Most of Peterson’s work is technical. (Even the titles of his research are intimidating, like his 2007 paper “Reducing memory distortions in egoistic self-enhancers: Effects of indirect social facilitation.”) Other projects by Peterson are completely anodyne, like his guide and program to improve essay writing.
That’s not what the Ontario Court has taken issue with.
The problem isn’t his clinical practice or his academic research. It’s his worldview. Specifically, his tweets and a few podcast comments, which the College of Psychologists of Ontario, a licensing body for psychologists in the province, considered “unprofessional.”
“The percentage of people who actively oppose what I’m saying is very, very tiny,” Peterson said. “But some of them are extremely committed. And so they can bring disproportionate sway to the decision.” ...
Even if Peterson ultimately loses his license, a man with his following on social media can’t ever be “cancelled.” (And he no longer sees patients anyway.) The more chilling effect of the court’s decision is that it acts as an intimidation toward all other clinical psychologists: self-censor if you share Peterson’s views, or face punishment.
“In all of the areas in which we see pervasive self-censorship, it only takes one example for people to become unwilling to speak their mind. Or even one threat,” Pamela Paresky, a psychologist and author, told The Free Press. “When people say that cancel culture isn’t real because they don’t see people that have legitimately been cancelled, they don’t understand that cancel culture isn't about the cancelling, it’s about the culture. And it’s a culture of fear.”
On April 14-5, 2023, a group of eminent scholars and practitioners gathered at Princeton University to explore ways to strengthen and rebuild the open, rules-based international order. In the shadow of the COVID pandemic and Russia’s war on Ukraine, they searched for “first principles” and reform ideas for twenty-first century global governance architecture, focusing in particular on rules and institutions for the world economy and great power security cooperation.
I was vaccinated twice and boosted once. I now regret receiving all of those shots, and it goes well beyond and rampant scientific and public health fraud being revealed, including the outrageous paper orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” And see here and here. I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but I can see and hear and follow these discussions. We were told none of these things prior to being compelled to take these shots (except by Brett Weinstein, on a video that was pulled down by Youtube).
So here we now are. I am among a growing number of people concerned about the long-term hazards of these treatments, which were touted as "safe." Here are the most recent revelations. First, this discussion involving biologists Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying. The podcast focuses on commentary by Dr. John Campbell, an admission by Dr. Paul Offit and a new Swiss active-surveillance study: "Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination."
What do the Pfizer spokesmen not how ro say about the causal pathway from the "safe" vaccination it produced for COVID? They have no public answer. Rather than provide an answer, they purposefully and shamelessly obstruct and deflect:
Back to the issue of myocarditis and pericarditis. First, some definitions.
Myocarditis: "Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). The inflammation can reduce the heart's ability to pump blood. Myocarditis can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias)."
Pericarditis: "Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding the heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other."
Commentary by Dr. John Campbell on the new study: Based on this brand new high-quality active surveillance study one person out of 35 who received the Moderna booster incurred vaccine-related heart injuries:
If Regulators around the world don't take notice of the information I'm about to give via this paper, then they are at best in my view negligent at worst they don't even want to think about it. After receiving Moderna booster vaccines in a trial done in Switzerland--there were 777 working people followed up with 777 controls--5.1 percent of those who had the booster vaccine had increased troponins, indicating cardiomyocyte damage. So 5.1% increased cardiac marker damage, chemicals in the blood. 2.8 percent of the 777--that is one in 35--one in 35--had vaccine-associated myocardial injury. Quite astounding and incredible.
This is the result of receiving the Moderna booster. Many of us received two shots prior to receiving the booster. Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying suggest that one who receives all three shots have even higher risk of sustaining heart damage--greater than 1 out of 35 and just because you don't experience short term damage does not mean that you are out of the woods. I was horrified to hear the entire podcast of Weinstein and Heying. If I know there was even a 1 out of 1,000 risk of sustaining heart damage by receiving one shot, I would have refused any of this "treatment." None of us were warned, however. This is the opposite of informed consent.
How many of the elite athletes collapsing (some of them severely injured or dead) were caused by the vaccines? Many people actively do not want to know and do not want to report any of this. What concerns me is that there seems to be a coordinated nonchalance about whether the COVID vaccines are causing the increase in cardiac arrests.
Here is the entire podcast featuring the discussion of Weinstein & Heying:
I posted the John Campbell video on FB with a quote by Campbell. Instead of allowing me to post it, here's what happened:
When you click the "See Why" button:
Who are these "Independent fact-checkers" who know so much more than Dr. John Campbell? Facebook does not disclose this. Are they former employees of the FBI or CIA or DHS? If so, are they consciously adhering to a narrative dictated by the U.S. Government? I'd like to know.
Nurse currently working in A and E with a demonstrated history in Nurse Education. Skilled in pratical Nursing, Healthcare, Nursing Research, and Health and Educational research. Strong healthcare services professional with two higher degrees and several teaching qualifications. Research record focused in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education.
Here an excerpt from Mondegreen's article, along with Colin Wright's illustration:
A conversation about reasonable accommodations is a nuanced conversation. Instead, we got a radical trans movement that wants to erase sex in law and society, put men in women's prisons and boys in girls' sports, and run an unregulated medical experiment on gender-nonconforming children. This has given rise to an absurd and dystopian reality where men are granted access to women’s prisons, sports, and other protected spaces, and where gender-nonconforming children have become the target of unregulated medical experiments that involve puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and extreme surgeries.
It is kinda a big problem when government asks social media to censor people opposed to masking toddlers, closing schools, mandating boosters in young men and people suspicious of the narrative of natural origin, and then turn out to be wrong on every single issue.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
