Study finds vaccine passports had little effect, while the mandate debate rages on - "A new study has found that the controversial and short-lived vaccine passports introduced by the provinces in 2021 to boost vaccination coverage only increased the number of people with a first dose by less than one percentage point in Ontario and Quebec. The study, published in the CMAJ Open journal, found that vaccine passports also had “little impact on reducing economic and racial inequities in vaccine coverage.” The researchers noted the already high coverage rate in the two provinces before the passports were introduced, which was more than 80 percent, and found that the “impact was larger among people aged 12 to 39 years old,” or the people who were at the least risk from the virus. The researchers speculated that mandates and passports likely had a weak effect on the remaining hold-outs because they were people who didn’t trust health authorities and the government... In a House of Commons debate that was reminiscent of the country’s fractious 2021 election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Poilievre “chooses to wear a tinfoil hat” and “divide Canadians” on the issue. In an earlier debate on the bill, Poilievre argued that it was the vaccine mandates and the accompanying Liberal rhetoric that divided and polarized Canadians on the issue. “(Trudeau) wanted us all to forget the way he divided, insulted, and name-called millions of people right across this country who are patriotic, law-abiding, decent people,” said Poilievre. That view was echoed by Liberal MP Joël Lightbound during the Freedom Convoy protest in early 2022 that gridlocked Ottawa and temporarily shut down border crossings in the country, in a widespread revolt against COVID-19 restrictions and mandates. Lightbound pushed his party to “stop dividing Canadians” and told reporters that on the issue of vaccine mandates, “both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the (2021) election campaign.” Although the relatively small effect of vaccination coverage of the provincial vaccine passports is increasingly becoming clear, the secondary effects are still coming to light. Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber continue to spend their days at an Ottawa courthouse for their role in the protests and the fairness, and the legality of vaccine mandates continues to be litigated. The Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Christine Van Geyn and Joanna Baron, who have a book coming out next month on civil liberties during the pandemic, said the vaccine mandates were often indiscriminately and unfairly enforced. “We worked with a number of patients who could not get vaccinated for really good faith reasons. For example, a teenage girl we were working with who got pericarditis as a result of her first dose of the COVID vaccine, so obviously, not an anti-vaxxer,” said Van Geyn, in an interview with The Hub. “She’s ineligible for a second dose of the vaccine and the government in B.C. said, if she wanted an exemption… she had to apply every time she wanted to do something. So if she wanted to go to a craft show she had to apply, if she wanted to visit her grandmother she had to apply. She was excluded from a lot of things,” said Van Geyn. Baron said that the pandemic should have ingrained a deep lesson on public health experts and government officials about what can happen if they overreach during a health emergency. “When you have a public health emergency that goes on, there needs to be a recognition that there are several social goods. Reduction or elimination of transmission of a virus cannot be seen as the only social good,” said Baron. “As we develop a more sophisticated understanding of the negative repercussions of public health interventions—I think the most commonly accepted one now is the impact of school closures—it’s just way too myopic to put on tunnel vision and say our only objective, and the government’s only objective, has to be reduction of transmission,” she said."
Unvaccinated Americans Blame Everyone But Themselves—Children, Vaccines And Not Wearing Masks—For Covid Surge, Poll Finds - "Just 11% of vaccinated people thought breakthrough cases indicate the vaccines aren’t working, Kaiser found, and 19% thought the same of booster shots."
