QAnon, Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types, racists, etc.

This is how CBC reporter Radheyan Simonpillai "reviews" the movie The sound of Freedom:

QAnon conspiracy theorist; part of the so-called Freedom movements; Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types, racists, regular among church groups; or you regularly watch Fox News; or if you follow right-wing personalities.

Do CBC employees ever listen to themselves speak? Simonpillai barely touches on the point of the movie itself, which is to shine a light on the horrible billion dollar industry of child sex trafficking. We went today to the 3:20 sold out showing. It's been showing since July 3rd in Canada and is still going strong.

Instead Simonpillai attacks the movie-goers. He says the movie is "competent" (It is excellent). "You never heard of this movie" he says. (That's because news organizations like the tax-payer funded CBC refuse to tell you about it.)

From Andrew Kozak at the True North:

In a recent interview on CBC Radio, pop culture columnist Radheyan Simonpillai described the success of the new hit film “Sound of Freedom” can be attributed to “Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”

“We can’t say that the movie itself is made by QAnon types,” said Simompalli on the podcast, which aired on CBC Listen. “But certainly, their political goals make it something that QAnon conspiracy theorists would rally behind.”

“Just like racists rallied behind Trump without him having to say anything overtly racist.”

“You would have only heard about this movie if you are a regular among church groups, or you regularly watch Fox News, or if you follow right-wing personalities,” said Simonpillai. “Or if you are a QAnon conspiracy theorist or part of the so-called Freedom movements.”

“But make no mistake,” Simonpillia continued. “The movie’s success has a lot to do with it being a dog whistle for Xenophobic, Pro-Trump, Pro-Life types.”

“It’s not just QAnon types rallying behind this movie,” he said. “There were people who attended it because they were encouraged by their online freedom rally groups.”

The plot is based on the true story of Tim Ballard who broke up sex trafficking rings. The movie was fast paced, had a gripping story line, and the acting was excellent. Child sex trafficking is Evil with a capital E. Why couldn't Simonpillai talk about that? 

The CBC should be ashamed of their disgraceful so-called "coverage" of an extremely important film. Attacking theatre goers with ad hominem attacks, instead of actually reviewing the movie, is about as low as you can get. 

CBC, I am truly embarrassed for you on your behalf.

Canada's independent media and how to do FOIs and ATIPs

This is an excellent resource with links to pretty much all of Canada's independent media groups. Much better to check them out instead of going to the usual pinko CBC/Global News/CTV/Toronto Star bunch, all of which get government funding and really really really don't like conservatives/pro-life people.

Non-legacy news outlets in Canada

And one of the links I got from the site was this one:

It gives information on doing Freedom of Information requests (provincial), and Access to Information requests (federal). I already know how to do these, and do a lot of them, but this page details all the links you need in one place, a very handy resource.

A Statement on Roe v Wade from Pro-Life Women in Canada

If you would like to sign a letter in support of the US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe VS Wade, you can do so here:

https://www.prowomanprolife.org/2022/06/21/a-statement-on-roe-v-wade-from-pro-life-women-in-canada/

"Today the US Supreme Court officially released a decision overruling Roe v. Wade. While this is an American decision with no implication for Canadian law, some politicians north of the border have already politicized the issue. For all of the undersigned women, however, overturning bad law marks a point of immense encouragement. We speak out because those leaders who defend abortion do not speak for us. We speak out in defence of all human beings from their biological beginnings until death. We speak out because defending and advocating for women also means defending and advocating for our preborn children."

Andrea Mrozek is also interviewed here by the CBC on the decision.

https://www.prowomanprolife.org/2022/06/24/cbc-interviews-pro-woman-pro-life-founder-andrea-mrozek/

The UK Spectator: MAID is all about the money

Dear Canadian Media, I have just one question for you. Do you care?

From a UK Spectator op-ed entitled Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

When the UK sits up and takes notice of Canada's legal killing regime, maybe it's time for our own government subsidized media to do likewise.

"A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honourable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster [that would be our infamous CBC], which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy." (emphasis added)

To Justin Trudeau et al. - Letter from a grandmother

To: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, The Ottawa Police, Ottawa Mayor, CTV Ottawa, CBC Ottawa, Global News Ottawa

From: Maureen Ward

February 24, 2022 

To whom it may concern,  

I am not sure who to address my outrage to in this matter because the people who should be concerned are the guilty parties.  

The horrific scenes in this video; the disgusting acts of violence against numerous peaceful protestors including an 80-year-old woman as well as Andrew Lawton, of True North and Alexandra Lavoie, of the Rebel disgusted me to my very soul and not a word of concern do I hear from our Prime Minister, the Mayor of Ottawa our mainstream media, CBC, and CTV, Global TV etc. Nothing! 

I transcribed the portion of the video that depicts some of the disgusting and violent actions of the Ottawa Police on the weekend. It begins around 10 minutes into the video, and I ask that you watch and listen to the entire video. Please take the time to watch it to the end to see the absolute hypocrisy of the legacy media spinning the events to suit their own untruthful agenda. It is absolutely hateful to demonize once again the protestors and ignore the truth and spin everything to suit an agenda. I can't even think of a word to describe such a web of lies surrounding the Freedom Convoy since the beginning including the demonizing of everyone involved with the protest along with their supporters. You know what I mean,

And I thank Candice Malcolm from True North for her truthful and honest presentation. What a breath of fresh air.

Maureen Ward, Ottawa Ontario 

Transcript of a small portion of the video beginning  at around 10 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23RdwjBsiew&t=132s Unreal use of propaganda in Canada from True North.

