logicp_writings/covidism/Denis Rancourt TLAV 4.md

Denis TLAV 4

Introduction

All cause mortality incompatible with the idea of a respiratory disease that was spreading in the manner that was believed.

• Immediate surge in hotspots synchronously around the world: Paris, London, New York
• Sharp rise in all-cause deaths, which came down within a month or a bit more, did not occur in many jurisdictions - very disparate
• Related to what was being done in those jurisdictions
• All of a sudden a virulent pathogen immediately acting around the world at hotspots where people were mistreating patients in large institutions (NY)?
• Not due to the usual picture
• Canada did not have mortality pandemic - virtually none compared to the US / Virtually nothing happened in proportion to the population
• Thousands of km of land border (2 biggest economic exchange partners in the world)
• US 1.27 million excess deaths all-cause deaths in the US (August 2022?)
• Testing is of no consequence to this research - eliminate all of those controversies
• States are able ot count how many people die, where, their age, etc
• We don't even need to look at excess mortality - we can look at total number of deaths per week in any given jurisdiction that is counting deaths and separate by age group

US Is Unique

In proportion to its population, it has massive all-cause excess deaths during the COVID period. Most western european countries and Canada do not. Why is that? Looking at various large sized states geographically proximate with different properties and methodologies allows you to look for various correlations between excess mortality in a given state and various social, economic and health parameters of the populations in those states. 50 plots on a graph

• Strong correlation ever seen in Social Sciences (Pearson Correlation Coefficient +0.86 - very strong correlation)
• Excess mortality correlates with poverty
• Not just a correlation, but shows proportionality
• If a state has no one living in poverty, you have no excess deaths
• If you double the number of people living in poverty, you double the excess deaths in the state
• Viruses do not have the ability to discern
• There is no correlation with the age of the population - No correlations of excess mortality with the age of the population in the state
  • Shotgun patterns
• Completely incompatible with what is said to be COVID-19
  • Several clinical studies where they follow sick patients and determine with analytic methods what their ailments were
  • Case fatality ratio is exponential with age
  • If you don't accept this, you aren't accepting any science
• Young people dying dramatically more than before the COVID period
• People were not dying of this respiratory disease
• You must accept absurdities to continue to believe that there was a special, virulent virus that was causing excess deaths
• No evidence in all-cause mortality which would allow us to say that a particualr pathogen came and started to kill people
• Consistent with many Western nations with good data:
  • Western European Countries
  • Many Eastern European Countries
  • United States (all states)
  • Canada (every province)
• You can't get around this hard data - you have to use it as a stepping stone
• If you don't accept this, you are talking about hypotheticals which don't affect people's lives
• Theoretical immunology - you are filling space that has nothing to do with the hard reality that the mortality, the single greatest sign of what's happening in a population, shows no evidence for a virulent pathogen coming through and doing this
• Strong correlations to disability

Fragile Pools

People don't realize the extremely fragile pools of individuals that exist in the United States to explain this high mortality

• There are 14 million people in the US with a serious mental illness
  • Heavily medicated, many effects (obesity, etc)
• Population is very heterogeneous
  • Always presence of those who are on the edge of dying from various effects

Fragile Model

• People who are institutionalized, being taken care of, are disabled, have a mental illness and are elderly
• Protect them:
  • Completely isolate them
  • Not allow them to use the same washrooms
  • Don't allow their usual contact with family
• You have killed them
• Isolation is torture for healthy people, but these are fragile people
• Heterogeneity of health in US with a large population
• Aggressive measures:
  • Taking people out of intensive care from hospitals and putting them in care homes to make room for others who will come
  • Lock them into the care homes
  • When infected, isolate them severely within that care home
  • Block all contact with the outside world
  • The few people you see are wearing masks and shields
• Strong correlation with obesity as well

Poverty, obesity, disability - those are the people who died.

Latest All-Cause mortality in US study

In the latest all-cause mortality study - they found evidence of time synchronicity between an increase in vaccine doses that are delivered to the body, and an increase in mortality.

How it started

You can think of this in terms of there are conditions where a forest fire is likely and any spark will do. A lot of dry underbrush, lots of fuel, and a lot of wind. You have this huge, globalized pandemic response / network of institutions. These people exist to respond to pandemics. They are a huge hammer looking for a nail. That have set it up, they fund it, they practice scenarios (funded by pharma and special interests). You've got an army of professionals, including scientists, that are ready to go. And you could add all the pieces that are aprt fo the dry underbrush.

