Guest Author: Terry Burton, a retired Canadian businessman
In recent times, an unsettling trend has emerged, wherein the professional, media, and academic sectors appear to be fully accommodating the swift transition towards what some might describe as totalitarian controls. This phenomenon does not come as a surprise to many observers. The predisposition of these sectors, shaped by their education and environment, poses inherent risks when they are entrusted with significant political power.
For decades, I have maintained that empowering “experts” with political authority, regardless of their level, is a perilous choice. Instead of fostering a genuinely beneficial healthcare industry, we find ourselves with a medical system that often appears to function as an arm of Big Pharma—treating patients more like customers than individuals needing care.
A particularly alarming aspect of this relationship is the immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies concerning vaccine-related prosecution. This arrangement engenders a continuous customer base—from cradle to grave—a move that, while lucrative, raises serious ethical questions.
As we scrutinize the impact of these practices on our children, who are increasingly subjected to extensive medical interventions, it is hard not to feel disillusioned with the healthcare profession. The last four years have significantly shaped my perception, and if I were to rate professions by their adherence to courage and integrity, doctors would undoubtedly rank at the top of the cowardice scale. The priorities of many within this profession often seem to align more closely with personal gain, professional advancement, and research funding than with the well-being of patients.
The events of the COVID-19 pandemic have starkly illustrated this troubling trend. The following points summarize my observations regarding the actions of the medical community during this crisis:
- The Hippocratic Oath, traditionally a cornerstone of medical ethics, appeared to carry little weight.
- Principles established by the Nuremberg Code were largely disregarded.
- Informed consent became an elusive concept.
- There was a striking lack of respect for constitutional rights and freedoms.
- Critical thinking seemed stifled, overshadowed by self-interest.
It is dangerous for society to place “experts” in pivotal political roles, a misstep we saw during the pandemic. The autocratic demeanor exhibited by health officials, particularly the Chief Medical Officers, showcased a troubling use of power that should have remained with accountable elected officials.
This shift allowed politicians to evade responsibility, offloading crucial decision-making to medical professionals at a time of crisis—an exceedingly unwise move.
Moreover, the desire for recognition within the “expert” class inherently cultivates a divide that breeds contempt for the so-called “underclass.” This dynamic restricts meaningful dialogue and perpetuates a detrimental climate where questions and dissent are often silenced.
In light of the ongoing need to understand public health outcomes, I conducted a focused examination of death rates in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2019 to 2023. My goal was to illuminate the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout on mortality statistics.
Using a straightforward methodology, I calculated the death rates over the previous five years:
- Total Deaths: 2019 – 5,208; 2020 – 5,381; 2021 – 5,451; 2022 – 5,948; 2023 – 6,126
- Population: 2019 – 525,500; 2020 – 526,000; 2021 – 510,500; 2022 – 529,000; 2023 – 533,000 (reflecting net in-migration)
The percentage of deaths relative to the population showed an increasing trend, despite the expectation that vaccinations would decrease mortality. Notably, the death rate has risen from 0.991% in 2019 to 1.15% in 2023—a concerning increase of 16.05% during a period supposedly focused on enhancing public health outcomes.
To further emphasize the significance of this data, I hypothesize that approximately 3,000 deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2020 to 2023 could be linked to vaccination. This figure raises alarming questions regarding the local and provincial governments’ knowledge or concern about this increasing death rate.
The response to critique often eludes factual engagement—counterarguments point to lack of doctors or missed tests without addressing the root of the rising mortality. This merely underscores the necessity for comprehensive, unbiased investigations into causation, demanding transparency and accountability from those in authority.
In closing, as we reflect on the broader implications of these findings, it is essential to call for rigorous scientific inquiry and insist that health authorities present credible, evidence-based assessments to clarify the situation. The public deserves clarity and honesty in understanding the health policies that shape our lives.