What is happening in Canada? Great question. What is happening in Canada? Well, what is happening in Canada? It's a Great question. Well, over the weekend, what did we see? We saw a militarized police zone using undue force using over-the-top force and completely disproportionate force against a group of unarmed and peaceful protesters just by virtue of them being in Ottawa meant that they were the target of the police and the Trudeau government efforts.

And unsurprisingly, It devolved into a very chaotic, very dangerous situation, so I'll show you some of the low lights from the weekend of police brutality. And let me just make this point. If this was happening at any other circumstance in recent history. If this is happening at any other point in the last two years against any other group, if this was not a group of working-class truckers, of people who said we've had enough of this government overreach of this medical tyranny that we've been living under. If it was any other group and you saw images like this of the police, the left would be on the complete other side. There would be over the top calls for these cops to be fired, to be reprimanded, defund the police, any small act of police using force, not even disproportionate force, just police using force in their job over the past two years has been completely blown out of proportion as an instance of police brutality and why we ought to defund the police, OK? I see people who spent the last two years yelling about that issue are now either completely silent or they're cheering on the police brutality because they are cracking down on a group of conservative adjacent or conservative align protesters. People who come from a working-class background. It is so stark. It is so hypocritical. It is unbelievable.  

Regardless, here are a couple instances of what it looked like. So first we have a veteran who is manhandled by police officers: knee him several times in the kidney. Here's what that looked like.  

Next, we have a protester who is hauled away by cops. Watch for the end of the clip because a police officer takes his rifle, takes his gun, and uses it to beat a protester with the stock of his gun and you can see him do two solid blows there with a stock of his gun. This is police brutality. This is totally unacceptable. Here is what that looked like.  

Next, here is a police officer rushing a protestor and hitting him once he's already on the ground.  ( you can hear people crying for the police to stop)

And so, as the police were using increasingly violent tactics in order to crack down on these peaceful protesters, they at some point decided to bring in horses for what? To do some kind of crowd control? I don't even understand. This is right outside the Chateau Laurier hotel and upscale hotel, right in the heart of Parliament, right in the center of Ottawa. They bring out the police and as you can see in the kerfuffle in the excitement of police going through a crowd trampled 2 individuals and knocked them over, stepped on one of the women, including an 80 year old First Nations woman.. This is tough to watch, but here is what this looks like.  Just in case you want to see how bad it was Here Is the aerial view and still you can see the horses trampling on two individuals who just failed to get out of the way, you could see from the footage there that it wasn't like people knew that these horses were coming. They kind of came out of nowhere. They whipped around the corner. These two individuals clearly didn't see what was going on. The woman who was knocked over, the 80 year old woman was on a mobility scooter and from the aerial picture you can see the scooter on the ground. So its not like this is an agile woman who could easily get out of the way. She obviously had no idea this was coming, and I don't know what was worse the fact that this was the way the police were behaving and acting or the fact that there were a lot of people cheering them on cheering this kind of thing on and that the media didn't really bat an eye, didn't really bat an eye over the use if anything they were out there saying, oh, this isn't trampling. These people weren't trampled.  

And we had something new that I'd never seen before. The Ottawa police were tweeting in real-time pushing out their own propaganda, their own version of events. So they weren't really taking questions. They weren't really responding.  

Journalists at one point I was on the phone trying to confirm whether or not anyone had been killed in the protests. No response, no replies. I left messages. I called multiple lines. I emailed. I sent the messages on Twitter. No response. Whatsoever, the only response you get from the Ottawa police the're tweeting their own timeline of events in their own perspective, twisting and spinning the facts to fit their narrative of what was going on.  

So here is an example of that, Ottawa police wrote. We hear your concern for people on the ground after the horses dispersed the crowd, anyone who fell got up and walked away. We're unaware of any injuries. A bicycle was thrown at a horse further down the line and caused the horse to trip. The horse was uninjured. OK, so a lot of people on Twitter were really upset about this because the idea that everyone who was hurt got up and walked away. Well, it just simply isn't true. Here is a woman who was trampled. Her name is Candy, and she wrote this.   I dare to correct the "no injury" statement of the Ottawa Police.  I was nearly killed. Again, 80 year Old First Nations woman. Usually, this would be the kind of woman that the left would hold up as a victim of police brutality and they would be on her side and they would be there demanding the resignation of the officers of whoever ordered that, the police chief or the local politicians, but instead, because of the backdrop of this freedom convoy. Nothing. Nothing. No. No, you don't hear anything from the left in support of this woman.  

It is absolutely wild and his whole nonsense about a bicycle being thrown at the horse again. I tried to verify that I looked at a lot of footage over the weekend. A lot of people were saying that the bicycle was actually the mobility scooter. So we go back to that aerial photo. You can see how the horse knocked over the woman with the mobility scooter. And that is lying on the ground. So people were like, is that where you're talking about throwing a bicycle is actually just a mobility scooter. Someone did send me footage of a man with a bicycle. But In no way did he throw this at the police. He used a bicycle to pull himself back, if anything, to stop the police from beating him. He kind of had the bike in front of him. And then you could see him leave. So this whole idea that he threw at a horse and was causing the horse to trip. Is is just completely, completely untrue.  

OK, there is more. so, here is the police hauling away a protester and kneeing him once he's on the ground so here, that's what that looked like.  

And so it wasn't just this kind of force in kneeing people and hitting people with guns that we saw. We also saw the police start using pepper spray or some kind of a chemical irritant. And you can see it in this clip, the Ottawa police are just sort of wildly spraying this pepper spray, it's not targeted at any individual. It's not an individual in a crowd who is ruckus and who is causing chaos and you want to target that one individual. Presumably, that is what pepper spray is for. No, in this case, you're just sort of willy nilly just spraying the crowd, getting anybody who's there sort of punishing them for being there. Here's what that looked like.  