Research Bias

Another piece is that in medical science they have, unfortunately (most medical researchers), have had their minds turned towards this idea that death and disease is mono-causal. A pathogen is responsible, and therefore if you can find something that will attack that pathogen, you will be curing people. This is a very tunnel-vision view of health, ignoring many well-established social animal studies that shwo that the very first determinant of health is a dominance hierarchy stress that the individual is subjected to. That is by far the dominant factor regarding individual health. It just ignores all of that and ignores reality, basically, and has all these MDs and researchers with tunnel vision looking for pathogens and wanting to figure out how to kill these pathogens.

In addition, because you've got that, you've got professional scientists who are going to be given recognition and even nobel prizes if they discover a new pathogen that is causing a new disease. It is like a chemist discovering a new molecule that has very nice properties. It's like a physcist discovering a principle that will explain many experiments. A minerologist will want to discover a new mineral and name it after him or one of his friends.

These medical researchers are looking for viruses. They're looking for viruses all the time and they, therefore, have an internal professional bias to find viruses. The problem is viruses are very small, they're invisible, they're different to separate from the bodily fluids and everything else that is in the infected organ. This is scientifically a very difficult thing to do - to identify a new virus - when you've got a whole ecology of viruses and bacteria in all your organs, your intestinal tract. Literally billions of organisms in your body.

Technology

In addition to that, they tend to be over-reliant on technology. So there are methods that have been developed to get genetic sequences, nad they rely on them excessively. Traditionally you would separate out the viral particles and you would look at them under the microscope and learn to find, look at and recognize them and THEN separate them out in large enough quantities to be able to do analyses on them.

Now, they basically swish all that fluid through their PCR machine and then get partial answers and use a computer to, in all likelihood, recreate what the genetic code must be. And they rely on that.

Once it's accepted that something is the genetic code of a new virus then, they're you go, you're off working from that assumption. You have no choice but to run with it. And the person who submitted the code tot he international bodies gets recognized for having discovered the virus, and so on.

Institutional Structural Bias

There are all these forces - institutional structural bias - that are present and that are just ready to be triggered. And in addition to that you've got the fact that this is internationalized. MD researchers in China will have been educated and trained in the US. There are exchanges and funding between labs. It's a tight-knit professional network.

The Spark (What is the Spark)

Ignoring the details in the chain of historic events that led us precisely to the WHO announcing a pandemic. Some chinese researchers described a particularly bad pneumonia-type disease being seen in some hospitals. Someone collected fluid from the lungs of one of those patients and derived, from these indirect methods, a genetic code which they sent off to an international body and that was therefore accepted that a new pathogen was around.

There are a few other elements to the story. Once you have a new pathogen that people are talking about, the modelers get involved. The UK modelers had a paper come out from (?) saying this started in China and China has a responsibility to lock down/stop flights to reduce international harm. They did some stupid epidemiological modeling based on people taking flights, R factor and concluded with egregiously wrong estimtaes of how many people could be killed and, therefore, China has a moral and national responsibility.

That came out very early in a leading journal and that, things like it, and the talk and propaganda around it would have pressured China to lock down and demonstrate, in a propaganda move, that they could build hospitals over night and were taking this seriously.

Then, once it had gone far enough, there was an interview by a former KGB intelligence general who said that China HAD to stop being the origin of the propaganda so they told the MDs and Researchers to just calm down and not lock down their entire economy. As a result, China flourished in the Covid period and kept its economy going. They stopped talking about and testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Western Lockdowns Were Not Inspired by China

Even though there is all this dry underbrush/institutional structures/all of these things ready and in place. The pandemic measures we saw being applied, and over such a long period with such a level of aggression, could have not occurred without oversight and encouragement by geopolitical forces. This doesn't happen spontaneously. They went overboard and it was clear that they wanted complete increase in ability to know everybody's whereabout. To surveil all the world's population as much as they could - they wanted that ability to be implemented. The ability to shut down your bank accounts. An E-currency that is tied to everyone's individual bank accounts.

It is clear that geopolitically there are some clear obvious goals that were being pursued and that COVID was a way of achieving those goals. Once the notion fo a pandemic and a virulent pathogen is accepted and all of these brilliant professional researchers and MDs have bought into it, you don't have to design anything. That's just going to be the story.

