First a trickle....Now a flood

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

So… you still can’t show where it is? 

You're looking right at it .

Every time you lie like that, you look a little bit worse. 

Go wipe your nose boy. 

[User]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're looking right at it .

Every time you lie like that, you look a little bit worse. 

Go wipe your nose boy. 

Um, nope. 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Um, nope. 

You're still at this?

He answered your questions.

I answered your questions.

The government gave a half-a$$ed warning.  In reality, it wasn't even a warning.  It was an assurance.  They assured people that the risks were inconsequential across multiple age groups, across individual health.

Even scientifically/medically that is false.

No medical intervention is "one size fits all."

STFU already.

 

[Goddess]

 

Dr. Aseem Malhotra was an esteemed British cardiologist who frequently appeared on television and fully supported the covid injections......until his father, who had no cardiac issues before the jabs, died shortly after getting them, from heart attack.

It prompted him to investigate them more deeply and he was shocked by what he discovered.

When he began speaking out, he was vilified, censored and blacklisted.

Dr. Malhotra, at yesterday's US Senate hearings on outcomes from the covid injections (particularly cardiac and cancer issues):

‘Looking at the totality of up-to-date evidence, and what you’ve heard from eminent witnesses today, in my view, millions of Americans and millions more across the world may be in clear and present danger of suffering premature cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Without allowing all scientists to debate this openly without fear of censure, we will not be able to identify who is most at risk and how these risks can be mitigated.

When it comes to making money, multi-national corporations have been diagnosed by Forensic psychologist Robert Hare and Law Professor Joel Bakan as legal entities that fulfil the criteria for Psychopathy. Characteristics include:

• callous unconcern for the safety of others,
• incapacity to experience guilt,
• repeated lying, and conning others for profit.

The evidence presented here today exposes the corporate tyranny underlying public health practice. This profitability over people rooted in the neo-liberal economic model has led to trust being at an all-time low in the medical profession.

A full public apology from government bodies and medical leadership to the vaccine injured and bereaved is an essential first step in restoring that trust.

Tyranny emerges when people are afraid to say what they think. When you have something to say, silence is a lie. When everyone lies all the time, the tyranny is complete.

To save the health of the American people and to save democracy, it is our responsibility to expose, resist and dismantle the era of corporate tyranny we currently find ourselves in’

Edited June 4 by Goddess

[Goddess]

One again - the Americans taking out our trash.

 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You're still at this?

He answered your questions.

I answered your questions.

The government gave a half-a$$ed warning.  In reality, it wasn't even a warning.  It was an assurance.  They assured people that the risks were inconsequential across multiple age groups, across individual health.

Even scientifically/medically that is false.

No medical intervention is "one size fits all."

STFU already.

 

No, he didn’t answer my questions. If you are so sure and wanting to help him, just point out where he did! 
 

I have had A LOT of questions you have not answered. My goodness, I’d have to go back a ways to sum them all up.

I mean, just most recently, you keep ignoring my questions about what vaccines you think are cool. 
 

You keep claiming you are not anti-vax, that you are vaccinated, and yet you can’t even name the vaccines you support. 
 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Um, nope. 

um yep  and everyone sees it kid. 

Like i said, Deeply embarrassing behavior on your part.  you need to think about how you let your emotional attachment to you position lead you to make horrible arguments and WORSE eventually start to behave like a child demanding what you've already been given more than once 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, he didn’t answer my questions.
 

Kid EVERYONE can see i answered your questions. Mutiple times. 

The gov't did not substantially warn the public about the risks of the untested vaccine relying on new never before deployed technology, they SHOULD have been honest and they SHOULD have stood behind anyone who had a negative reaction after taking it at their insistence.

Everything's been answered multiple times and you're just crying like a spoiled brat 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

um yep  and everyone sees it kid. 

Like i said, Deeply embarrassing behavior on your part.  you need to think about how you let your emotional attachment to you position lead you to make horrible arguments and WORSE eventually start to behave like a child demanding what you've already been given more than once 

Everyone sees it and yet no one can show it…

Again, for as much time as you spend pushing this nonsense, if you actually answered my questions, you could have just shown me where or copied the answers for me again.

That is, if you ever did… 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Kid EVERYONE can see i answered your questions. Mutiple times. 

The gov't did not substantially warn the public about the risks of the untested vaccine relying on new never before deployed technology, they SHOULD have been honest and they SHOULD have stood behind anyone who had a negative reaction after taking it at their insistence.