So caught up in all of this chaos was our own Andrew Lawton, journalist Andrew Lawton was on the ground for True North throughout the entire weekend. He was doing live streams. He was reporting he was talking to people. He was trying to keep an eye on what was happening in the same way as many journalists. There was lots and lots of journalists from lots of outlets who were right there, sort of on the front lines or a few steps back from the front lines filming this whole thing, taking pictures, relaying the information to Canadians and to people all over the world because people all over the world were watching, so Andrew Lawton was in there he was doing that and for the crime of committing journalism, 

Andrew Lawton was pepper-sprayed in the face by a cop. It seemed to be targeted. It seemed to be aimed directly at him. So here is what Andrew looked like afterwards. Not a pleasant feeling to be sprayed in the face pretty much point-blank, or at least at close range with pepper spray.  

He got it really bad and because of that we, here at True North, I decided to retain a lawyer. So we hired a lawyer we're now working with a lawyer here at True North. We are suing the police for assault and for targeting a working journalist. Andrew was just there doing his job trying to cover this event, trying to relay the information to Canadians. So we want to send a message to the police and Justin Trudeau and his emergency order. You don't get to beat up on journalists in this country. This is Canada. You do not get to do that and we will see you in court.  

Unfortunately, Andrew Lawton was not the only journalist to be the victim of police brutality. 

Over the weekend. Alexa Lavoie over at the Rebel was beat up by a police officer. This is unbelievable footage. She was pushed, she was hit multiple times with the baton from a large male police officer on the line. She's sprayed with pepper spray and finally, she was shot in the leg at point-blank from a few feet away with some kind of a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister. This woman was brutalized and beat up by a cop, all caught on camera. Here is what that looked like and just to warn you, this is pretty gruesome. It is pretty hard to watch, but I think it's important to show you what was happening to a working journalist in our country over the weekend. Here's that clip.  

So with a journalist sprayed in the face with pepper spray, another one brutalized and hit with a baton multiple times, you would think that the mainstream media, the legacy media there would be some kind of solidarity with journalists in this country that you would hear from legacy media saying, hey, that kind of force against journalists is absolutely not acceptable in this country. So did we hear that? No, no, we didn't hear that. What did we hear instead? Well, that the journalists thought it was disgusting? No, it wasn't disgusting that Andrew Lawton was sprayed with pepper spray. It wasn't disgusting that Alexa Levar was beaten with a baton.  What was disgusting? Well, there was this clip that was circulating of a Quebec TV journalist who got pushed on air by a protester. Here's what that looked like.  Incredibly stupid stuff. OK. Whoever pushes whoever pushed a journalist on air is just completely stupid. There's no reason to do this. It is mean. It is stupid. It doesn't help anyone. If anything, all it does is galvanizes people. against you, it proves legacy media point correct that the protesters are just a violent group of thugs and that they're here to harass, intimidate the media and the legacy media did exactly what you would expect and milk every last ounce of that clip that that footage of one guy getting pushed, that is the big story for the journalist out of the news.  Forget about all the police brutality that I just showed you. Forget about a guy getting hit with a stock of a gun. Forget about a woman getting trampled by a horse. Forget about a young female journalist getting beat up with a police baton. They didn't cover any of that. They don't care about any of that. What do they care about? A push? The guy getting shoved on air. That is the main focus.

This is what happens when you have brains scrambled by misinformation.

Well, the propaganda continues, Please watch the video to the end.

Maureen Ward

Ottawa Ontario

Welcome to Liberal Canada

God help Canada.

First off today we have a disgusting CBC segment on This Hour has 22 minutes where the actor begins by taking the Lord's name in vain in a crude manner like someone from the proverbial locker room. I know this is fine with some people but pretty disgusting behaviour that I can't imagine our tax-payer funded broadcaster would ever get away with if the object of their ridicule were Muslims. The actor then proceeds to ridicule and make fun of the fact that new MPP Sam Oosteroff is against abortion. So very funny (apparently). Naturally anyone who is anti-abortion must be made fun of, right?

And the CBC says they are not biased for abortion? I'd like to see the CBC make fun of pro-choice people. Haha.

(If you are so inclined, and I hope you are, I suggest you send in your complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin at ombudsman@cbc.ca)

Then we have the media being totally moronic about insisting that new MPP Sam Oosterhoff answer their questions about same-sex marriage. Oosterhoff kept insisting he had already answered their questions the day before. Not good enough. Oosterhoff actually remained very gracious in his attempts to focus on his first day as an MPP by celebrating with friends and family. But the ignorant media were having none of that. I would not have been as kind as Oosterhoff. I'm pretty sure.

Last but not least, we learn that a teenager doesn't feel "safe" because her teacher said he was against abortion. The un-named teacher said:

“I find abortion to be wrong...but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

This is where the story gets really scary:

"A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

What happened next was outrageous. The teacher first apologized, but this wasn't enough. He was fired.

The girl feels unsafe? Are you kidding me? Babies in the womb are not safe. The teacher who was fired for believing that slaughtering unborn babies was wrong...was not safe. Now the teacher's family is not safe because their dad lost his job because he believes that abortion is wrong. That's not safe.

Remember Nazi Germany? When Jews were persecuted? When Jews were not safe? When Jewish academics and others were prevented from working?

This is where Canada has got to. Except now it's Christians.

When Justin Trudeau said that pro-life people can't belong in his party, the rot started at the top. And now it's making its way downward.

Wake up people. This will only get worse.