The question is: how far are the measure going to go? How long are they going to last? How will the governments use this? How will they manipulate it? There is no way that a medical researcher is going to say "you know, maybe there wasn't a pathogen this time". They will be the lone person saying that, and it goes contrary to their work.

Health is more than influenza. Disease experts are people who will lean into things in this manner simply because it's in their best interest.

Isolation

The virus has not been isolated in the classic scientific sense of a nanoparticle being isolated. There is no way that a purified sample of macroscopic size has been produced and, therefore, analyzed with methods that allow accuracy.

Even the high-resolution electron microscope pictures are not that convincing. Denis used to have an electron microscope and he did a lot of electron microscopy, taught it at the graduate level, taught all the measurement methods at the graduate level (spectroscopy, diffraction, various forms of microscopy). It's hard to do these measurements and even just to find the object that you would like to illustrate.

There's always impurities and way more variety and zoology of objects than you would like. We have not seen any electron pictures that would correspond to a purified sample.

The argument

If what you're injecting the cell culture with is not pure than what is being reproduced? There are lots of problems.

Researchers will respond with the following: "Look, maybe it's really hard to separate, get a large sample and reproduce in a cell culture. I'll admit that there are problems at the microscope world, but we have this wonderful PCR technology. And when we apply it, we get a sequence that definitely corresponds to a virus. There are many parts of it that we definitely recognize as being parts of the virus. Using a computer, we can make the entire genomic sequence of the virus. On that basis, we believe that there is a virus in there, even though we can't physically grab it, isolate it and study it as we'd like to.

So, on the basis of this PCR technology, we believe it exists".

That is a fair argument because the only way to counter it is to examine the molecular mechanism of this PCR technique and look at all the artifacts that can arise, how it works, whether it always works, if the result is hypersensitive to how you do the procedure in the lab, or how the computer algorithms are to correct the fact of you not having enough of a macroscopic sample to be able to do the sequencing step by step and get the sequence. Are these algorithms reliable, what is the uncertainty in that. If you want to critique their proposal that you should believe them because of the PCR technique, then you have to get into the nuts and bolts of what they're doing.

Having looked at some of these articles which get into the PCR methods being used, it's very technical and they're hard to find. You don't have definitive researchers critiquing techniques for which a nobel prize was given for discovery.

Many Techniques

PCR is a huge family of techniques. To what level do you want to characterize this sample. To what degree and what methods do you want to use?

It's not a binary thing where you say PCR is worthless or wonderful. In some applications, it's amazing. If you get a large macroscopic sample of blood, in forensics science, PCR has had some good use. It depends on how far you want to go.

Blood type: if the criminal has a certain blood type, and the blood you found on the scene is different - it's open and shut.

How much detail do you need? How much discernment do you want to make in the measurement?

A spectrum of ways to use PCR and various resolutions that can be achieved.

Ryan thinks PCR was the best tool because it can be manipulated.

If you didn't have PCR, and could not supposedly obtain genetic sequences, you wouldn't be able to do any of this. You wouldn't be able to say that you have a virus, or that there is a virus.

It's very difficult to do and the only times it's been done. It would be so much work and resources and would be open to critique because the techniques being used are much more transparent and are easier to understand.

Culturing in a lab, for example.

It doesn't matter that it hasn't been isolated if it's accepted that there is a genetic code. Whatever pharma industry wants to take a part of that code and decide to make that in a lab in inject you with it - that mRNA, designed in that regard, will produce the protein and you'll recognize to it and develop immunity - that's the beauty of what they've done. All they need is a genetic code, whether it's true or false or how it's obtained - that's all they need. They can make you a vaccine with this technology where it's cheaper to make, avoids many regulatory problems - because of not having an actual virus or any culturing needs. A vector is just something you synthesize in a lab. They've established the idea that they can get genetic sequences and make you vaccines for anything you want.

To take it a step further - this whole isolation question is itself completely irrelevant because, using hard data, we have demonstrated that there was no particularly virulent pathogen.

They win either way - if there are no deaths, we're saving people, and if there are deaths, it's due to something else.

If there truly was a dangerous virulent pathogen, you wouldn't have to be asking this question. You would see your neighbours dying unmistakably from this violent disease. You wouldn't have any of these kinds of problems.