From 2021. Weird. We were told that covid vaccines were not meant to prevent covid, just severe disease
Why Didn't COVID-19 Kill the Constitution? - " Disputes involving the Second Amendment, access to abortion, and religious freedom have made it clear that an epidemic is not a license to ignore constitutional rights. Nor does it empower government officials to disregard the separation of powers or the distinction between federal and state authority. As U.S. District Judge William Stickman put it last September, when he condemned the "shockingly arbitrary" COVID-19 regulations imposed by Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, "the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency." The national mood in the early days of the pandemic was not exactly conducive to a calm discussion of legal limits on public health measures. An essay published on the legal commentary site Verdict shortly before Newsom and Cuomo issued their lockdown orders captures the prevailing law-be-damned panic. "We need to lock down the country—now," Cornell law professor Michael Dorf wrote. He did not explain the legal basis for a national lockdown, which does not seem to be authorized by any of the powers that the Constitution grants to the president or Congress. But to facilitate that lockdown and "save the nation" from COVID-19, Dorf recommended another constitutionally dubious step: "Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which ordinarily allows people to go to court to challenge any substantial restraint on liberty." The Constitution says "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Although neither of those circumstances applied, Dorf suggested that the spread of the COVID-19 virus from other countries to the United States could be construed as an invasion. While "no one knows" whether the courts would accept that interpretation, since "Congress has only ever suspended habeas in wartime," he said, "there is reason to think that the courts would dismiss a habeas case following nearly any congressional suspension." When supporters bothered to offer a legal rationale for lockdowns, they usually cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 case in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed towns to require vaccination during disease outbreaks... the Court also said a state's public health authority has limits. "An acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons," Harlan wrote. "If a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." The Massachusetts law passed muster, Harlan said, only because it did not "contravene the Constitution" or "infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument." That left open the question of how far disease control measures can go before they "contravene the Constitution"—the very issue that the panoply of pandemic-provoked proscriptions imposed in 2020 and 2021 eventually forced courts to confront... While Roberts seemed torn between respect for religious liberty and deference to elected officials, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor showed no such ambivalence. They always were willing to accept politicians' public health judgments, even when they were scientifically dubious, changed in the midst of litigation, or resulted in policies that privileged politically influential industries or that explicitly disfavored religious gatherings. It is not clear that Kagan et al. can imagine a disease control policy that would violate the Free Exercise Clause, provided it was presented—as such policies always are—as necessary for the protection of public health... The eviction moratorium, which applied to tenants who claimed to have trouble paying rent due to income losses or extraordinary medical expenses, was based on a breathtakingly broad reading of the CDC director's authority to "take such measures" he "deems reasonably necessary" to stop the interstate spread of communicable diseases. The CDC reasoned that evicted tenants might "become homeless" or "move into close quarters in shared housing," thereby increasing the risk of virus transmission. That rationale suggests the CDC's authority encompasses any policy that is plausibly related to disease control, including business closures and a national stay-at-home order as well as the federal face mask mandate that President Joe Biden concluded he did not have the power to impose. Several federal courts rejected that audacious power grab... J. Campbell Barker, a federal judge in Texas, ruled that even Congress does not have the power to authorize or impose a broad nationwide eviction moratorium like this one. Barker concluded that blocking enforcement of rent obligations exceeds the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce... They noted that "the suspension principle is inextricably linked with the idea that a crisis is of finite—and brief—duration," and it is therefore "ill-suited for long-term and open-ended emergencies like the one in which we currently find ourselves."... Wiley and Vladeck emphasized "the importance of an independent judiciary in a crisis" as "perhaps the only institution that is in any structural position to push back against potential overreaching by the local, state, or federal political branches." They quoted George Mason law professor Ilya Somin's observation that "imposing normal judicial review on emergency measures can help reduce the risk that the emergency will be used as a pretext to undermine constitutional rights and weaken constraints on government power even in ways that are not really necessary to address the crisis." Without such review, Wiley and Vladeck warned, "we risk ending up with decisions like Korematsu v. United States," the notorious 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II. The danger of excessive deference, they noted, is that courts will "sustain gross violations of civil rights because they are either unwilling or unable to meaningfully look behind the government's purported claims of exigency."... "All government power in this country, no matter how well-intentioned, derives only from the state and federal constitutions," Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock noted a month and a half after the first lockdowns. "Government power cannot be exercised in conflict with these constitutions, even in a pandemic….If we tolerate unconstitutional government orders during an emergency, whether out of expediency or fear, we abandon the Constitution at the moment we need it most.""