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 3

(Part 1)
(Part 2)

"I cannot understand the need for that. There isn't a medical reason we would need that." Dr. Wendy Norman

So let's look at these strict accessibility guidelines for RU-486 (mifepristone), based on the US example, a country ten times the size of Canada.

Is there a "medical reason" for these guidelines or isn't there?

The CBC has interviewed Dr. Norman at least six times, and each time she questions why Canada has chosen to only allow doctors to dispense this drug, and not pharmacists. Dr. Norman calls this behaviour "strange and bizarre", "highly unusual", an "absolutely inexplicable regulation" and "demeaning".

Decide for yourself.

All the information and links below are from the US's Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). (All emphasis in red added)

I. GOAL

The goal of the Mifeprex REMS is to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex by:

a) Requiring healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex to be certified in the Mifeprex REMS Program.

b) Ensuring that Mifeprex is only dispensed in certain healthcare settings by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

c) Informing patients about the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex 

II. REMS ELEMENTS

A. Elements to Assure Safe Use

1. Healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex must be specially certified.

  a. To become specially certified to prescribe Mifeprex, healthcare providers must:

  i. Review the Prescribing Information for Mifeprex.

  ii. Complete the Prescriber Agreement Form. By signing the Prescriber agreement Form, prescribers agree that:

    1) They have the following qualifications:

      a) Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately

      b) Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies

      c) Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.

    2) They will follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex (see b.i-v below).

  

b. As a condition of certification, healthcare providers must follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex described below:

  i. Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen. Answer any questions the patient may have prior to receiving Mifeprex.

  ii. Sign the Patient Agreement Form and obtain the Patient’s signature on the Form

  iii. Provide the patient with a copy of the Patient Agreement Form and Medication Guide.

  iv. Place the signed Patient Agreement Form in the patient's medical record.

  v. Record the serial number from each package of Mifeprex in each patient’s record.

  vi. Report any deaths to Danco Laboratories, identifying the patient by a nonidentifiable reference and the serial number from each package of Mifeprex.

c. Danco Laboratories must:

  i. Ensure that healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex are specially certified in accordance with the requirements described above and de-certify healthcare providers who do not maintain compliance with certification requirements 

  ii. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who inquire about how to become certified. 

The following materials are part of the REMS and are appended:

• Prescriber Agreement Form

• Patient Agreement Form

2. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients only in certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

  a. Danco Laboratories must:

    i. Ensure that Mifeprex is available to be dispensed to patients only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

    ii. Ensure that Mifeprex is not distributed to or dispensed through retail pharmacies or other settings not described above.

3. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients with evidence or other documentation of safe use conditions.

  a. The patient must sign a Patient Agreement Form indicating that she has:

    i. Received, read and been provided a copy of the Patient Agreement Form.

    ii. Received counseling from the prescriber regarding the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.

B. Implementation System

1. Danco Laboratories must ensure that Mifeprex is only distributed to clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber by:

  a. Ensuring that distributors who distribute Mifeprex comply with the program requirements for distributors. The distributors must:

    i. Put processes and procedures in place to:

      a. Complete the healthcare provider certification process upon receipt of the Prescriber Agreement form.

      b. Notify healthcare providers when they have been certified by the Mifeprex REMS Program.

      c. Ship Mifeprex only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified prescribers in the signed Prescriber Agreement Form.

      d. Not ship Mifeprex to prescribers who become de-certified from the Mifeprex Program.

      e. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who (1) attempt to order Mifeprex and are not yet certified, or (2) inquire about how to become certified.

    ii. Put processes and procedures in place to maintain a distribution system that is secure, confidential and follows all processes and procedures, including those for storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.

    iii. Train all relevant staff on the Mifeprex REMS Program requirements.

    iv. Comply with audits by Danco Laboratories, FDA or a third party acting on behalf of Danco Laboratories or FDA to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed for the Mifeprex REMS Program. In addition, distributors must maintain appropriate documentation and make it available for audits.

    b. Ensuring that distributors maintain secure and confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.

  2. Danco Laboratories must monitor distribution data to ensure compliance with the REMS Program.

  3. Danco Laboratories must audit new distributors within 90 calendar days after the distributor is authorized to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and functioning to support the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program. Danco Laboratories will take steps to address distributor compliance if noncompliance is identified.

  4. Danco Laboratories must take reasonable steps to improve implementation of and compliance with the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program based on monitoring and assessment of the Mifeprex REMS Program.

  5. Danco Laboratories must report to FDA any death associated with Mifeprex whether or not considered drug-related, as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days from the initial receipt of the information by the applicant. This requirement does not affect the applicant's other reporting and follow-up requirements under FDA regulations.

C. Timetable for Submission of Assessments

Danco Laboratories must submit REMS assessments to FDA one year from the date of the initial approval of the REMS (06/08/2011) and every three years thereafter. To facilitate inclusion of as much information as possible while allowing reasonable time to prepare the submission, the reporting interval covered by each assessment should conclude no earlier than 60 days before the submission date for that assessment. Danco Laboratories must submit each assessment so that it will be received by the FDA on or before the due date.

_________________________________________________________________________

What do participants need to know?

Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex must To be able to prescribe:

• Review the drug’s prescribing information.
• Complete and submit the Prescriber Agreement Form.

Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex  must Before dispensing

• Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen.
• Provide the patient with the Medication Guide.
• Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
• Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.

Patients who are prescribed Mifeprex Before receiving

• Review the Patient Agreement Form.
• Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the prescriber.
• Receive counseling from the prescriber on the risks associated with Mifeprex.

Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must To be able to distribute

• Establish processes and procedures to ensure that the drug is distributed only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified healthcare providers.
• Establish processes and procedures to maintain a distribution system that is secure and confidential.
• Establish processes and procedures to maintain a system for proper storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
• Train all relevant staff involved in distribution of Mifeprex on the REMS Program requirements.

Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must At all times

• Maintain confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.
• Cooperate with audits carried out by the application holder to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed.

Patient must fill out this form (1 page):

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/rems/Mifeprex_2016-03-29_Patient_Agreement_Form.pdf

Doctor must fill out this form (2 page):

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/rems/Mifeprex_2016-03-29_Prescriber_Agreement_Form.pdf

Medication guide for patient (4 pages) 

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM088643.pdf

FDA warning:

Do Not Buy Mifeprex Over the Internet

"You should not buy Mifeprex over the Internet because you will bypass important safeguards designed to protect your health (and the health of others). 

Mifeprex has special safety restrictions on how it is distributed to the public. Also, drugs purchased from foreign Internet sources are not the FDA-approved versions of the drugs, and they are not subject to FDA-regulated manufacturing controls or FDA inspection of manufacturing facilities. 

To learn more about buying drugs safely, please see Buying Prescription Medicines Online: A Consumer Safety Guide"

Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011 (including deaths, hospitalizations, blood transfusions, ectopic pregnancies and infections):

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM263353.pdf

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 2

CBC can't see how biased they are. I have detailed their bias here in part 1 as it relates to the abortion pill RU-486.

The Ombudsman thinks that I am concerned about Health Canada's position on the drug:

"the CBC covered the introduction of Mifepristone into Canada over a period of time and on multiple platforms and programmes. Many of those did adequately represent the position of Health Canada and its reasons for the regime required for use of the drug in Canada."

My complaint made no mention of Health Canada. Yet the Ombudsman talks about their story being balanced as regards to Health Canada, which I never mentioned in my complaint. Rather my complaint was about the fact that the CBC chose only ever to ask an abortion doctor her opinion as to why the drug was being dispensed this way [by doctors and not pharmacists]. The CBC did not ask that question of a pro-life doctor. Why not? If the CBC had asked a pro-life doctor, I'm pretty sure they would have received quite a different answer.

The Ombudsman said my complaint was not about the safety about the drug but rather accessibility of the drug. My point was that you cannot properly discuss the accessibility of the drug, if you don't also discuss its safety. That is because accessibility is directly related to the fact that the drug is so dangerous. What part of this does the CBC not understand?

The person the CBC chose to interview on accessibility is an abortion doctor who naturally has a vested interest in abortions. And RU-486 is abortion. The CBC did not interview a pro-life doctor on accessibility, and I can guarantee if they had, that doctor would have brought up the important issue of the dangers of the drug. But the CBC did not do this. And as I already pointed out in the first installment on this, the CBC didn't do this over time either. Nearly all their reporting on this drug has been biased for abortion as they only ever interview people from the abortion industry.

Why doesn't the CBC interview someone not from the abortion industry and let the reader make up their own mind?

Let's look at another controversial issue which is currently being debated and a recent decision made this week by the government: pipelines. CBC interviews people on both sides of that debate, those who oppose the proposed pipelines and those who support them. The CBC would never think of interviewing only those people who support pipelines or only those who oppose pipelines when covering the government's decisions regarding the Kinder Morgan and the Northern Gateway pipelines. Like pipelines, RU486 is controversial. Both involve government's decision whether to approve or not and both involve regulations if/when they are approved,  Those who oppose pipelines will be more likely to focus on the negative things that result from allowing the pipelines to be built; those who support pipelines will be more likely to downplay the negative aspects of the pipelines and highlight the positive. Surely the CBC can see that if they interviewed only people who held the former position, or only those who held the latter, they would be biased. No different with RU-486: If someone supports RU-486 in the first place, their views on accessibility will be coloured by that, as will someone who opposes it.

The Ombudsman also seems to issue with my calling Dr. Norman an "abortion doctor":

"You describe her as an “abortion doctor”. As Ms. Hiscox mentioned in her introduction her qualifications are extensive in the field of public health as well as family planning. According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the federal funding agency for health research) website, she is also the Applied Public Health Chair of that organization."

That's because:

"Dr. Norman has been a family physician since 1985 and has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997". (emphasis added)

More later...

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 1

I complained (again) to the CBC Ombudsman that their coverage of the abortion drug RU-486 was biased. After waiting three months for a response; after three follow up emails; after a telephone call; I finally received a response this week.

Here is the result of that complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin:

http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/2016/balance-and-controversial-issues/

As expected, the decision was that the CBC is not biased.

(NOTE: the CBC Ombudsman's role is supposed to be independent ("The ombudsman acts as an appeal authority for complaints about journalistic standards and is independent of CBC program staff and management.) But the position is as a CBC employee, who also happens to be a career CBC employee. Why isn't this role given to someone who is at arm's length from outside of the CBC?)

Let's discuss the Ombudsman's conclusions.

Ombudsman:

"The Managing Editor for CBC News Network, Jennifer Harwood, replied to your complaint. She stated that the interview was not a debate about the safety of the drug. Rather it was about the issue of accessibility. She said that in “that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.”"

Jennifer Harwood said the interview was not about the safety of the drug, but accessibility. My point was that it is precisely because the safety of the drug is dangerous, is exactly why accessibility should be more difficult. This point is ignored by the Ombudsman. And since there are issues about the drug's safety, which was the whole basis of my complaint--that is why doctor's must dispense it and not pharmacists. I contend that this is the exact reason the US insists that doctors dispense it and not pharmacies. So my whole point is ignored, so how can the coverage be fair and balanced?