One of the things shown in one of Dennis' first papers with the US data was to ask "what is the mechanism of death?". What was found was that the marjority of death certificates have a co-condition of non-COVID pneumonia. At the same time, for structural reasons, everyone was cutting down on antibiotics. Antibiotics dropped by half while a national-scale epidemic of bacterial pneumonia. People got bacterial pneumonia and then didn't treat it with antibiotics. This might also be the reason ivermectin helped people - it is a proven anti-bacterial agent in the literature. They may have been treating people suffering from pneunmonia, whether or not it was related to a COVID infection.

Who Dies

Highly vulnerable, mentally disabled, obese, in poverty, institutionality, and subjected to enormous life changing circumstances that cause enormous stress. Stress is known, mechanistically at the molecular level, to completely suppress your immune system.

Most of them die the usual way that people of all ages can die - bacterial pneumonia. If you are fragile, in terms of your health and immune system, you can be killed by bacterial pneumonia.

Pneumonia was conflated with Flu, even in papers from the HHS, saying that there are only 200 cases proven to be flu, and everything else being something that had been conflated with flu.

It's very difficult, even for an experienced clinician, to say with certainty that - you almost always have co-infection. You can detect viruses, but several - they typically find, through culturing, 2-5 different identifiable viruses. Same story for bacteria, and all this is happening at the same time.

Lungs are one of the most fragile organs because it's in direct contact with the air, has high surface area,

The 1918 Flu event - that time of dying of young and poor people happened under special circumstances, and before the influenza virus had been proposed or discovered. There was no such thing as flu back then.

The lung tissues were re-analyzed by 5 different teams of researchers and everybody found that the people that they could see died of bacterial pneumonia. A big example of masks being used on a massive scale. We aren't prepared to advance the mask theory regarding 1918. 1918 was a killing field in Russia as well, with much related to war conditions and economic conditions - horrendous living conditions - and not everyone wore a mask, but they all died. I am, at least, sure that masks can cause health problems - and it's scientifically known. There's massive evidence of all the health problem that masks can cause.

You have a dying, fragile individual and you insist on them being double masked - you're not helping them. 2.5-3 different comorbidities.

The Mechanisms

There are layers of mechanisms. The terrain: general health of the individual - how susceptible they are - obese, poverty, (and not just poor and not eating well, but being subjected to dominance hierarchy stress on a regular basis more aggressively than others). The first layer: psychological stress the second layer: social isolation The third layer: bacterial pneumonia

There's recent research on the direct impact of stress on the immune system. The study we're talking about is referenced on our current work RE the USA.

Mass Vaccination Campaign

Introduction

Our latest paper with 168 pages as it's currently published. We had the advantage that the vaccine campaign had essentially been accomplished. The start of the COVID period was when the WHO announced a pandemic and all-cause deaths shot up at that point. Then, up to the present, you have about 100 weeks of COVID period. The first 50 weeks are without vaccine, and the next 50 weeks the vaccine campaign shoots up dramatically, vaccinating hundreds of millions of doses in the USA.

We argued that should be able to see what the impact of the vaccine is. The first first conclusion is that the vaccines did not lower all-cause mortality that was occurring in the COVID period. No lives were saved by this huge, mega-massive mass vaccination campaign.

They are saying that the vaccine becomes effective to protect you against serious illness within 7 and 14 days. If you are protected against serious illness then presumably you are somewhat protected against death. We do not see any decrease in the USA. The high level of excess, all-cause mortality is maintained in the 100 weeks mentioned. In 50 weeks you had essentially vaccinated everyone.

It had no visible effect in the all-cause mortality.

The second thing we tried to do is to say that's fine in terms of a bulk measure, but let's look at a time-dependence of all-cause mortality, because there are peaks and troughs, changing from state-to-state, and different by age-group.

Let's look at that in detail and compare the time evolution of how many doses of the vaccine are administered to the people of that same age group. Let's see if there's a time-wise synchronicity that would link the vaccine to deaths.

Observed Patterns

We found strong examples of a coincidence in terms of an increase in vaccination amount and a large extra peak in all-cause deaths. This increase is not the original rise when the campaign began, but a later rise when they implemented vaccine-equity programs. Vaccine equity means aggressive going after all the communities that had not yet been vaccinated enough, and all the states and counties where this was the case, and they hired lots of people to go and inject as many people as possible.

