Ken Bear (nom de plume) 2022-01-10
Once upon a time a public health nurse, a friend, worked for Health Canada out of an office in downtown Halifax. She related, while brandishing the report, that her workplace had been diagnosed as "one of the most toxic in Canada".
The irony of Health Canada being labelled toxic stuck with me. What's with that? A theory about bureaucracy developed based on experience, a design orientation and some systems thinking.
Frontline workers in this case actually engaging with real public health issues had important information and yet their managers, battered by political winds, were more concerned with feathering their own nests. The later had no doubt come to their place of prominence and had reached their level of incompetence clinging to their positions by making subordinates miserable. Perhaps bureaucracies at all three levels of government tend to institutionalize bullying.
I wouldn't make such a big deal of this had the theory not been sounded out and verified in conversations with civil servants and surprisingly even their managers time and time again. It's just a hop, skip and jump and together we can conclude that the civil service is likely fundamentally largely dysfunctional.
Most would agree.
A couple of endnotes:
It would stand to reason that if your ministry of health is "toxic" you're likely to end up living in anything but a healthy society. But I may be getting carried away here. Let's continue—
A mineral with exceptional public relations, the debate on water fluoridation has been raging for as long I can remember. Not the point to get into the details here. However, this is an example of the nanny state imposing a one-size-fits-all – on everyone – supposably "for the greater public good." The directive comes from, you guessed it, Health Canada.
“Water fluoridation is a safe, effective, equitable and cost-effective public health measure that significantly reduces the rate of tooth decay in all segments of the population. ”
– Community water fluoridation, Health Canada
Safe and effective... Now where have we heard that before?
“Fluoridation is unethical. Using the public water supply to deliver dental therapy goes against all recognized principles of modern pharmacology and ethical healthcare practice. It imposes medication on all water consumers indiscriminately and without the individual's informed consent. ”
– Water Fluoridation
“The truth, now becoming increasingly evident, is that fluoridation and the proclaimed benefit of fluoride as a way of preventing dental decay is perhaps the greatest "scientific" fraud ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public. ”
– Fluoride: Worse than We Thought
“There is a toxin in our tap water and it's being piped into our homes without our permission. ”
– Fluoride Free Peel
For sometime I've found it comical that while fluoridation of drinking and bathing water is largely unquestioned dogma especially in dentistry circles, over the same seventy years that its been practiced we've seen an steady increase in the amount of sugar being added to much of our food and drink.
So the question becomes, what else are we being force-fed and why?
The notion that what's on offer in the supermarket isn't necessarily in the interest of optimal health was popular in the hippy counter-culture I came of age in 50 years ago. It was only recently I came to realize the depth of sinister intent.
They say experience is the best teacher. If one's worldview can be shaped by conversations then the afternoon I spent with an elderly couple from Medicine Hat, changed my world forever. They were from Saskatchewan. She'd been a school teacher, he'd worked as a civil engineer on projects throughout the province and was also responsible for maintaining the family farm. They could recall the days of the old fashioned tractors. One pictures rosie-cheeked goodness, prairie elevators against the endless sky, bushels of wheat, the majestic Canadian bread basket that feeds the world. The vision they left me with was quite different however.
The tractors now have cabs and stereo systems and they spray herbicide (Roundup = glyphosate) over the all three provinces. "Is there anywhere they don't spray?", I ask. "Nope" was the answer.
This means glyphosate is everywhere. Walk into the grocery store once more and basically it's in everything (not organically grown and certified). This took a while to sink in.
The wakeup shook my world: OMGosh Our food system is profiting from poisoning the population! This can't be true can it?. If it was surely it would be front page news (or were Corn Flakes somehow protected?).
At a local party, I share my realization with a longtime politician who had worked tirelessly for a ban on herbicides in our city. He agreed with me instantly to my amazement. The same week I told my family doctor and once again the insight was verified without a question.
If knowingly putting poison in food products seems unethical to you, it doesn't seem to bother Health Canada.
“Health Canada scientists conduct a thorough risk assessment to confirm that eating foods treated with a pesticide would not result in any human health concern to any segment of the population, including pregnant women, infants, children and seniors. These scientists then establish Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), which is the legal maximum allowable amount of pesticide residues that may remain in or on foods.”
– Glyphosate in Canada
Try convincing my homeopath that MRLs are inconsequential. Residue just sounds creepy when it's offered up in sugar cereal unbeknownst to you:
"What are you having for breakfast Bart?"
