World Economic Forum (WEF) Influence on Canadian Policy

[West]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I've an bussiness/econ grad, but whatever.  I'm soooo ashamed I'm educated.  ?  

Your statement above is hilarious though.   On one hand you're complaining that I don't listen to the one doctor who got fired for bullshitting and spreading conspiracy theories, but you're disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of experts is...what?  Smart?  How do take yourself seriously making this sort of argument?  The delusional hypocrisy of it is mind-boggling.    

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.

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[Zeitgeist]

If you had any doubt that the WEF and the Liberal Canadian government are bringing us closer to totalitarianism, watch this until the end:

 

[West]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you had any doubt that the WEF and the Liberal Canadian government are bringing us closer to totalitarianism, watch this until the end:

 

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". 

 

[Moonbox]

16 minutes ago, West said:

No I'm saying your argument is dumb. The "overwhelming majority" argument is void of reality and is a logical fallacy.

First off, the overwhelming majority of doctors, researchers, health authorities and scientists across the globe all support the vaccines and their safety, and that's not void of reality - that's a fact.  The "appeal to authority" fallacy is also something you clearly don't understand, since you're appealing to authority yourself by invoking Dr. Christian and Dr. Briddle.  The strength or lack thereof in these arguments will depend on the body of evidence supporting them.  In the case of Dr. Christian and Dr. Bridle, most of their claims have been peer-reviewed and determined to be to not be supported by science and misleading.  Dr. Bridle's conclusions, specifically, have been roundly rejected around the world..  

16 minutes ago, West said:

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.

Not influencers - you have experts. This isn't a social media contest.  Even amongst the most directly involved COVID/vaccine researchers, the consensus is that the vaccines are safe and effective.  This isn't two equal sides duking it out for hearts and minds.  This is the medical and scientific community around the world (from top to bottom) coming to the same conclusions and then there being a handful of dissenters looking for their 15 minutes promoting (mostly) bullshit.  

96% of physicians were fully-vaccinated in the US by July 2021.  Though they may not all be directly involved in vaccine research, they're far better judges than you on the published findings of the top and most directly-involved researchers, as are the top scientists who review those findings and the medical journals that publish them.  

You've convinced yourself that an associate professor at the Ontario Veterinary College is a top authority on these matters, and the only reason for that is that he's one of the few public dissenters you can cling to in your desperate search for anyone/anything that may provide a hint of credibility to your worldview.  

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you had any doubt that the WEF and the Liberal Canadian government are bringing us closer to totalitarianism, watch this until the end:

 

Russel Brand is what you consider a reliable source of information?  A British comedian and mind-warped former heroin addict is the expert you're brining into the debate?  

 

[West]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

First off, the overwhelming majority of doctors, researchers, health authorities and scientists across the globe all support the vaccines and their safety, and that's not void of reality - that's a fact.  The "appeal to authority" fallacy is also something you clearly don't understand, since you're appealing to authority yourself by invoking Dr. Christian and Dr. Briddle.  The strength or lack thereof in these arguments will depend on the body of evidence supporting them.  In the case of Dr. Christian and Dr. Bridle, most of their claims have been peer-reviewed and determined to be to not be supported by science and misleading.  Dr. Bridle's conclusions, specifically, have been roundly rejected around the world..  

Not influencers - you have experts. This isn't a social media contest.  Even amongst the most directly involved COVID/vaccine researchers, the consensus is that the vaccines are safe and effective.  This isn't two equal sides duking it out for hearts and minds.  This is the medical and scientific community around the world (from top to bottom) coming to the same conclusions and then there being a handful of dissenters looking for their 15 minutes promoting (mostly) bullshit.  

96% of physicians were fully-vaccinated in the US by July 2021.  Though they may not all be directly involved in vaccine research, they're far better judges than you on the published findings of the top and most directly-involved researchers, as are the top scientists who review those findings and the medical journals that publish them.  

You've convinced yourself that an associate professor at the Ontario Veterinary College is a top authority on these matters, and the only reason for that is that he's one of the few public dissenters you can cling to in your desperate search for anyone/anything that may provide a hint of credibility to your worldview.  

 

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. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[West]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Russel Brand is what you consider a reliable source of information?  A British comedian and mind-warped former heroin addict is the expert you're brining into the debate?  

 

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

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, West said:

Moonshine, 

You throw out numbers like "99% blah blah blah".

I haven't "convinced myself" of anything. I'm simply pointing out that appealing to a majority isn't a valid rebuttal of anything. 

Its a matter of pointing to why following a vast educated consensus that is sustained over time is an appropriate factor to consider for a society trying to develop policies for itself to follow.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, West said:

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

His interpretation of what that fact suggests or means is what's untrue.

[West]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

His interpretation of what that fact suggests or means is what's untrue.

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?

[West]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Its a matter of pointing to why following a vast educated consensus that is sustained over time is an appropriate factor to consider for a society trying to develop policies for itself to follow.

