Indubitable Dave

Indubitably it's me, Dave

[Indubitable Dave @DaveIndubitable]

Verdant green, forgotten toil
Rolling hills, orange blazed
Azure sky, shining orb
Epiphany

[Denis Rancourt @denisrancourt]

Survey of health care workers in Alberta, Canada...:
"Among vaccinated respondents, a small minority reported an adverse reaction after COVID-19 vaccination and still being required to receive additional doses (12.6%). One quarter reported having been terminated or laid off for declining a first or subsequent dose (25.4%). A small but concerning proportion reported experiencing suicidal thoughts due to employer vaccination requirements (7.4%)."

[Barry Sharp @BarryESharp]

Post 1.

Precision Over Panic: Canada’s COVID Reckoning on Mandates, Myocarditis and the Erosion of Consent

11th July 2026

The young man in Ontario felt chest pain three days after his second dose. What began as fatigue escalated to emergency admission. Cardiac MRI revealed inflammation and, in follow-up scans months later, persistent scarring in the heart muscle. He was 22, previously fit, with no prior cardiac history. His story is one of thousands documented in Canadian surveillance data, concentrated among adolescent and young adult males after mRNA vaccination.

Canada entered the COVID era with strong public-health traditions and a Charter that explicitly protects security of the person and equality under the law. It exited with eroded trust, documented signals of harm in low-risk groups, excess deaths that remain only partially explained, and a generation of young people whose education and mental health were sacrificed to policies whose benefits were overstated and whose costs were downplayed. The reckoning is not optional. It is required by the same standards of evidence and consent that public institutions claim to uphold.

Origins: Early Signals Ignored, Transparency Denied

The virus arrived amid opacity from its point of emergence in Wuhan. Canadian authorities, like most Western governments, relied heavily on World Health Organization assessments and Chinese data in the critical early weeks. Reports of possible circulation in Italy by September 2019 and unusual procurement patterns in Hubei province in 2019 received limited immediate scrutiny in official Canadian channels. The lab-leak hypothesis, plausible given the location of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its coronavirus research, was dismissed early as fringe before gaining credence among intelligence assessments and some scientists.

A 2025 WHO scientific advisory group report concluded that the weight of evidence favoured zoonotic spillover, yet explicitly left open the possibility of a laboratory incident, citing insufficient access to Chinese records on research activities and biosafety. No definitive proof of genetic engineering exists, but no conclusive natural-origin chain has closed the case either. For a country that prides itself on evidence-based policy, the absence of a robust, independent Canadian-led forensic examination of the origins question remains a striking gap. Future preparedness depends on it.

Lockdowns and Collateral Damage: Models Versus Measured Harm

Canada’s early response leaned heavily on broad lockdowns, prolonged school closures, and restrictions that extended well beyond initial waves. Modelling projected dire outcomes without stringent measures. Real-world data revealed a more complex picture. Excess mortality in 2020 reached an estimated 16,333 deaths nationally above expected levels, overwhelmingly among those aged 65 and older, with COVID coded as the cause in the large majority of elderly cases. Later periods, including 2022 and 2023, showed continued excess deaths in several provinces that only partially aligned with reported COVID activity. Statistics Canada data noted contributions from other factors, including drug overdoses and disrupted care.

School closures exacted measurable costs in learning loss and youth mental health, documented in Canadian assessments and paediatric reports. Long-term-care homes suffered catastrophic early losses. Canada recorded one of the highest proportions of pandemic deaths in such facilities among OECD countries. Pre-existing structural weaknesses, staffing shortages, for-profit ownership models in Ontario, and outdated design standards were amplified by policy decisions: hospital transfers into homes, visitor restrictions that deepened isolation, and PPE shortages.

[Actualité Politique du Québec @PolitiqueQuebec]

𝗠𝗬𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗠 𝗕𝗢𝗛𝗘́𝗠𝗜𝗘𝗥, 𝗔𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗘𝗧 𝗠𝗘́𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗥𝗘́𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗘́𝗘, 𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗟𝗔 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗢𝗡 — 𝗨𝗡𝗘 𝗘𝗡𝗤𝗨𝗘̂𝗧𝗘 𝗡𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗔𝗡𝗘 𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗨𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗗𝗘𝗦

[Juno News @junonewscom]

Michelle says a COVID vaccine injury ended her dentistry career at 46, forcing her to sell her practice and pay $148,000 for U.S. brain surgery.

