West

Liberals are going to cry "racism" regardless.

MIT and Central Bank are working on digital currency. Better hope Trudeau doesn't find your views "unacceptable". https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2022/03/central-bank-digital-currency-collaboration/?fbclid=IwAR1Gvl7VvX99jbcuBNjgYkmokHyIEAMtLqlMKPebVR462IKUVL36vzkSnRY

Exactly. We should also make it easier for politicians to be held liable for blatant power abuses.

Russell Brand I noticed is the legacy media's newest whipping boy. They would rather feed you everything in sound bites and then tell you what to think. Folks who allow you unedited access to hour long interviews are bad bad "debunked conspiracy theorists"

He's a CNN viewer. You can tell by the jargon he uses.

Do you even know what his claims are? And what conspiracy are we talking about here? The fact you have tenured professors raising alarms? That's not a conspiracy. That actually happened lol. As for Russell Brand and his types, their podcasts are far more informative that a 30 second clip of some nut job on CTV screaming "THATS BEEN DEBUUUNKED" ?. You can watch full unedited clips and not just a 3 second clip then a dancing head telling you what you should think they said.

I fully agree though it seems this government is more interested in passing legislation to enable cronyism.

One of the telltale signs of a CNN viewer. Won't actually examine for himself. Just says "it's been debunked" and thinks he's made a point.

Considering our current ruling party are full of folks who equate disagreeing with them to violence, ya don't think I'll jump on the WEF bandwagon anytime soon

I think we went down this rabbithole as the concern is digital ID would be another way to clamp down on "unacceptable views".

That's a shift in the goal posts now but okay. I would say that his research has a narrow focus on cancer and is one of the few people in the world focusing on that specific area of study. Is there an overwhelming amount of research into cancer and the MRNA vaccine, as an example???

The cardiologist example actually perfectly makes my point. Your GP isn't a specialist in vaccinations, cardiology etc. While I'm sure they are smart, when they "recommend" a vaccine, basically all they are doing is saying "here's what the CDC says you should do". Just like I'd trust a cardiologist to have a higher level of knowledge than a GP over the heart, I'd expect the same from specialists. Now when you have people who are actually specialists in vaccines, as is the case with Dr. Briddle, then they would carry more weight on a vaccine than your average GP. Which is why I'm saying it's irrelevant if some made up statistic support a vaccine.. they basically regurgitating one side's research. What should happen is an actual debate free of any threats toward licensing etc. As all we have as a rebuttal to one side is threats and insults, I'm suspicious.

You were referred by your GP to your cardiologist. Why? Because your cardiologist specializes in the heart. Dr. Christian was the head of a University department for 25 years. You are now basing your opinion on him based on Google reviews? Moonshine is really hammering the veterinarian thing on Dr. Briddle. His lab, named after him, specializes in cancer research and vaccines and has recieved several government funded grants. He has an obligation to present his findings regardless of whether or not it favors the "consensus". My guess is he teaches some ungraduate biology courses. Good for him.. more knowledgeable than Moonshine's women and gender studies major My education level is likely higher than yours.

This is a modern day Galileo where you had a man stand firm on the fact the earth was round even if it meant being burnt alive. That's why I would lean more toward those who are facing licensing threats for simply offering their observations.

1. I'm not the one saying consensus. 2. And your GP has the same limitations which is why it's pointless to bring up a GP's opinion on heart surgery and heart damage. Which is why you'd defer to *gasp* a specialist like Dr. Christian who the poster is calling "uneducated" for having differing views as his Liberal Arts major

I'd say "why are we giving money to an organization that you are a board member of" is a legitimate question. Let me guess.. you believe Ol Lady Margaret gives powerful speeches worth 250k and this was in no way influence peddling as well?

There is no consensus. That's the point. You have two schools of thought and a bunch of people in between. The fact you have highly qualified people providing conflicting views by definition means theres no consensus. One school of thought threatens the licensing of the other school of thought then claims victory. Go ask a nurse. What they will say is "CDC guidance says this". Shouldn't confuse that for "consensus". Most of it is self preservation.

So ask no questions about why are Deputy Prime Minister held a side gig with the WEF, the "non profit" now ushering in digital ID and other draconian nonsense?

Is what he saying factually incorrect? Is it not true that Freeland didn't sit on the board of WEF?

Moonshine, You throw out numbers like "99% blah blah blah". I know you think it legitimized your liberal arts degree but it doesn't. I haven't "convinced myself" of anything. I'm simply pointing out that appealing to a majority isn't a valid rebuttal of anything. Pulling a random statistic out of your ass isn't a valid rebuttal either.. calling a trauma surgeon "uneducated" makes you look like a moron. I know many medical professionals in my area. Many off the record feel lied to and abused, especially after they discontinued first dose Astra Zeneca and recommended against Moderna for young people. Many have expressed concerns with speaking out or facing discipline from their licensing body. You continuously ignore this. Many have refused the booster after the lies came to the surface. Not sure why your made up statistic is relevant. My guess is you may be in a position of authority and took great glee in firing people over a vaccine. You'll get what's coming to you eventually.

Yup. If we want to see WHY we, the little pee ons, should be concerned about big government and big business joining forces to erode due process and circumvent the Charter this is why. Corps aren't beholden to the Charter therefore a bank, as they did with the trucker's convoy, can make up some bs about breaking terms of service with pressure from the government should you dare hold an "unacceptable view".

No I'm saying your argument is dumb. The "overwhelming majority" argument is void of reality and is a logical fallacy. You have influencers on both end of the spectrum who actually do the reseach. Small minority either way. In the profession of medical science, thats the CDC, the WHO, guys like Dr Briddle. In the middle, you have your average doctor many of whom don't have the time to be delving into mask science, vaccines, etc. They trust mostly what the CDC or WHO put out (sort of like people like you only trusting the CBC as some arbiter of truth). It's like that with any profession. The average doctor isn't going to get into doing research on the efficacy of vaccines. Which is why your argument is ludacris. In the case of the people you trust, they are the ones uttering threats toward medical licenses and have attempted to block vaccine data. Not exactly the level of transparency you'd expect from folks who claim to have science on their side.

99% eh ?. Moonbox knows more than a trauma surgeon. His Liberal Arts degree makes him smart. I'd like to see you go head to head with any of those docs and tell them they are uneducated. The whole room would erupt in laughter at you.

4 doses in less than a year should tell you all you need to know.

Looks like the Stazi were out in full force today in Calgary arresting people for the crime of walking in a peaceful demonstration.