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.

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, West said:

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?

You can ask all the questions you like but if they're unintelligent and nonsensical you're likely going to be unsatisfied with the answers.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, West said:

There is no consensus. That's the point. You have two schools of thought and a bunch of people in between.  

There never will be 100% consensus, there never is on anything. Making that point the justification for inaction is just dumb in the face of sustained consensus in the high 90's.

Quote

Go ask a nurse. What they will say is "CDC guidance says this". Shouldn't confuse that for "consensus". It's ridiculous.

Sounds to me like a simple acknowledgment of the limits of their own expertise and pointing you in a direction you should seek more informed advice. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by eyeball

[West]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You can ask all the questions you like but if they're unintelligent and nonsensical you're likely going to be unsatisfied with the answers.

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? 

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[West]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There never will be 100% consensus, there never is on anything. Making that point the justification for inaction is just dumb in the face of sustained consensus in the high 90's.

Sounds to me like a simple acknowledgment of the limits of their own expertise and pointing you in a direction you should seek more informed advice. 

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

[West]

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. 

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, West said:

I'd say "why are we giving money to an organization that you are a board member of" is a legitimate question.  

I'd say so too.

Quote

Let me guess.. you believe Ol Lady Margaret gives powerful speeches worth 250k and this was in no way influence peddling as well?

No I don't believe this at all but unfortunately we don't have the means to know definitively enough to say so we can take meaningful action to prevent or circumvent the influence.

Outlawing in-camera lobbying could provide much of that means and likely answer your first question satisfactorily as well but more rigorous robust institutions of transparency and accountability just don't seem to be that important enough to make much difference in the way influence is peddled in our society.

Oh well, if it was important we'd probably have less to argue about in terms of what we think is happening versus what we know is happening.  

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, West said:

1. I'm not the one saying consensus.

So, that doesn't make it go away.

Quote

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

No the limitations of a nurse are obviously greater than a GP's.  I have a heart condition and the trusted cardiologist my old GP referred me to and that I've been seeing for 10 years now is also retiring and referring me to another cardiologist within the same clinic so...I'm not saying consensus is the end all and be all either but given what I know about Dr Christian and the weight of reviews of his work I doubt I'll be seeking his advice anytime soon. If my new GP insisted I should anyway I'd probably seek a different GP.

I don't know what your scholastic level of achievement is but I'm betting it's less than a Liberal Arts major.

[West]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So, that doesn't make it go away.

No the limitations of a nurse are obviously greater than a GP's.  I have a heart condition and the trusted cardiologist my old GP referred me to and that I've been seeing for 10 years now is also retiring and referring me to another cardiologist within the same clinic so...I'm not saying consensus is the end all and be all either but given what I know about Dr Christian and the weight of reviews of his work I doubt I'll be seeking his advice anytime soon. If my new GP insisted I should anyway I'd probably seek a different GP.

I don't know what your scholastic level of achievement is but I'm betting it's less than a Liberal Arts major.

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. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, West said:

You were referred by your GP to your cardiologist. Why? Because your cardiologist specializes in the heart. 

Go back and read again what I wrote.

Quote

My education level is likely higher than yours.

I wouldn't doubt it, I dropped out of school soon after I was forced to go to a free school in Rochdale. I hated school, but to be fair I'm pretty sure they hated me so... I gave high school the old college try but at 50+ students per class it was just an exercise in paper-planes, spit-balls and chaos.  So...I passed on all the crap they taught in high school and went logging and fishing instead.

In any case I bet you never owned or operated your own corporation.

[West]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Go back and read again what I wrote.

I wouldn't doubt it, I dropped out of school soon after I was forced to go to a free school in Rochdale. I hated school, but to be fair I'm pretty sure they hated me so... I gave high school the old college try but at 50+ students per class it was just an exercise in paper-planes, spit-balls and chaos.  So...I passed on all the crap they taught in high school and went logging and fishing instead.

In any case I bet you never owned or operated your own corporation.

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. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by West

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, West said:

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.

Okay but what about the weight he carries compared to the vast number of other vaccine specialists?

 

Quote

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.

Research coming from a huge number of specialists and that huge number matters.  Yes I've heard about Galileo but he wasn't up against a huge number of specialists in the same field he was up against the equivalent of today's hyper suspicious hyperbolic conservatives except with a very dangerous amount of power in their hands.

Edited March 20, 2022 by eyeball

[West]

Just now, eyeball said:

Okay but what about the weight he carries compared to the vast number of other vaccine specialists?

 

Research coming from a huge number of specialists and that huge number matters.  Yes I've heard about Galileo but he wasn't up against a huge number of specialists in the same field he was up against the equivalent of today's hyper suspicious hyperbolic conservatives.  

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???

 

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, West said:

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???

 

Don't know.

Speaking of goalposts, what's this got to do with WEF?

[West]

Just now, eyeball said:

Don't know.

Speaking of goalposts, what's this got to do with WEF?

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