Everything's been answered multiple times and you're just crying like a spoiled brat 

Again… (see how easy this is for me to go copy and paste?!)

• If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove:
  
   
• What risk? <-Define the risk
• When did officials know? <- You say they should have done more, so... what did they know before and what evidence do you have?
• What did they say publicly at the time? <- What was it they said you think is proof of them downplaying the risk (and remember, you must define that risk)
• What should they have said instead? 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, User said:

Again… (see how easy this is for me to go copy and paste?!)

Yes you're almost as talented as Exflyer. 

 

• Quote

  If you want to go back to your original assertion, about the only thing of substance here, that Canada did not adequately warn of the risks, that is your job to prove:

All proven. Many times in most cases

. You yourself prove they didn't give adequate information about the risks. As I have said many many times because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects. That's not what they told the public as you yourself proved

Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects. That was never hidden from them, but that's not what they told the public

We've posted what they said to the public at the time. They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine and that people that disagreed with taking the vaccine were bigots and the sandress and shouldn't be tolerated

As I have mentioned it numerous times what they should have said is that while we believe the risks are low this is an untried and untested product with minimal emergency testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that we can't anticipate. And more importantly they should have said that consistently. Instead what they did was say it was no more dangerous than your polio shot and they didn't even stick to that, often suggesting it was even more safe and people who claim there was a risk were simply alarmists and deniers

All of this has been said before in this thread by myself numerous times, all of it has been shown and demonstrated, none of this is new

And yes you're very good at cutting and pasting the same thing over and over despite the fact you've had this information since the beginning and all you're doing right now is cry baby and running and hiding like a little biatch. 

Edited June 4 by CdnFox

[John Stone]

A nation should defer to science as the most reliable source of empirical knowledge 

....... and def on issues like pandemics.

The truth is that Science informs, but the citizens / governments, decide. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

A nation should defer to science as the most reliable source of empirical knowledge 

....... and def on issues like pandemics.

The truth is that Science informs, but the citizens / governments, decide. 

 

Wow.  You and i agree on something   There's room here for a joke about broken clocks but i'll let it go  

I think you're statement is both correct and far reaching - "Science informs but people/govts decide."  That is true. And as a result, science is rarely the ONLY factor playing into the decision-making process. 

But I do believe that it is important for governments to share all of the facts and science honestly and openly with the public to allow them to make as informed a decision as they can

 

[Legato]

[Goddess]

The year is 1949.

The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more in Britain.

The year is 1956.

Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over.

The year is 1966.

A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots.

The year is 1979.

Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005.

The year is 1985.

Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning.

The year is 1992.

There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to.

So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with.

So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask.

Who paid for the study.

What the evidence says beneath the headline.

What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now. Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one.

It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

Edited yesterday at 05:54 PM by Goddess

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with.

I see you are once again stealing other people's work, plagiarising them, not giving your source or putting things in quotes. 

 

[Goddess]

22 hours ago, User said:

I see you are once again stealing other people's work, plagiarising them, not giving your source or putting things in quotes. 

 

And when I do, you accuse me of posting "anonymous" sources, even though the name is there.

So I don't really feel it matters.

This is what Libbies do all the time.  You attack the source and ignore the substance.  And unless a source says what YOU want it to, it's a bad source.  

[User]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And when I do, you accuse me of posting "anonymous" sources, even though the name is there.

So I don't really feel it matters.

This is what Libbies do all the time.  You attack the source and ignore the substance.  And unless a source says what YOU want it to, it's a bad source.  

So, you justify your lack of integrity, your constant stealing of other people's words and work, because I might criticize the source? ROFL

I know you are stealing because it clearly isn't your work, given the way it is written. It appears to be a copy-and-paste job, and I can go to Google to find the source and criticize it that way. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by User

[Goddess]

Just now, User said:

So, you justify your lack of integrity, your constant stealing of other people's words and work, because I might criticize the source? ROFL

 

No.  I just don't give a flying f*ck what you have to say anymore.

[User]

Just now, Goddess said:

No.  I just don't give a flying f*ck what you have to say anymore.

What I have to say has nothing to do with what you are doing: stealing other people's work and passing it off as your own. 

[User]

On 6/4/2026 at 11:34 AM, CdnFox said:

Yes you're almost as talented as Exflyer. 