Ombudsman: Regarding Dr. Norman's "strange and bizarre" comment that I took issue with:

HEATHER HISCOX 

You’ve used a couple of interesting words – you called this very unusual regime around this, you said “have bizarrely put in place”. Why do you think they’ve put this extra layer or these extra additional requirements around this particular drug?

Dr. Wendy Norman 

"Well, this is a gray question, Heather, and I think it is a little bit inexplicable, a little bit hard to explain. In Canada, for many years, the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them and even some of our most concerning drugs, for example, methadone, pharmacists are able to dispense this drug, so for all of a sudden out of the blue to have a normal woman’s health medication such as Mifepristone, the RU-486, requiring this very unusual mechanism, is strange."

"all of a sudden, out of the blue"? I don't think so. After much evidence that the drug is dangerous, this was decided by Canada, and the US did the same. And RU-486 isn't really like Methadone though is it? I contend that allowing doctors only to dispense RU-486 is not "bizarre and strange" at all. If a first world country (like the US) that is ten times the size of Canada does it this way (for safety reasons), that is something to heed, and Canada followed suit. Sounds prudent to me and not "bizarre and strange". 

Ombudsman:

"The host of CBC News Morning Live introduced the interview with Wendy Norman in this way:
Canadian doctors say Health Canada’s strict guidelines will limit access to the abortion drug RU-486... "The host says that Canadian doctors say..." 

This statement implies that "[ALL] Canadian doctors say..". Bias again. Not all doctors say this, only some doctors. More precisely, some abortion doctors. Did the the interviewer try and find any doctors who disagreed with this statement? Apparently not. 

Dr. Norman calls Mifepristone a "Normal woman’s health medication". I fail to see what is normal about a drug that has killed women, causes excessive hemorrhaging, and the multitude of serious side effects "normal". Again, my whole point is about the danger of the drug, a point the Ombudsman has neglected to address. In fact these side effects are mentioned in only two of the CBC writings on the subject. There truly is nothing "normal" about RU-486. This is why Health Canada felt it important to have doctor's dispense it, just like it is done in the US (my US point was also not addressed by the Ombudsman).

Ombudsman:

"On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are. We also ensure that they are represented over a reasonable period of time."

So the CBC represents a "widely held views...over a reasonable period of time"? I beg to differ. I googled "RU486 and CBC" and "abortion pill and CBC".

Below are all the links that came up. I found 20 CBC links related to RU-486 (there could be more). The first four might be said to be somewhat neutral, so let's ignore those articles. 

The remainder 16 CBC articles on RU-486 all quote only pro-abortion advocates, and no alternate pro-life viewpoints, with Dr. Wendy Norman a seemingly favourite of CBC journalists. Dr. Norman is quoted six times. 

The CBC gets millions and millions of dollars a year from the taxpayer. It should be impartial on such controversial subjects like abortion. But is the CBC biased for abortion or not? You be the judge.

Part 2 here

________________________________________________________________________________

1) Michelle Wyand, P.E.I. College of Pharmacists

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cbc+abortion+pill&rlz=1C1CHMO_enCA568CA568&oq=cbc+abortion+pill&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.11137j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=cbc+abortion+pill&newwindow=1&start=10

2) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-s-approval-comes-at-bad-time-for-conservatives-1.3174061

3) Vicky Sapporta (National Abortion Federation) and Mary Ellen Douglas (Campaign Life Coalition)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/abortion-drug-decision-pushed-back-by-health-canada-1.2899723

4) Dr. Laura Lewis (Ontario family physician and a Canadian Physicians for Life board member)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ru-486-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-recently-approved-abortion-pill-1.3173657

5) Joan Dawkins (executive director of Women's Health Clinic)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/doctors-approach-limits-access-1.3712205

6) Dr. Wendy Norman and Dr. Ellen Wiebe (abortion doctors)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-abortion-pill-bc-1.3668080

7) Dr. Kelly Monaghan (of abortion Clinic 215 in St. John)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/abortion-pill-nl-1.3676798

8) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/abortion-pill-still-unavailable-in-canada-1.3668100

9) NDP MLA Nahanni Fontaine (NDP is officially pro-choice)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/abortion-pill-pharmacare-manitoba-ndp-1.3834932

10) Leigh Anne Caron, (team manager of health services at Women's Health Clinic in Winnipeg)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/abortion-pill-s-approval-could-help-manitobans-in-rural-remote-places-1.3174952

11) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/pharmacists-should-dispense-ru-486-a-noticeable-silence-on-chief-wahoo-and-non-sport-related-concussions-1.3812701/health-canada-rules-will-keep-abortion-from-the-women-who-need-it-most-1.3812867

12) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/abortion-pill-restrictions-mifegymiso-1.3547582

13) Lyndsey Butcher (executive director at Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ru-486-pill-to-improve-abortion-access-in-waterloo-region-1.3174825

14) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor) and Judith Soon (assistant professor in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/abortion-pill-dispense-1.3808150

15) Vicki Saporta (president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation and its Canadian offshoot, NAF Canada), Dr. Erika Feuerstein, family physician at Women's College Hospital and Bay Centre for Birth Control in Toronto and Rebecca Cook, a law professor in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto

16) http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/ru-486-abortion-pill-approved-by-health-canada-1.3173515

17) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-abortion-pill-canada-1.3665865

18) http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2672836959 (Srinivasan Krishnamurthy, director of gynecology at the Royal Victoria Hospital)

19) Jill Arkles (from the Sexual Health Centre in Saskatoon)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/do-you-agree-with-health-canada-approving-the-ru-486-abortion-pill-1.3174093

20) Sandy Kershaw, executive director of the Mokami Status of Women Council

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ru-486-could-grant-labrador-women-easier-access-to-abortion-1.3181684

Pro-abortion doctor can't articulate dangers of RU-486

Here we have another grand example of CBC's abortion bias.

