marketing traps designed to mislead.

REFERENCES:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/13731450-nutrition-claims-misleading-food-labels/

Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet: How to Start Eating Cleaner

13 Misleading Food Label Claims and How Not to Be Tricked