"Max-Res Flakes of course — What else is there?"
The science here is complex, as with fluoride, we're being unwitting fed into a vast experiment. I'm actually naive about all this really and yet it seems the precautionary principle ought to click in immediately. I have heard that glyphosate functions as an antibiotic in the human body and can devastate our gut microbiome. That certainly does not sound very good.
Listen to Zach Bush, MD for science details and history on the introduction and widespread use of glyphosate and it impacts on agricultural, the environment and our health. (10 min.)
Clean air, clean water, clean healthy soil would be basic prerequisites for a healthy environment (Canada), and yet we're told glyphosate is now in all three...
The Codex Alimentarius sets international food standards and is in cahoots with FAO and WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and World Health Organization). Critics say the Codex is simply advocacy for big agri, big pharma, and big food lobbies. In any case it rules the top of the food chain so to speak: What is the Codex position on Glyphosate? No coincidence really, same as Health Canada's.
Interesting that the purveyor of Roundup is a pharmaceutical company.
You kind of have to wonder who's calling the shots here.
“The Minister of Health is responsible for maintaining and improving the health of Canadians. This is supported by the Health Portfolio which comprises Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Health Portfolio consists of approximately 12,000 full-time equivalent employees and an annual budget of over $3.8 billion.”
Health Canada is the Federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health, while respecting individual choices and circumstances.
Nothing fishy here.
So basically we have 12,000 bewildered (albeit well-intentioned) people working in a toxic hierarchy "maintaining and improving the health of Canadians" – never being completely sure about how to go about that – while at the sametime continually seduced by lobbies and pressured by directives from the PMO.
Robert Whitaker's 2010 book Anatomy of an Epidemic investigates a medical mystery: Why has the number of adults and children disabled by mental illness skyrocketed over the past fifty years?
Could the widespread use of psychiatric medications – for one reason or another – be fueling this epidemic? Interesting question and you most likely can intuit the correct answer. I recall I was very impressed by Whitaker's online presentations a decade ago. Everyone knew something was going on with Prozac and the like, but who could imagine the extent?
It was at a cocktail party years ago that I ran into a doctor who told me that 3 out 4 young women in his practice check the antidepressant box on their intake form. Wait a minute, that's 75%!
Something is off here. "No, they (the drug companies) are making a lot of money." was the doctor's response; what could be wrong with that, was the implication.
An epidemic created, nurtured and perpetuated by pharmaceutical interests with Health Canada's stamp of approval: "Antidepressant drugs (often called "antidepressants") are widely used in Canada to treat depression and other mental health issues." health-canada/services/drugs-medical-devices/antidepressant-drugs.html
PROZAC Side Effects by Likelihood and Severity – Webmd.com
So now we have 12,000 bewildered (well-intentioned) people working in a toxic hierarchy, with ±75% likely on mood-adjusters of some sort. *
* Really, they would have to be. These faces speak volumes.
So the question at this point is who are you going to trust?
Safety of 5G technology (Health Canada)
5G technology, cell phones, cell phone towers and antennas
"Based on the available scientific evidence, there are no health risks from exposure to the low levels of radiofrequency EMF which people are exposed to from cell phones, cell phone towers, antennas and 5G devices."
So we thought we'd do an (another) experiment and see what happens...
Safety aside, it's the aesthetics of these ugly towers imposing themselves on the otherwise pristine Canadian landscape that irks me. Even if they're not looking at you, they seem to be.
Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail... Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety. – Professor John William Frank, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health
We the undersigned, more than 180 (now 419) scientists and doctors from 36 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. 5G Appeal
There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR (wireless communications radiation) exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19.
Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.
WCR exposure is a widespread, yet often neglected, environmental stressor that can produce a wide range of adverse bioeffects. For decades, independent research scientists worldwide have emphasized the health risks and cumulative damage caused by WCR (42,45). The evidence presented here is consistent with a large body of established research. Healthcare workers and policymakers should consider WCR a potentially toxic environmental stressor. Methods for reducing WCR exposure should be provided to all patients and the general population. – Rubik & Brown, Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, 2021 Sep 29
We're looking down the road to 2050 and beyond. There's lots going on. One of the most basic tasks would be to configure circumstance on the planet for optimal health, would it not?
Should this not be a number one priority?
Let us know what you think. Write: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fair disclosure what you say could well end up published here unless you deem otherwise. Let's try to get it right. What would optimal health look like on a local or planetary scale? What do we need to put in place?