Now living with severe neurological injuries, she says: "There has been no accountability."

[Indubitable Dave @DaveIndubitable]

@For_Film_Fans

[Jeffrey A Tucker @jeffreytucker]

It only gets crazier, like a gathering and plotting of Bond villains. All the emails are here. Creepy. Bonkers. Evil.

'Germ Games': NIH emails reveal the military strategy behind pandemic planning, by @MaryanneDemasi https://t.co/Kr0B8RQ81H

[Maryanne Demasi, PhD @MaryanneDemasi]

What began as discussions at Davos evolved into a sustained international effort to embed simulation-based, war-game-style approaches into global health security — approaches that would later become central to the response to Covid-19.
https://t.co/BCtjcbqvDa

[Dean Allison @DeanAllisonMP]

If you’re COVID-19 vaccine injured, we want to hear your story

We, as representatives of the people, owe you that

Apply to be a witness here:

https://t.co/P4w0AbbrTL

[JP Sears @AwakenWithJP]

Women of course carry a far greater "mental load" than men do. Usually nothing stressful on a man's mind at all...

[Fonctionnaires unis / United Public Servants @FonctionnairesU]

1/ Judge Joyal wrote the decision 2021 MBQB 219. In his view, the public health measures enacted by decree for over more than 2 years were reasonable because there was an “emergency.” Thanks to these measures, Manitobans were able to “flatten the curve.”

https://t.co/HkLrtqzJ7p

[Fonctionnaires unis / United Public Servants @FonctionnairesU]

1/ Le juge Joyal a écrit la décision 2021 MBQB 219. Selon lui, les mesures sanitaires prises par décret, pendant plus de 2 ans étaient raisonnables pcqu'il y avait une «urgence». Grâce à ces mesures, les Manitobains ont réussi à «aplatir la courbe».

https://t.co/ByejcDqTCK

[Maryline Maubois @MaryMbois]

"Bonne" nuit... 🌃

[Indubitable Dave @DaveIndubitable]

@ChristianGroul2 Ils doivent vouloir célébrer les individus fortunés qui viennent de devenir clients!

[Barry W. Bussey @barrywbussey]

What will it be Canada: rule of law or rule of judges?

When I graduated from law school in 1992 the Charter was 10 years old. I will never forget the comments of my law professor, Ian Hunter at Western Law. "We have a choice," he would say in class, "are we to be ruled by law or by judges." "The Charter," he said, "was to be ruled by judges."

Prof. Hunter was emphatic on that point. As he describes in his book, Three Faces of the Law, "the Supreme Court of Canada leapt at the opportunity to substitute its will for that of Parliament on the most contentious and divisive social issues of the day." (P. 46.)

I was a teenager when the Charter came and I thought it was the best thing going. I remember the Queen coming to a dreary Ottawa to sign the Constitution Act, 1982 in full fanfare. "Finally," I thought, "Canada has its own constitutionally entrenched bill of rights just like the US."

As awesome as that sounded we did not have a legal culture that had a deep understanding of the nature of rights. Or, if we did, it was not long before rights talk developed an activist streak on the bench. The traditional legal doctrines that put the breaks on judicial hubris - like we saw in jurists like Ivan Rand or even Brian Dickson for that matter, soon gave way to radical jurists that hardly see the law as a guidepost. Our courts have jettisoned any notions of the natural law and the concept of "truth", and "justice". Instead we have an ideological bench that has nothing but contempt for its own jurisprudence.

Cases decide a mere five years ago are held in contempt. Listen to the current Chief Justice, as recorded in an important piece by Stéphane Sérafin and Kerry Sun, in today's National Post,

“apart from considering these decisions as part of our legal cultural heritage, no one today will refer to a decision from 1892 to support his claim,” later adding that “sometimes a decision from five years ago is an old decision, in commercial and civil matters.” He then concluded that “the legal value of these historical decisions is quite minimal.”

Notice: "a decision from five years ago is an old decision, in commercial and civil matters.”