Heather Hiscox on CBC News interviews Wendy Norman (the abortion doctor/researcher) complaining about restrictions on dispensing the RU-486 abortion pill, legal in Canada as of July 1.

Wendy Norman says that the rules for dispensing the dangerous drug RU-486 are very unusual and were "bizarrely put in place", because doctors will have to dispense them to women, and that this will cause difficulty for women in remote areas.

First of all, here are the rules for dispensing RU-486 in the US. Seems like the US is doing exactly what Canada is doing, ie RU-486 must be dispensed by doctors.

"Mifeprex is supplied directly to healthcare providers who meet certain qualifications. It is only available to be dispensed in certain healthcare settings, specifically, clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber. It is not available in retail pharmacies, and it is not legally available over the Internet."

So Dr. Norman, maybe our rules are not really that "bizarre" after all?

In fact, there are actually a truckload of dangers associated with RU-486, especially in remote areas. But when Hiscox asks Dr. Norman why these dispensing precautions, Dr. Norman has no idea. I am not kidding. She basically she says she doesn't know why, that this is "very strange".

Has Dr. Norman never read any of the evidence on the dangers of this drug, especially when one considers women taking it in rural areas? Not a single word about the dangers come out of Dr. Norman's mouth. What she does say is this:

"We are hopeful that the extraordinary degree of evidence available around the world on this medication, it really only stops a pregnancy from growing in a safe and effective manner. (Notice Dr. Norman's euphemism for killing an unborn child but I digress)".

Finally, the last time I complained to CBC about their abortion bias, they wrote me off. Which I expected and wasn't surprised they did. This time they didn't even make any pretense about not being biased. Dr. Norman was the only person interviewed in an entire seven minute segment.

Nobody else who could actually speak of the dangers of this scary drug, was even bothered to be interviewed. Why am I not surprised?

Media bias and abortion

Brenda O'Brien tin the Irish Times talks about media bias in Ireland as it relates to abortion. Two complaints were made against a radio show, and both complaints were upheld.

"...In a balanced and fair society, voices are added to the debate, not subtracted from it.

...In general, media workers are more sympathetic to pro-choice voices. Twenty-six years ago, the Pulitzer prize-winning David Shaw, appointed by his LA Times editor to be as critical of media as the media are of every other institution, did intensive research over 18 months on major US newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage of abortion.

He found “scores of examples” showing news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favour abortion-rights advocates...."

We in Canada of course have our own media bias. And our national broadcaster the CBC is probably the worst offender.

It is so bad at the CBC that they can't even see it. When I complained to the CBC about a show they did on RU-486, as expected they didn't agree with me. Of course, talk about your conflict of interest. At least in Ireland the complaint was upheld and it was an outside body who dealt with the complaint.

Pro-abortions - are abortions medically necessary or aren't they?

This is rich. Here we have the good old CBC, Canada's publicly funded broadcaster, writing this glowing article on Carafem's 'spa-like' abortion clinic part of new U.S. trend:

"We'll have flowers, there's music, there's no harsh medical smells, images on the walls are of people smiling. We're trying to maintain an experience that is as friendly and comfortable as it possibly could be," says Grant, a former director of Planned Parenthood.  

Carafem, which opened in April 2015 and specializes in the abortion pill for early-term pregnancies, represents a shift in abortion-care ideology — one that aims to "de-medicalize" the whole process. 

...Carafem also refers to patrons as clients, as Grant believes the word "patient" can wrongly suggest people with unintended pregnancies are sick."

But here's the problem.

How do we square "de-medicalizing abortion" because pregnant women aren't sick, with the pro-abortion's mantra that abortions are "medically necessary" and so must be publicly funded?

You can't have it both ways.

The need for disgusting postcards

An Ottawa woman is disgusted with CLCY's graphic abortion flyer targeting federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. And so she should be. That's because what the postcards depict--is disgusting.

This is what Alissa Golob said about the postcards:

"Slavery and the holocaust — abuses like these have changed using graphic images. So we're just using a strategy that works."

Maybe if Trudeau reversed his edict that pro-life people cannot run for the Liberal party, there wouldn't be such a dire need to distribute the postcards.

(See http://no2trudeau.ca/)

The worse thing about CBC bias, is they can't admit it

I think CBC is biased when it comes to abortion.

I complained to the CBC that Anna-Marie Tremonti's interview on RU-486 was clearly anti-pro-life, and that the interview on a whole was biased against the pro-life viewpoint.

The response I received from CBC takes the position that the interview was not biased.

Instead of including the entire email exchange below, I'm only including the last email I sent them.

I transcribed the entire interview here and here.

I first said this in my blog post, and then complained to the CBC, and sent them my posts.

"Of the four people Anna Maria interviewed, three of them were "pro-choice" (Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, Dr. Joel Lexchin and Dr. Sheila Dunn) and only one was a pro-life doctor (Dr. Donna Harrison). Dr. Gomperts actually performs abortions on women who live in countries where abortions are illegal. Dr. Joel Lexchin wonders if "[the holdup to approve the drug] is a political decision, in other words, if this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product". And Dr. Sheila Dunn easily sails through her questions, and is not interrupted by Anna-Maria--unlike the pro-life doctor, who is also asked, if her reasons for not supporting mifepristone, are based on ideology. whereas none of the three "pro-choice" doctors are asked the same question."

