Accountability Now

What it actually tells me is politicians are caving to the fear mongering. It takes balls to do the Sweden approach but still to this day they have no restrictions or mandates. Kenney and Ford tried to do that but unfortunately the NDP strong hold on health care (in Alberta at least) was more than persuasive to force his hand. If you think introduction of the passport caused the numbers to come down then you are sadly mistaken. As noted by Gary Davidson (Alberta ER doctor), Kenney's government has been notorious for waiting for the numbers to start going down on their own and THEN imposing restrictions to make it look like those restrictions were the reason. There has been a HUGE battle brewing in Alberta between health care and the UCP government and I don't doubt for a minute that they have used COVID to their negotiating benefit. If Alberta had as many ICU beds per capita as Ontario to start with then things never would have been this heated.

This has also been shown to be the case with the flu shot as your protection from the flu allegedly goes down with successive shots. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots

It is is in Israel. Will probably be in other countries too. Canada has shown to be on the stricter side of the vaccine mandates so I feel like my assumption is correct. Why do you keep referring to viral vector vaccines? The mRNA vaccines are not those, they are new. I am not wishing for long term effects to happen but it is a possibility. PS...the flu shot does carry the possibility of long term effects like GBS and other neurological issues but then again no one is mandating a flu shot. It can be https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/myocarditis 100% agree with you on this but it should be up to the person to make that cost benefit analysis. Right now that analysis is being made with coercion for fear of losing jobs and travel. I have never told people not to get the vaccine, in fact I have adamantly told people with pre-existing conditions to get it. But my cost-benefit analysis for me doesn't weigh in favor of getting it especially if you there are long term effects that could be added. Agreed as long as this remains true. Keep in mind though, all politicians including Trudeau, Kenney and Ford all said they would never do vaccine passports and yet here we are. I have had little issue with the ones they have imposed here. Can't eat at a restaurant or go to a movie. No big deal. Probably the biggest issue is not being able to go to an Oilers game now that they are winning.

Single shot? Did you take J&J or did you get the other two shot ones. Of course you are limiting yourself to the two doses they are saying now. Wait until shots 3, 4 and 5 come around. We already see the occurrence of myocarditis for male youths dramatically increase after their second shot. Again....you say specific task. Is that same task to flare up other diseases as well? The number of shingles cases post vaccine has been notable with this vaccine. Is that the specific task this vaccine was intended for. I appreciate your optimistic attitude but the fact is no one knows what side effect may occur down the road. You can argue that the overall benefit is worth it but at the same time you can't force people to inject something in their bodies unless you are 100% certain its safe. At the very least, if you are the one forcing it then you damn well better be the one compensating them when shit does hit the fan.

Was just thinking about this more. Why would someone expect to know what the injury would be? Isn't that why they call them side effects? In other words an effect not intended or known to happen. Did the makers of thalidomide know that it would cause malformed limbs. No...they found that out years later. Ironically the issue with thalidomide was centered around blood clots....sound familiar?

Where are you getting that rate from? They are closer to 75% of eligible and 68% total.

I feel like we are a long way from endemic stage. Canada has had 1.7M laboratory confirmed cases since this has started which means less than 5% of the population has had it. Let's say that number is off as many people had Covid but weren't laboratory confirmed....maybe we're up to 40%?? There is still a lot of Covid to go around and the vaccines will wane meaning the same push for boosters will happen. My question is how will people who were double vaxxed respond when the government tells them they are no longer vaxxed because they don't have the booster. Ontario will get another wave of Covid this winter or spring. And when it hits you will see the same fearmongering steps implemented assuming they ever do actually remove them.

They show you this weblink when you get the vaccine?

Nothing on neurological issues like Bells Palsy or Guillume Barre Syndrome. Interesting. Let's not concern anyone with these...right?

No...I just don't automatically rule out the possibility of a long term effect being possible where as you do. Until this has been for years, no one can claim that chance is zero (as much as you try) Applications? You think the FDA and CDC are accepting applications for a solution that may hinder their wonder vaccine. The Merk drug is being approved hey...you know that Merk made Ivermectin. But of course, their patent is out now so they can't profit from it anymore so...let's remake it, rename it and profit.

Um...no. It only arises when people question what is happening and push back. If we were all sheep then there would be zero change. How is this evidence of that? People submit a report if someone has died X amount of days after the vaccine. Much like COVID deaths are counted if they die X amount of days after getting COVID. Those reports aren't bunk, they are following the standard put in place. Of course what they do after for research and discovery is a completely different story. Do they ask about anything else? For example when you see an approved drug advertised in the US they list 100 possible side effects in the 30 second commercial. But now...just now they actually admit there might be one thing?