When I went to law school in 1989 I read the early Charter decisions of Chief Justice Brian Dickson and I was impressed by his prose. Dickson wrote law as if it were a cross between philosophy, history, law and literature. Take time to read the Big M Drug Mart Decision and read first hand his gushing attention to freedom of religion as it developed throughout history and his support of the individual to live in accordance with the dictate of his conscience.

However, such a decision now over 40 years old, under the current understanding it may not be worth keeping as law. Especially if a current more pressing view has taken sway. Consider for example the Trinity Western University law school decision in 2018 that was an absolute tragedy to the religious freedom cases that originally followed the Big M Drug Mart in the early years of the Charter.

Prof. Hunter was prescient to the current struggle of the law. When the ancient bedrock principles are thrown out we are "cut adrift". Hunter wrote,

"A recurrent theme of my lectures will be that Canadian law has become secularized, cut adrift from its moorings in the divine, no longer infused by natural law conceptions, looking for its ultimate validation not in eternal truth, nor even in the 2000 year-old heritage of the Judeo-Christian legal system, but rather in a recently-minted Charter of Rights, a Lilliputian statute fit for a nation of pygmies." (P. 18.)

"Because of the sweeping powers given to judges to decide contentious social issues, issues that once would have been the prerogative of parliament - abortion, euthanasia, mandatory retirement, cruise missile testing, homosexual rights - the judiciary moved from being the least powerful branch of government to, arguably, the most powerful. (P. 44-45)

Hunter also noted,
". . . [the Charter] forestalls true political debate. The appropriate level of restraint on individual liberties is, or should be ., a fundamental political question . But in Canada, such debate cannot occur: it is reduced to one person claiming "I have a right to abortion on demand, assisted suicide, same sex benefits . . ." - you fill in the blanks ; to which the only response is either acquiescence, or "No, you don't." Ultimately, all such issues are now resolved by the courts." (p. 51)

In Sérafin and Sun"s National Post article they note,

"There is a growing sense in Canada that our judges, and especially those on the country’s highest court, routinely overstep the boundaries of their office. Until last week, however, one might have thought that support for this conclusion could only be inferred from the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgments. That changed on Wednesday, when recent public remarks by the Chief Justice of Canada, Richard Wagner, sent shockwaves through social media."

They point out that,

"What is even more troubling about the chief justice’s remarks, however, is that they confirm the now widespread impression of an undisciplined approach to judicial responsibility at the Supreme Court of Canada. Regrettably, the judicial decisions that appear to exemplify this attitude are legion. Rather than attempting to resolve disputes within settled legal frameworks and principles, recent appeals before the court are explicitly framed as invitations to overturn established doctrine."

They continue,

"This image of the Charter as a revolutionary device explains much of the chief justice’s attitude toward Canada’s “legal cultural heritage.” According to this view, all decisions prior to the Charter’s enactment in 1982 have little value to the law, as he put it. Even the Supreme Court’s early decisions on the Charter could conceivably be regarded in the same way, namely, as outmoded historical relics."

"These judicial statements bring forth a key question: What, after all, is the task of judging according to law, if not to reason through and adjudicate disputes using the intellectual resources of our legal heritage? For Wagner, the judicial role does not involve being constrained and guided by established legal authority, much less working to resolve disputes with an aim to developing legal doctrine on which future court decisions can rely. Rather, he seems to imply that the judges on his bench are empowered to make and remake the law as they see fit, in a way that befits a legislature, not a court. The true centre of public power in Ottawa is not Parliament, but the Supreme Court."

"The true centre of public power in Ottawa is not Parliament, but the Supreme Court."

OUCH!!

So Canada, we have a choice - what will it be?

Perhaps we need to ask, "Is what is going on now working for you?"

https://t.co/5hYz66NBmW

[Dean Allison @DeanAllisonMP]

The same legacy media deafening silence is happening here in Canada

Politicians have either been COVID-19 vaccine injured themselves and/or know many who have

Media personalities have been injured themselves and/or know many who have

All are terrified to talk about it for fear of being labelled ridiculous things

It’s time we begin to have these honest conversations

We’ll do exactly that at the @AllisonInquiry on September 8, 9, 10, 11 on Parliament Hill

Apply to be a witness here:

https://t.co/8V61qvb3Sb

https://t.co/ycJIL7iyzu

[Kerry Sun @SunKerry]

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in the Drover case, where the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal innovated a freestanding right of "personal autonomy" under section 7 of the Charter: 2025 ONCA 468.

https://t.co/juYSMYoG6u

[Dean Allison @DeanAllisonMP]

Tobi, since a few Conservative MPs betrayed their constituents & joined the Liberals earlier this year, the Liberals have a majority.