From 2021
Effectiveness of a fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in previously infected individuals from Austria - "In previously infected individuals, a fourth vaccination was not associated with COVID-19 death risk, but with transiently reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections and reversal of this effect in longer follow-up... For SARS-CoV-2 infections, we observed a small rVE of a fourth vaccine dose with evidence for rapidly waning immunity and reversal of this effect in 2023. Repeated previous and recent infections were both associated with reduced infection risk. All-cause mortality data indicate modest healthy vaccinee bias... data from Qatar suggest that natural immunity confers a very strong protection against severe COVID-19 with no evidence of waning immunity, a conclusion that is supported by a systematic review and meta-analyses... We observed a 21% lower all-cause mortality risk in individuals with four versus three vaccine doses (37% when we excluded nursing home residents), suggesting healthy vaccinee bias especially in the community-dwelling population... In general, our study results question whether recommendations for repeated vaccine boosters against SARS-CoV-2 are currently justified for large parts of the general population with a history of previous infections."
We'll still be told there is no evidence for negative effectiveness, that getting a fourth shot is good and that natural immunity is not a thing and we must force people to get vaccinated against covid
You can't even blame the selection effect for this evidence for negative effectiveness
Why You Can Dine Indoors but Can’t Have Thanksgiving - The Atlantic - "If indoor dining couldn’t be made safe, he wondered, why were people being encouraged to do it? Why were temperature checks being required if they actually weren’t useful? Why make rules that don’t keep people safe?... In Rhode Island, for example, residents are prohibited from gathering with even one person outside their household, even in the open air of a public park. But inside a restaurant? Well, 25 people is fine. Hire a caterer? You’re legally cleared to have up to 75 outdoors.
From 2020. Of course, they had to bash Trump, and blame business-owners
Of course the prescription, even in November, was more lockdown
A Lack of Transparency Is Undermining Pandemic Policy | WIRED - "I’ve seen this happen again and again since the start of the pandemic: a new, “science-based” Covid-19 measure is prescribed, but the science in support of it is either vague or missing altogether... A lack of transparency has even shown up in guidance from the World Health Organization. Back in March, I emailed the headquarters in Geneva to ask how they felt so certain at the time that the SARS-Cov-2 coronavirus was not “airborne.” The press office responded to my questions with a pair of unhelpful scientific documents. In that case, the decision to omit (or ignore) existing research—which suggested that other coronaviruses are likely to be spread by air—might well have been a deadly mistake. Hiding the scientific basis for pandemic policies makes it harder for the public to evaluate what’s being done. That means there’s no good way to audit measures that may be poorly crafted or even dangerous. The risks could be even deeper, though. When health authorities present one rule after another without clear, science-based substantiation, their advice ends up seeming arbitrary and capricious. That erodes public trust and makes it harder to implement rules that do make sense—for this pandemic and any future public health matters... unsourced rules are everywhere in this pandemic. There was no way for the general public to know, at first, that the recommendation to stay 6 feet apart originated in part from a 3-foot rule determined by decades-old studies of card-game players, and that the recommended spacing had been doubled on the basis of research into the spread of the original SARS virus through airplane cabins. And what about the widespread rule that each child in school should be allotted 44 square feet of space? WIRED’s David Zweig traced that back to a consultant who’d found it in an education magazine, which in turn had bungled what was already a faulty calculation by an educational nonprofit. Some pandemic guidelines are even stranger and more mysterious. In an effort to stop people from going out unnecessarily and spreading Covid-19 as winter approached in the southern hemisphere, the South African government prevented the sale of open-toed shoes and shorts (unless they were intended to be worn over leggings), on the grounds that any trip to purchase such articles of clothing would be inessential. In a seemingly backward move, the city of Madrid has closed parks but allows some indoor dining to continue. Meanwhile, Canada’s chief medical officer recommended that people engaged in sexual activity wear masks."
From 2020
Trust the Science. And demonise Deniers
World leaders accused of 'double standards' after ignoring social-distancing during G7 summit
From 2021
Wales labour leader Mark Drakeford is BARRED from more than 100 pubs for 'anti-social behaviour' - "Wales's Labour leader Mark Drakeford has been banned for 'anti-social behaviour' from more than 100 pubs - after announcing the country's 'draconian' alcohol ban... The move prompted bosses to issue a rallying cry and urge the Welsh government to provide 'proof' that their customers are more likely to catch Covid-19 in their establishments... He said the new rules saying pubs could open but not sell alcohol amounted to 'like opening a butchers and asking them not to sell meat.'... 'There is simply no evidence that a draconian alcohol ban will stop the spread of Covid-19. 'What is clear is that our pub culture is being used as a convenient scapegoat for the spread of the pandemic.'"