You can see an increase in the timewise number of vaccinations administered and you see that in the poor states because it's in the poor states where people are not as vaccinated. They tend to be more isolated, more distant from one another, not the same big population centers, etc.

At the same time that there is this large increase, there is a large peak that arises. It is not a usual seasonal peak - it's not happening in the winter. It's happening in the late-summer, prior to the winter, when this campaign was in effect. Unprecedented.

And, so, you can look at that peak and the vaccination and by age group in the poor states and it's unambiguous.

Vaccines as a CoMorbidity

What we come to say is "the vaccines were a comorbidity - they are a toxic substance, there is a peak of mortality following injections - unambiguous. The lipids themselves, used for the capsule, are known to be a toxic molecule to the body, and so on. What we're saying is that the vaccines were a co-morbidity for exactly the same people that are mostly killed by the COVID measures. Those people who are particularly frail - poverty, disability, mental disability, obesity, and so on. When those situations combine in thos particualr individuals that are being isolated, mistreated, lives transformed, stressed out, immune systems depressed, lack of antibiotics, and you inject them in order to have vaccine equity, and that puts some individuals over the top and that gives rise to the extra all-cause mortality in those states where there are a lot of those individuals and you have, at the same time, this increase in vaccination. A relatively subtle effect compared to the bulk all-cause mortality of the COVID period. But it's very real, cannot be an accident, has incredible synchonicity repeatedly by age group from state to state, between the increase in vaccination and the increase in all-cause mortality.

Peter McCullough might be looking at the mechanisms might be, but I'm not doing any of that. I'm just looking at the all-cause mortality and I'm telling you that that isn't an accident.

Every category we listed off, or other categories that some might list off as the biggest drains of resources - open actions about do-not-rescusitate to those with learning disabilities. Eugenics overtone to this?

I would say that, in effect, it may not be intentional but in effect it certainly seems to be the case. The way poor elderly people were treated, especially - there has been complete disregard for disabled people, mentally disabled especially. There is a negative bias towards these people in society and there is way less accountability if you kill these people. That is just a structural reality.

Michigan

In the large paper that you saw about the USA, we found something that happened in only one state that was very dramatic, and that state was Michigan.

When the vaccination campaign was first turned on in Michigan, at the same time there was a huge Spring peak in all-cause mortality (massive). No other state has a peak in teh spring following the initiation of the vaccine campaign, but Michigan does - difficult to understand how or why - and it is synchronous with the massive increase in vaccination delivery happening at the same time, and by age group.

We saw that and thought "Wow, that's incredible - here the vaccines appear to have been deadly, and deadly in an amount comparable to the toxicity that we quantified with VAERS (one order of magnitude off but easy to understand when considering heterogeneity of the population). Why is it only happening in one state? We don't know the answer, but we have an unmistakable phenomenon in Michigan".

Since that time, we've been looking at Canadian data, and what we find is that that same peak coinciding with the massive initial upshoot of vaccination is occurring in several provinces in Canada, synchronous with the vaccinations, occurring at the same time - in Alberta and Ontario. You can see it more clearly by age group.

Age and Mortality

Age has a big effect on mortality.

• The risk of mortality, whatever the cause, is exponential with age.
• The doubling time is about 9 years (culture, time/history, etc doesn't matter except during war) Fundamental property of biology and you find this characteristic in other animal species, but the doubling time is different, obviously.

The risk of death due to being challenged with a toxic substance rises exponentially with age, but also the heterogeneity that you will die - the width of distribution for a given age increases with age.

Put another way, if you inject older people there will be much more variation in how toxic the substance is for them, compared to younger people. For younger people the toxicity is abotu the same for everyone.

This is also the reason why there's no need to say there are "toxic batches".

Misrepresentation

Our conversations get discussed as being a process of deception in which one or more of the parties is deceiving the other.

Nobel Prize

Nobel prizes are part of the science propaganda enterprise. Not saying that every nobel prize fits in this caftegory. You need some that are authentic and major/real discoveries, like Einstein.

The Nobel Prize is necessarily political because to submit someone for the prize you have to have researchers. You need to get in there and have influence.

There's a correlation between Nobel Prizes being given and geopolitical agendas being advanced as a result. I am looking at the Ozone hole molecular mechanism and things like that. There was a Nobel Prize for discovering the pathogen that causes AIDS.