The point is we don't know what they are hence the reason we should be allowing people to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk (or lack there of). Of course, if you want to personally sign off on any injury that I may receive (short or long term) from the vaccine then I will take it. Of course the pharmaceutical companies won't take that risk so I am assuming you won't Um...because of the political road blocks in place. Again, you cannot have an emergency authorized vaccine as long as there is an approved alternative.

So by your logic, if 100% of the population wears blue shirts and 100% of COVID deaths involve blue shirts then the blue shirt must have protected them. The reality is that the numbers in the UK started out with large number of unvaccinated people dying. As time went on those numbers switched even though the vaccination rates didn't change that much. The reality is the vaccinations waned and people are now not as protected meaning. Therefore it is expected that with a vaccination rate of 70% that 70% of the deaths will be fully vaxxed because it is having no effect on that parameter. What??? You're saying the scientists and government got it wrong? How dare you. Just like how our government repeatedly said the best vaccine is the first one you can get? And then they pulled AZ? And the US pulled J&J. And now Sweden and now Ontario is recommending Moderna over Pfizer? And you wonder why there is vaccine hesitancy.

I will have to look for a written cite. Dr Kory stated this on the Joe Rogan podcast though.

This isn't any vaccine. Its an mRNA vaccine, first of its kind. Drawing parallels to previous vaccines won't work. It is done for a lot of drugs. I have already addressed this in this thread. 20% of ALL prescriptions in the US are for off-label use. If you have a tool in your chest that might help then use it. That is what good doctors do and that's why there is off label usage. Here's a few more examples of drugs being used for multiple conditions: https://www.goodrx.com/healthcare-access/medication-education/medications-with-multiple-uses-depending-on-the-strength-of-the-pill

As per your own admission, fast tracked government approval. What are the long term effects of these vaccines? And are you going to compensate people who do get injured from the vaccines? If not then why are you pushing people to get it? I have no problem admitting that the vaccines will undoubtedly be safe for the vast, vast majority of people. I have pushed for vaccine usage for those who have pre-existing conditions and are over 50 as both scenarios represent a risk to reward scenario that favors the vaccine. But at no point have I ever said there is no risk of serious side effects. Then let doctors administer this properly and you won't have people doing this. Not rocket science.

Is insulin safe? What happens when you take too much? Or how about Advil? Tylenol? For F sakes, table salt has killed people when they take too much. Just because some idiots overdosed on it doesn't negate the fact that the drug itself is safe when administered properly. This has been proven has numerous doses have been administered for decades with little to no side effects.

And 70% of the deaths in the UK are among the fully vaccinated. Yes...once they got their third dose. Do you like proving my points for me. Again, the vaccine works but wanes over time. Don't think you're right on this one... Hepatitis B is a virus that attacks the liver. It can cause serious disease, including permanent liver damage (cirrhosis), and is also the main cause of liver cancer. https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/medications/zb1228

And there we have it folks.... I've already posted you proof of 30 RCT studies performed for ivermectin. All this in light of all the political posturing against it. Vaccines on the other hand have been green lighted a golden path without question. In fact, the pharmaceutical companies can't even be sued if they are wrong. Of course, we know Ivermectin's safety history so there is no comparison there.

I'm literally laughing my ass off right now. Proper channels?? You think the vaccine took proper channels for its approval. That is rich.

People are still getting sick with the vaccine especially once it wanes as shown in Israel and the UK. The vaccine is effective for the first 4-6 months but you're going to need booster jabs to keep that up. If this Covid jab was truly a vaccine and prevented infection and lasted a decent out of time then yes...you'd be correct. However it doesn't. As such I would guarantee that people would much rather have an effective treatment (should it exist) than take a shot 2-3 times a year. Most people I know took the shot so they could travel, work and hope to return to normal. Very few of them took it because they actually thought they were at risk.

Ivermectin is touted as being an outpatient treatment, meaning once people become symptomatic they can take it and it will prevent severe outcomes. If this is true then it truly defeats the need for vaccines. Steroids are only used once covid becomes severe which means it isn't competing with the vaccine. As per your article: Ivermectin is cheap and could be given to people globally. This is why Pfizer doesn't give a shit about steroids but doesn't want off label ivermectin to succeed

https://c19ivermectin.com/ All studies are linked here. Please read all the studies and then get back to me.

Just something to add to the Pfizer story

Just some food for thought: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/