Here is the final exchange we had on their bias.

CBC: When I hear a complaint about bias, I take it seriously and examine the coverage. What I’m looking for primarily is whether the various sides are reflected accurately and fairly so that someone listening, reading or watching can decide for themselves whose position they choose to accept. While I take note of the number of speakers, or the lengths of their interviews, that is far too blunt a measure to use to weigh fairness or balance. Those things need to be considered over time, and in a broader context. Equitable coverage is not the same thing as equal coverage...Although the segment had four voices, two were brief clips [So those two extra "pro-choice" voices don't count? If they don't count then why include them?]

Me: I agree with some of what you say here. But one still must take the entire interview in context, with itself, since that one interview may be all any one person may hear on any one subject. For instance, the two short clips you mention, were both undeniably pro-ru486. Along with those two clips, was the in depth pro-Ru486 interview with Dr. Dunn, but there was only one voice anti-ru486: the in depth interview with pro-life Dr. Harrison. That is still three votes for the drug, and one vote against the drug. By any measure, that is not balanced: 3 to 1. Why wasn't there 2 short clips against the drug instead? Ah, but again, that would not be balanced either, would it? As well, Anna-Marie interrupted Dr. Harrison at least four times while she was speaking. She did not do that with Dr. Dunn. Why didn't she? Why didn't she simply allow both guests to answer the questions, without interrupting? If you want equitable, then treat all interviewees with the same respect. The interruptions were clearly not warranted, why didn't she simply let Dr. Harrison finish her thoughts without jumping in?

CBC: You believe Anna Maria did not treat Dr. Harrison with respect. You are, of course, free to believe that. [Note: CBC does not address my point of AMT interrupting Dr. H. 4 times] But it does not necessarily make it so, either. It is your gut feeling. [Not gut feeling, actual evidence] It is not one i share. I can't stress enough how normal it is for people who feel passionately about a subject to hear things differently than others do...

Me: The clip from Dr. Lexchin wonders if

"based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, my other speculation is that this is a political decision, in other words, this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product and that's what's holding it up but as I said I have no actual evidence to back that up." 

Why was this statement included in the segment at all? It is pure speculation on his part, and by his own words, he has no evidence to support his claim. His statement is a clear pro-abortion viewpoint. His pro-abortion bias was clear and added nothing to the interview, except to show another pro-abortion bias.

CBC: Dr. Lexchin is a pretty smart guy with expertise on pharmaceutical patents and experience working with various levels of government. That's why the show went to him. I understand you think he's full of malarkey on this subject. That is your right to feel. It does not make his perspective meaningless. [Again, CBC doesn't address Dr. L's conjecture about anti-abortion MPs and Dr. L.'s obvious ideology. He may be smart but his statement should have been cut. It wasn't.]

Me: Anna-Marie asks Dr. Harrison if her views are based on ideology. None of the other guests were asked that same question. Why weren't they? And in fact it is clear from Dr. Harrison's answer, that her views are not based on ideology. Not an equitable question.

CBC: Dr. Harrison expresses her ideology in her title, and the organization she represents. Asking her about it allowed her to explain to listeners who may not share her view how the medical opinion she expresses aligns with the ideological view she expresses. I would see that as an opportunity for her to persuade others of her reasonabless, rather than simply preaching to the converted. You call the question unequitable. I believe you are mistaken. [Again, CBC does not answer my question of why the "pro-choice" speakers weren't asked about their ideology. Also note that Dr. Rebecca Gomperts provides medical abortions to women in countries where abortion is illegal.]

Me: You feel my blog wasn't entirely fair in that I only mentioned one tweet, and not the second tweet that was more informational. You are right. My bias was showing. But as well, I don't pretend not to be biased about abortion, I am clearly pro-life. That being said, when I saw the quote from Dr. Dunn which said the drug was safe, without a corresponding quote from Dr. Harrison saying it wasn't safe, I felt that Dr. Dunn's opinion was being highlighted, while Dr. Harrison's was ignored. The CBC is supposed to be not biased though.

CBC: I agree with you, the CBC is supposed to be unbiased. I disagree with you that these tweets display any bias whatsoever. [CBC puts out one neutral tweet and one pro-abortion tweet--that's bias] I suggest the reason you perceive this is as bias is because you feel so strongly about the issue. And it is such a tiny set of words and characters from which to derive a slant, it is grossly unfair to the producers of the program to draw the conclusions you do. [Grossly unfair to conclude that CBC is biased?]

Me: What cannot be gleaned from the interview, from someone not actually knowledgeable about this drug, is how harmful it potentially is to women. I suggest you read the book called "RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals" by Renate Klein. This book goes into meticulous detail about these dangers, all based on studies and scientific evidence. I read the book before I listened to the interview, and Dr. Harrison basically corroborated everything Klein says about the drug. Here are some of the issues she raises detailed in a series of blogs I did on the book, if you care to read them. The book is an eye opener.

CBC: As mentioned, I have not had time to read this material. I have plenty of respect for you and your cause. And I regret that you think CBC News displays a bias in its coverage of the issue. We try very hard not to do that. I also ask you not to draw conclusions because I can't maintain the back and forth ad nauseum [I draw conclusions because my questions are not answered, when I show clear examples of bias] The number of issues that come up every day is enormous [as they should be since the CBC is a tax payer funded broadcaster], and the number of Canadians who engage with us for the very reason that we do pay attention and respond is wonderfully high [except CBC can't admit they are biased and insist they are not]. But I have a ton on my plate, and there's a point at which it's clear that our arguments are getting circular.