WHO CHECKS THE FACT CHECKERS?
In early September 2021 when Dr. Peter Canaday attracted the attention of the New Zealand media, it came in the form of a pair of Newshub stories in which a member of the public (with no declared medical training) accused him of spreading misinformation, and a set of “experts” who set out a series of 25 points about which they disagreed. But who checks the fact-checkers? And was Dr. Peter Canaday truly “debunked” as the stories suggested?
The truth is, no matter what Newshub says while they go about discrediting a man with an impeccable 40-year medical career, the series of presentations he gave around New Zealand (that prompted the stories about him) were extraordinarily well-attended. And that was because of one very inconvenient truth the “experts” failed to mention in their 25 points – that Dr. Canaday’s presentation was filled with material sourced not only from doctors who have treated patients with Covid-19, but also from scientists and academics who have been at the forefront of Covid research all around the world.
In short, the people who came to hear Dr. Canaday speak were thirsty for the truth that they so obviously felt was missing from the media and the government of New Zealand. And to fill that gap of trust, they turned to a man with 40 years of medical experience in both the USA and New Zealand as both a practising professional and an administrator, with no conflicts of interest. It’s often said that people who question the media and the government in this country are “conspiracy theorists” and spreaders of “misinformation.” However, it has become glaringly obvious that people like Dr. Canaday who are questioning the official narrative are actually presenting their case better than the muddled and often contradictory narratives from the “experts.”
THE SCEPTICS ARE THE ONES DOING THINGS RIGHT
In fact, that point has even been shown in a recent academic paper from one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In that paper, the researchers set out to discover if the “COVID skeptics” community were the ignorant yahoos depicted in the press. However, it turned out they weren’t. Instead, what the researchers found was that it was the Covid-sceptics who actually used the data in the way that scientists are supposed to use them: “Qualitative analysis of anti-mask groups gives us an interactional view of how these groups leverage the language of scientific rigor—being critical about data sources, explicitly stating analytical limitations of specific models, and more—in order to support ending public health restrictions despite the consensus of the scientific establishment.”
Among other initiatives, these groups argue for open access to government data (claiming that CDC and local health departments are not releasing enough data for citizens to make informed decisions), and they use the language of data-driven decision-making to show that social distancing mandates are both ill-advised and unnecessary.”
(There is much more in the paper than can be covered here, you can read it here.)
SO, WERE THE FACT CHECKERS RIGHT?
Now, in response, and for the benefit of all New Zealanders, this page has been set up for Dr. Peter Canaday to address each of the 25 points set out by the Newshub journalist and present his evidence for each one. And in the interests of science, his sources are listed and linked as well – rather than just being presented as his opinion. That way, we can all do a little bit of extra reading if we’ve still got more questions of our own!
And if you want to know a little more about Dr. Peter Canaday and his credentials, click here.
Please also read the prefatory statements regarding medical advice, future edits and the “anti-vaxxer” label: Prefatory Statements- PLEASE READ
And if you want to see the presentation that prompted the stories, you can see it here.
SO NOW, ON WITH DR CANADAY’S RESPONSE ….
My reply to the experts of Newshub By Dr. Peter Canaday
Over the next several weeks and months, I will be using this page to provide a not-too-brief and not-too-lengthy response to each of the so-called “claims” and the associated “counterclaims” by the “experts” consulted by the NewsHub journalist. My earnest desire is that you will be able to find not “misinformation” but “missing information” that will help each New Zealander make up his or her own mind about COVID-19 and the government’s response to it.
I do believe the decision to undergo vaccination and take appropriate countermeasures to protect health should be our individual decisions, as each one of us must bear the consequences of our decision as it affects our body and our health.
And so it is my hope that this series of responses will help normal New Zealanders sift through the claims and counter-claims and make their own decisions with as much clarity as possible. Because after all, informed consent is key to every medical procedure, and no matter how loud the government and media shout, this is a concept that we need to protect for the benefit of everyone.
READY hyperlinks below: 1, 3, 9, 11, 22, 12, 13, 17
On Monday each week, any new or updated content will be indicated by bold italics for 7 days
|Claim 1: PCR tests not designed for diagnosis||Claim 15: mRNA incorporated into human DNA|
|Claim 2: PCR testing different in the unvaccinated||Claim 16: Pfizer trial not completed until 2023|
|Claim 3: Natural immunity superior to vaccine-induced PLUS guest column||Claim 17: Absolute risk reduction vs. relative|
|Claim 4: “Gain of function” research at Wuhan Inst Virology||Claim 18: No long-term studies on autoimmune dis|
|Claim 5: CDC holds patents on genetically modified CV||Claim 19: Spike proteins on blood vessel walls|
|Claim 6: mRNA vaccines as a “medical device”||Claim 20: Anaphylaxis may be up to 1/1000|
|Claim 7: Graphene oxide and magnetic effects||Claim 21: Antibody-dependent enhancement in previous lab studies|
|Claim 8: Antibody response vs. cellular response||Claim 22: Much higher death counts in VAERS|
|Claim 9: PCR false positives||Claim 23: Observations of “shedding”|
|Claim 10: Background natural immunity and herd immunity||Claim 24: Bullying of doctors re: HCQ/Ivermectin|
|Claim 11: WHO changes definition of herd immunity||Claim 25: NZ deaths under-reported by CARM|
|Claim 12: Infection fatality rate similar to a bad “flu”||Asymptomatic carriers and transmission of disease|
|Claim 13: Usual “flu deaths” now due to COVID-19||Measurable impact of masks, lockdowns, and isolation|
|Claim 14: Europe’s death toll in part due to lockdowns||Ivermectin in published literature and clinical use|