From 2020
COVID test supplier received billions in pandemic contracts after submitting edited results - "A rapid test importer landed an estimated $2 billion in federal contracts in 2021 and 2022, despite giving regulators incomplete data about its product’s accuracy... BTNX, a small rapid test supplier based outside Toronto, deleted dozens of specimens, or samples, from a study it submitted to Health Canada. That evaluation showed how well the company’s test detected COVID-19. The deletions made BTNX’s test appear more reliable and sensitive than it really was, according to researchers Global News consulted. The device could detect the virus in users who were the most contagious, but results from leading regulators’ evaluation programs indicate BTNX’s test was much less dependable in all other cases. This apparent flaw meant the test kit was more likely to produce false-negative results which, many experts said, put Canadian lives at risk."
Health Canada paid social media influencers to promote government Covid messaging - "The content creators were told that it was not necessary for them to disclose the fact that they were being funded by the government to avoid any embarrassment that receiving government funds would bring them. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the department of health quietly signed a contract beginning on May 3, 2021 to pay influencers $682,000 of taxpayer dollars to promote Health Canada’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The contract says that the government was advancing a secretive influencer campaign to push Canadians towards making “informed decisions” concerning the Covid-19 vaccines. The content creators funded include fitness creators, travel creators, family creators, drag queens, and more. One of these content creators, ohkairyn, self-identifies as a “two spirit shapeshifter.”"
Only spreaders of disinformation believe transparency is good
Paying no-name influencers to push a government message is a good use of money, apparently
Blacklock's Reporter on X - "DOCUMENTS: @GovCanHealth quietly paid $682K to Twitter influencers 'not required to reveal they are gov't paid because that would be embarrassing.'"
Rupa Subramanya on X - "While the premise of the government paying influencers to promote COVID19 vaccines is ipso facto problematic, the fact that they did it through non-influential handles is just plain dumb. I was expecting to recognize these twitter influencers but they are complete nobodies, with a few hundred followers and some accounts have since been deactivated. Having said that, this is a side show and you're being distracted once again. Because Trudeau's real allies in pushing his COVID19 agenda were establishment figures in public health, medicine and media and they amplified the government's messaging almost verbatim. That's the real scandal."
Bhavik on X - "Tiny anonymous accounts Perhaps the goal wasn't to influence the population here and it's just straight up payments to friends of the liberal party"
Taylor Lorenz skips Christmas for 4th straight year because of Covid, accuses those who don’t wear masks of 'social murder of disabled people' - "Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz is missing Christmas for the fourth straight year because of Covid. The notorious tech writer who doxxed Libs of TikTok and cried over mean DMs on Twitter has spent the past several months spouting off on Threads, Meta's woke Twitter alternative, about how Covid is still a thing, people should still wear masks, and information on long Covid is being blocked, suppressed, and downranked. In responding to a Threads user who was recommending Covid mitigation methods for social gatherings, Lorenz said "Totally agree with you on the mitigation advice, but I very much judge anyone who participates in the social murder of disabled people just because it's 'the holidays.' Many of us who are high risk are missing our FOURTH Christmas because other selfish people can't be bothered to mask and take basic precautions that allow us to safely participate in public life. They don't feel enough shame and judgement imo, instead infection has been fully normalized." Many on X saw the comment and noted the bizarre comment about "the social murder of disabled people." The concept of a "social murder" is that a person will suffer an unnatural death due to some form of social, political or economic oppression. In this case, it would be the oppression one suffers when others do not choose to acknowledge Covid as a massive social contagion. Lorenz began identifiying as disabled at least by last February... She has said that she has PTSD from online harassment and is immunocompromised. Lorenz has been seen both masked and unmasked in recent months. She was masked while on strike with other Washington Post journalists sitting around a picnic table in LA, unmasked at an outdoor Balenciaga fashion show, and then masked with sparkles at a the Balenciaga after party. She has complained that Threads has been blocking and suppressing information about the dangers of Covid in 2023, and so-called long Covid at that. Ironically, while Twitter users were being removed from the platform for expressing their concerns that Covid had originated in a lab, or that governments were using Covid as an excuse to steal freedoms, Lorenz spoke in favor of those restrictions... She has also said that those who advocate against Covid restrictions as advocating for "eugenics.""