Essentially they can initiate and pass any legislation they want.

The only thing that can stop them is public pressure.

But people barely even hear about these Bills because legacy media is covering for Carney / Liberals non-stop by scaring people with “orange man bad” never ending rhetoric.

[Kayla Pollock @kcpollock]

Update! SAKAMOTO, CARRIE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,HIS MAJESTY THE KING; ALBERTA

After watching the testimony today here is a run down.

Chipiuk’s Argument (for Sakamoto)

Dan Hartman decision should not control this case.
Hartman involved claims against the federal government as vaccine regulator/approver.
Sakamoto alleges a coordinated federal/provincial vaccination framework.
Therefore, the facts and legal duties are different.
The provinces didn’t just repeat federal messaging
The claim alleges federal representations about vaccine safety and effectiveness were adopted and implemented through:
provincial health guidance
vaccine programs
mandates
restrictions
healthcare directives
The argument is that governments actively influenced decisions and vaccine uptake.
Duty of care arises from combined conduct
Chipiuk argues the case is not simply about government regulation.
She says it arises from what governments allegedly said, did, undertook, and implemented together.
Reliance on the Ingram decision
Chipiuk argues Ingram supports the possibility of a private law duty of care.
She says Sakamoto is closer to Ingram than Hartman.
Until Ingram is overturned, she argues it remains valid authority.
Use of the Davidson Report
Chipiuk argues the findings help support allegations about:
governance failures
information flow problems
coordination issues
exercise of public authority during the pandemic

Federal Government’s Argument (Ashcroft)

Certification requirements are not met
Ashcroft argues the plaintiffs have not met the legal test required for class certification.
Courts must strike cases with no reasonable chance of success
Her position is that courts have a duty to stop cases that cannot legally succeed.
Information was publicly available
She argues information about possible vaccine side effects was available to the public.
She argues there is no evidence Canada suppressed information.
Individual reliance issue
Ashcroft points out Sakamoto testified she took the vaccine to protect her family.
The government appears to be arguing that individual decisions varied and were not necessarily caused by government representations.
No direct communication
She notes Sakamoto had no direct communication with Theresa Tam or then Prime Minister Trudeau.
Challenge to Davidson evidence
Ashcroft argues Dr. Davidson is not being presented as an expert witness.
She argues portions of his affidavit and attached reports are hearsay and should not be relied upon for the truth of their contents.
Hartman comparison
The federal government is attempting to persuade the court that Sakamoto is legally similar to Hartman and should meet the same fate.

What Justice Dilts Appears To Be Testing

From these updates, Justice Dilts seems focused on:

Whether Hartman is truly distinguishable.
Whether a private law duty of care can exist.
Whether the evidence relied upon can be considered at certification.
Whether a class action is the proper procedure versus individual lawsuits.
Whether the pleadings disclose a legally viable cause of action.

My observation from these updates

The central battle does not appear to be whether vaccine injuries exist.

The battle appears to be whether the governments can legally owe the proposed class a private law duty of care and whether the pleadings are legally sufficient to justify certification. That is why Hartman, Ingram, duty of care, misrepresentation, and admissibility of evidence keep coming up repeatedly.

Staying tuned for final day tomorrow.

@Carrie298924321 @Answers4Sean @LichTamara @LionAdvocacy @echipiuk @uasind

[Dire Straits 🎸 @DireStraits77]

Dire Straits 🎼Once Upon a Time In the West (Live in Rockpalast Germany. 1979)🎸🎵

[DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY @DonaldBestCA]

Now that the tribunal's ruling is in, Detective Helen Grus and her counsel Bath-Sheba van den Berg are free to speak.

Ottawa had two or three sudden infant deaths in a typical year. In early 2022 Grus counted six. A seventh came that same week.

She took the numbers to the Chief of Police the same day. That is the job. Within weeks she was suspended, and the tribunal found her guilty of discreditable conduct.

Hear it in their words. Full @MBStronger interview linked below.