https://tnc.news/2021/04/26/malcolm-no-minister-hajdu-the-vitamin-d-conversation-isnt-fake-news/ Thunder Bay Superior North MP and communist sympathizer Patty Hajdu attacked Independent MP Derek Sloan for suggesting that Vitamin D can help reduce risk of getting respiratory viruses like COVID and told him it was fake news even though there are NUMEROUS studies that show that people who contracted the virus had vitamin D deficiencies showing yet again Hajdu is scientifically ignorant and completely incompetent in her position as Health Minister here are some excerpts from True North and the piece was written by Founder Candice Malcom: " Vitamin D is “fake news” according to our ever-wise federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu.
In an exchange with an independent MP during Question Period on Thursday, Hajdu dismissed a question about how vitamin D supplements may help prevent illnesses like COVID-19.“Can the minister explain why Health Canada’s website states that most Canadians are getting enough vitamin D and doesn’t actively recommend supplementing,” asked independent MP Derek Sloan.
“I would encourage the member opposite to not fall prey to the myriad of fake news articles that are circulating around the Internet,” replied Hajdu.
“What Canadians need now is trust, and they need to be able to trust in the information that their elected officials are sharing. I would urge the member to get his sources from credible sites.”
This would be news to my doctor in Toronto, who prescribed vitamin D to me during my recent pregnancy and specifically said it could be a preventative measure against contracting COVID-19.
I suppose he didn’t get the memo from Hajdu. As for her insinuation that “credible sources” do not recommend vitamin D, a simple Google search proves her wrong.Early in the pandemic, researchers noticed an overlap between those who were contracting the virus and those with vitamin D deficiencies, leading many to study the relationship. And while there are no firm conclusions from the research, many studies do show that low levels of vitamin D are associated with higher risks of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19.
For instance, researchers from the University of Chicago found that “the relative risk of testing positive for COVID-19 was 1.77 times greater” for those with vitamin D deficiencies, noting that the “difference was statistically significant.”
Likewise, studies in both Canada and Spain found that over 80% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients had vitamin D deficiencies.
Of course, not all doctors and researchers agree. But that’s true about almost everything when it comes to COVID-19.In November 2020, Hajdu did it again. During Question Period she was asked about Canada’s lacklustre vaccine rollout and replied by accusing a Lethbridge MP of spreading “fake and dangerous news.”
The supposedly “fake and dangerous news” came from the Sun, where my colleague Anthony Furey used government data to reveal that “very few people who are not suffering from a previous medical condition have actually died of COVID-19.”
Furey’s report was accurate, but it was inconvenient to the government’s doom and gloom narrative.
Using government data to reveal a hidden fact is not “fake and dangerous news,” being skeptical of the adversarial Chinese communists is not “propaganda,” and wondering if vitamin D may make us healthier is not “fake news,” regardless of what one self-righteous Trudeau minister believes.
Hajdu says that Canadians must trust their government.
I’ve got news for Hajdu: so-called fake news isn’t the problem. It would be easier to trust this government if it wasn’t wrong so often.
All this is to say that Sloan’s question was valid and deserved a thoughtful response. After all, the United Kingdom’s public health department does recommend vitamin D supplements during the winter months and even offered free supplements to people who were considered at high risk of COVID-19.
But instead, Hajdu’s knee-jerk reaction was to condescendingly reject the question and accuse Sloan of spreading “fake news.” This has become an unfortunate habit of our health minister.
In the early days of the pandemic, as COVID-19 spread from China to the rest of the world, it became abundantly clear that the virus was deadlier than the Communist Party of China had let on.
When Hajdu was asked by a CTV reporter whether Canada trusted China’s numbers, she said there was “no indication that the data that came out of China … was falsified in any way.”
“Your question is feeding into conspiracy theories that many people have been perpetuating on the internet,” she sneered.
A few days later, the Chinese government itself admitted its numbers were wrong and retroactively changed the data."
Research done by a professor from Simon Fraser University shows yet again that lockdowns are ineffective and cause more harm than the virus itself yet corrupt establishment keeps hammering on them because it is really about controlling people at this point in the game to grease the skids for China to become a superpower and for the globalist elite to further their goals of a one world government here are some excerpts from the Toronto Sun article written by Anthony Furey breaking what the professor found:"Canadians have been presented with statistics, charts and reporting galore about the ongoing challenges posed by COVID-19. What about the lockdowns though? Are they actually working? And are their benefits outweighing their harms?
It’s a conversation that politicians, health officials and others have done their best to ignore. But anyone who reads a new wide-reaching study by a Canadian economics professor will no longer be able to avert their gaze.Lockdowns are accomplishing little benefit, but colossal damage. That’s the conclusion of a research paper by Simon Fraser University Economics Professor Douglas W. Allen, who concludes “it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.”
Professor Allen’s paper is an examination of over 80 research papers from around the world that studied lockdowns. He found that many of them employed false assumptions, greatly overestimated the benefits of lockdowns and underestimated their harms.Perhaps the greatest error in the reports and modelling, according to Allen, is the assumption that places without lockdowns would involve people taking zero precautions.Any Canadian who has snowbird friends reporting back from the front lines in Florida — the first U.S. state to end its lockdown and mask mandate — knows that there are still many people choosing to follow precautions, it’s just that those who don’t are not fined or arrested like they are in many parts of Canada.
Allen breaks down one report that shows “the variation in stay-at-home orders across the U.S. and found that lockdowns had only modest effects on Covid-19 transmission rates.”
Among the 20 studies that did acknowledge the difference between mandatory and voluntary measures, “all of them find that mandated lockdowns have only marginal effects and that voluntary changes in behavior explain large parts of the changes in cases, transmissions, and deaths.”
So not only are the benefits of lockdowns negligible at best, but their harms are overwhelming. Not that Canadian officials bothered to check.
“Over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been no public evidence that either the federal or provincial governments of Canada have considered both the benefit and cost sides of their policy decisions,” the report notes. “To my knowledge, no government has provided any formal cost/benefit analysis of their actions.”(Ontario medical officers confirmed to me when I asked them during a press conference earlier this year that the province has not undertaken a formal cost/benefit analysis.)
While there have been various standalone reports on lockdown harms such as job losses and mental health challenges, comprehensive studies are hard to come by.
“Many of the costs will not be known for years as they work out in reduced graduation rates, reduced future earnings, and reduced long run health status,” notes Allen.
Allen’s own cost/benefit analysis uses an elaborate calculation to determine how many years of lost life will have been caused by the various harms of lockdowns versus how many years of lost life were saved by lockdowns.
“The benefit of lockdown, therefore, was the avoidance of this extra 22,333 years of lost life. However, the cost of lockdown… was 6,300,000 years of lost life.”
Based on this calculation, the big picture long-term societal harms of lockdowns are 282 times worse than their benefits. It’s a staggering finding.
While Canadians won’t be used to hearing about lockdowns discussed in this regard, Allen is far from the first to use this sort of calculation.
Last spring, the New Zealand Productivity Commission — a Crown agency similar to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer — did a study using a metric known as Quality Adjusted Life Years to weigh the advantages of extending one of their lockdowns, and found the long-term harms were almost 100 times greater than the benefits.
The numbers will vary study by study, the conclusions will no doubt be debated — but what’s important is that more people start taking the topic of lockdown harms seriously. Kudos to Professor Douglas W. Allen for his great efforts in advancing the conversation." Yes kudos to this Professor for being brave enough to challenge the establishment and incompetent public health bureaucrats with his excellent research and is more vindication for those of us who know that Lockdowns are unethical and completely unconstitutional and must be lifted immediately