From December 2023. So much for the left wingers who claim covid is over and mock people who protest about its injustices
An0maly on X - "Here is the video that @TeamYouTube once gave my channel a strike for. Watch it on X. YouTube will shove PCR Tests up their employees noses for three years but won’t allow the Nobel Prize-winning inventor to share his thoughts on their platform."
MAZE on X - "On May 13, 2021 Biden held a press conference and declared victory over the virus. Mask mandates were lifted, schools and businesses were fully reopening. He said “You did this. You deserve this. Americans can greet each other with a smile again.” In 2020 approx. 350k people were said to have died from Covid. In 2021, 475k. In 2022, almost 300k. Deaths INCREASED under Biden. People were bankrupted in 2020 even though more people died per day the following year. The only thing that changed was that our corrupt, evil media had their guy in office so they stopped scaring people about Covid. Hopefully history will expose the evil done during the pandemic."
Damn Trump!
Meme - Richard Hanania @RichardHanania: "Seen on a dentist's window. Not many dentists are this enthusiastic about signalling how woke they are, but the last category clears things WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE Against ANY Customer Based On SEX, GENDER, RACE, CREED, AGE, VACCINATED OR UNVACCINATED. ALL CUSTOMERS WHO WISH TO PATRONIZE ARE WELCOME IN OUR ESTABLISHMENT"
Meme - D. Scott @eclipsethis2003: "Canadian actress Jennifer Gibson."
Eva Viaardingerbroek @EvaVlaar: "This is one of the saddest and most dangerous cases of Stockholm syndrome I've ever seen."
Bert de Bruijn @bert_db: "She's just following the science: "While waiting for conclusive evidence on vaccine-associated facial paralysis, one certainty remains: the benefit of getting vaccinated outweighs any possible risk.""
Samuel Fisher on X - ""Trust the science" has never been anything other than a marketing term that means shut up and obey."
Meme - Marty Makary MD, MPH @MartyMakary: "Data showing schools should be open was evident in July 2020. European data showed no diff in cases/hosp among kids attending school vs those shut out. U.S. public v. private schools also became a 'clinical trial' of data--All ignored as pub health fear &Union demands prevailed."
Kevin Kiley @KevinKileyCA: "Los Angeles Unified kept its schools closed as long as any district in the country. The district conspired with Newsom to deny as many students access to an education as possible. Many never came back. The damage was utterly predictable and completely avoidable."
"Test scores show L.A. students still struggling to recover from pandemic setbacks"
Liberals believe tests are fake anyway
Norway LOCKED man in psychiatric ward for questioning mRNA shots - "This is about a Norwegian man named Trond Harald Haaland. He has long been outspoken about things like the World Economic Forum, climate change and vaccine passports. He has posted a lot about the excess death rates we have been seeing after the roll out of the mRNA vaccines... earlier this year he sent a letter to a very senior doctor in his region to demand a stop to covid vaccination of children 5 to 11 years old. Now someone had anonymously reported him to the police for being "mentally unstable". We have no idea who it was. Could be anyone. It could be some antifa extremist that had reported him for all we know. Then the police contacted the health system based on this anonymous tip. That is all that was needed for two "health care workers" together with two uniformed police officers to arrive at his door and forcibly haul the man away and lock him up in a phsyciatric ward. What was the justification for such drastic measures? Because he had been posting "conspiracy theories" on facebook. Conspiracy theories such as talking about the mRNA vaccines and excess deaths, Klaus Schwab, and that he does not believe in man made climate change... according to the doctor, the man is not "healthy" when he is posting about things like stopping children from getting the mRNA vaccine and not believing in the official narrative about climate change. Oh, so did this doctor read his facebook posts? No, the doctor did not even have a facebook account!... Finally, after being held for 9 days, the man was let go after a jury at the Control Commission for Phsyciatric healthcare ruled that there was no justification for forcibly locking him up. So it was ruled illegal to lock him up. Obviously. But the fact that this could happen to begin with, and that he was locked up for 9 days is extremely worrying. If they can do it to him, they can do it to more people as well. And this is nothing new. In fact, in the Soviet Union they actively persecuted political dissidents and locked them up in pshyicatric hospitals after "health experts" had deemed that their political opinions meant they were "mentally unstable"."