There are agendas even in things lik ethe Nobel Prize that is otherwise thought to be a purely scienific acknowledgment.

Lockdowns

Physics minded astronomer, John Johnson, worked with Denis and they studied the epidemiology to understand the effect of lockdowns on all-cause mortality - published in Brownstone Institute.

Many states did not have any lockdown impositions, joined by a border with states that did, and you can make direct comparisons - often with states that are very comparable.

Statistically, virtually systematically, you had lower all-cause mortality if you didn't lock down.

We corrected for intrinsic health inequities between states (not a big effect, but one that one can and should protect for).

Intent

Covid measures were war-measures imposed because we are in a war. A geopolitical war against China and Eurasia.

They want to take the next decade to curtail/reverse the development of China and its trading partners. In such a war, you're going to reconfigure the world economy with huge consequences on inflation and distribution. The war can also become hotter and hotter. Therefore, they want to control any domestic criticism, hence why they put war measures in place.

Prevent travel, sensor communication, and impose a need for people to demonstrate obedience.

You have to look at COVID in light of geopolitics. We don't like to say it, but there is an empire.

I do not buy the idea that Russia and China are not sovereign, and are part of the same global system. There are many collaborations, but they are sovereign states and they are necessarily considered to be opponents.

The west doesn't want co-development. They want supremacy, and they want to crush their adversaries.

Geopolitics did not disappear in 2020. There is a continuity of strong geopolitical top-level forces that have been apparent since before the 2nd world war, and there is a continuum of phenomena to watch.

China and Russia

They are sovereign states and they are necessarily in economic opposition to the west. The United States doesn't want co-development; they want supremacy, and they want to crush their adversaries.

Lots of Intent

There is no doubt that there is intent to do all these things we've been concerned about. But is there intent to kill? Professionals can be wreckless and can even know they are killing people and not care, but there is likely not an intent to cull or kill or cause a genocide to reduce population.

Having said that, it is also true that technocratic elites and elite leaders or elite politicians do not like a large population. A large population means more interactions and complexity thus not only is it harder to control, but the likelihood of unwanted events increases from the perception of an elite. That is to say, if there are advantages that you have in society which you'd like to keep private, there's a greater likelihood that they will be discovered and discussed. You have a growing and large population so it's hard to even know what the dangers are.

They don't like growth and development in all of the world, particularly Latin America and Africa (or there would have been decades of it). They have allowed controlled growth of their allies in Europe and Japan, under Breton Woods and following WW2, but when it becomes threatening they pull back from it, unilaterally.

This harms societies and causes globalization: the US centered finance and corporations take more of the world. That's what globalization really means. Right now they are destroying Europe by imposing huge sanctions against their trading partner, Russia. They want to destroy Europe because they would prefer to destroy it than to allow it to integrate with Eurasia. They really don't want that, so they're willing to sacrifice their allies without any problem.

Another leading element might be trying to create a global entity, but these are not opposite views. If they manage to crush China, Russi and the sovereign economies, then those economies will be forced to be integrated into what's being built (their "reset" and a controlled E-Currency).

One must understand the very wealthy billionaire class existing only because the US allows it, hence why they have to serve US interests. You also have to understand pharma and the big corporations in the same way; if they US decides they are no longer useful or are a threat, they will disappear. There are historical examples of this.

We can see that the direction is clear: we should ask if what we see is what we've been voting for. The concern for what's really going on today is evident in research papers such as that whcih was discussed in our conversation today.

How do we wake people up?

We're talking about individual psychology and their individual presence in a community and environment.

How do you best jolt someone into becoming uncomfortable with their beliefs? Generally, the answer is by personal contact. Opening communication and explaining what you believe in a way that is personal with the people who are closest to you. In doing that, you often discover that there are parts in your own logic that are incomplete or that are tenuous, and you have to go back and learn more.

Those who will help to turn this around are those who feel very strongly, for example, that they don't want to be injected. They're not going to allow it, and they're not going to allow their children to be injected. You're not going to force me to wear a mask.

The more people who feel that way will create a critical mass which can turn things around. We have to feel strongly. It's great that many Canadians are learning to detest our Prime Minister. That visceral sentiment comes from the realization that he serves other interests.

Canada has lost a lot of its sovereignty to the United States, and is willing to sacrifice its own economy. The leaders are selling off Canada and saying "to heck with Canadians".

#TrudeauMustGo