Kjetil Tveit on X - "Trond Harald Haaland's lawyer has many clients in Norway who are involuntarily admitted due to having a different political view than what is presented in mainstream media. Haaland was taken by uniformed healthcare personnel and police on July 19th following an anonymous report about conspiracy theories he posted on Facebook, which are verifiable but politically charged. Listen to his own story with his lawyer on the Anti-Jante Podcast today (Norwegian). Here's a brief summary: The lawyer explains that a common thread among her clients is that they are involuntarily hospitalized without meeting the strict criteria for dangerous behavior warranting such measures. Instead, they hold a different reality from what is presented in mainstream media. Is Haaland a political threat or a whistleblower? Haaland reveals that as an activist, he reported the municipal chief medical officer in Strand municipality to the police regarding child vaccination and also sent emails to the authorities. He believes he posted mostly statistics and figures on social media, with very little political content. No doubt it was due to the Facebook post. What sets Trond Harald's case apart, according to Barbro Paulsen, from others she has seen in the last three years is that the involuntary admission was explicitly linked to his Facebook post. Regarding the law, Paulsen explains: "Haaland was admitted under §3.2 for forced observation. If the patient is not extremely disruptive but coherent and able to communicate, the hospital has 24 hours to release the patient or make an admission decision under §3.3. In extreme cases, a patient can be held under §3.2 for up to ten days, but special circumstances must apply. (...) There must be genuinely sick individuals. The criteria that one is a danger to others or oneself must be met. The danger criteria are a primary requirement to use the harshest measures the state has, namely to remove people and hold them in closed institutions." Danger criteria - not fulfilled at all. "The danger criteria are not fulfilled in this case, not at all. This has never been disputed. The hospital also stated from the very beginning that there was nothing worth discussing. (...) Haaland was transferred to §3.3 despite the criteria not being met." Anonymous report - unusual. Paulsen explains that one should know who reported a case to be able to defend oneself. It's difficult to defend against an "invisible enemy." In this case, the informant's identity was never disclosed, which Paulsen has never encountered before. Requests for this information have been made twice but without results. Awaiting reasoning from the oversight committee. As known, the oversight committee revoked the involuntary admission decision after 9 days. The committee has 14 days to provide a formal rationale for their decision, which has not yet been received. A landmark case. Paulsen believes this case could become a landmark since it's so clear that Trond Harald is perfectly healthy. Societal change - burden of proof. She's concerned that the burden of proof seems to have shifted recently. The lawyer, who also has extensive experience in Norwegian child welfare, explains that authorities used to have to prove something was wrong. Now, one must increasingly prove one is healthy or a good parent. She questions whether this is the society we want the next generation to grow up in. Do we tolerate diverse political perspectives? When it comes to proving who holds delusions in a society, there will be various perspectives. Paulsen wonders who should define who holds delusions and who has the "correct" perception of reality. This thought disturbs her. Those who decided on the involuntary admission must have trusted the "informant's" political judgment, thus fulfilling the criteria for "delusions." The conversation reveals that the responsible chief medical officer had not actually read (the conspiratorial) Facebook posts but relied on others, presumably the anonymous "acquaintances" who reported Haaland. Watch the entire podcast and hear the incredible story of a healthy whistleblower and activist who was involuntarily admitted to psychiatry based on an anonymous report, with the knowledge that multiple legal violations were committed to keep him confined."