 

•  

All proven. Many times in most cases

. You yourself prove they didn't give adequate information about the risks. As I have said many many times because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects. That's not what they told the public as you yourself proved

Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects. That was never hidden from them, but that's not what they told the public

We've posted what they said to the public at the time. They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine and that people that disagreed with taking the vaccine were bigots and the sandress and shouldn't be tolerated

As I have mentioned it numerous times what they should have said is that while we believe the risks are low this is an untried and untested product with minimal emergency testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that we can't anticipate. And more importantly they should have said that consistently. Instead what they did was say it was no more dangerous than your polio shot and they didn't even stick to that, often suggesting it was even more safe and people who claim there was a risk were simply alarmists and deniers

All of this has been said before in this thread by myself numerous times, all of it has been shown and demonstrated, none of this is new

And yes you're very good at cutting and pasting the same thing over and over despite the fact you've had this information since the beginning and all you're doing right now is cry baby and running and hiding like a little biatch. 

You finally attempted to answer the four questions, but the answers still don't really support your original claims. Lets go back to the beginning, wich the statement that started all of this:

"Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"

Question 1: What risk?

Your answer was:

"Because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects."

This sort of answers the question, but only by identifying the possibility of unknown risks. You did not identify a specific risk that officials failed to disclose.

"Unknown risks" is not itself a specific risk. It is simply uncertainty.

So you answered:

There could be risks.

You did not answer:

What specific risk are you claiming officials concealed?

Question 2: When did officials know?

Your answer was:

"Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects."

This answers a different question.

I asked:

When did officials know about the risk?

You answered:

They knew uncertainty existed from the beginning.

Those are not the same thing.

If your claim is that officials knew about a specific risk and failed to disclose it, then you need to identify:

The specific risk

When they learned about it

What evidence they had

What they disclosed

Instead, you're simply pointing out that everyone knew uncertainty existed, which was never in dispute.

Question 3: What did they say publicly at the time?

Your answer was:

"They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine..."

and

"People that disagreed were bigots..."

At least this is a factual claim that can be evaluated.

The problem is that you still provide:

No quote

No source

No date

No citation

No official statement

You are making a claim about what was said publicly, but you are not providing evidence that it was said.

So this remains an unsupported assertion.

Question 4: What should they have said instead?

This was your strongest answer.

You stated that officials should have said something closer to:

"This is a new product with limited testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that cannot yet be anticipated."

That is a legitimate opinion about how risk communication should have been handled.

However, you still have not demonstrated that officials failed to communicate uncertainty, nor have you shown that they claimed there were no unknown risks.

So while this is your strongest answer, it is still an opinion about what should have been said, not evidence that your original accusation is true.

At the beginning of this discussion, your claim sounded like:

The government knew about risks and failed to warn people.

After several rounds of questioning, the argument now seems to be:

The government should have emphasized uncertainty more strongly.

Those are very different claims.

The first is a factual claim that requires evidence.

The second is a subjective judgment about risk communication.

The reason I kept asking these four questions is because they force the discussion away from assertions and toward evidence. Even now, most of your answers are still assertions rather than demonstrations.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, User said:

You finally attempted to answer the four questions,

Liar.  You're a complete and utter coward.  The questions were asked every time you asked them right away. 

You admit as much. you say:

Quote

 

Question 1: What risk?

Your answer was:

"Because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects."

 

Yeah.  That's a fcuking answer you lying sack of shit. 

There is a much higher risk of unknown side effects than they suggested. MUCH higher.   ANd in fact there DID turn out to be unexpected side effects.  

So they absolutely DID NOT properly warn canadians that there were risks. They instead said the risks of an unknown effect were much much lower or non existent, certainly no more than other vaccines which was COMPLETELY UNTRUE, 

 

Are you just admitted that I was selling the truth all along and that you've been lying for the better part of three pages because you couldn't cope with the truth.

In this thread you have been a sniveling little coward doing an amazing impression of an emotionally disgruntle liberal

I'm not bother with the rest of your absolute cowardice.

The government should Have properly advise Canadians that there were risks taking this product, they did not properly advise them of the risks and now they are not properly standing behind people who have suffered adverse effects as a result.

And none of your whining and crying changes that. Watching your antics has been absolutely disappointing and depressing. Do better

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah.  That's a fcuking answer you lying sack of shit. 

"You finally attempted to answer the four questions,"

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There is a much higher risk of unknown side effects than they suggested. MUCH higher.   ANd in fact there DID turn out to be unexpected side effects.  

What did they suggest that you are saying was wrong and what do you base saying they should have known it was "MUCH" higher on?

Yes, UNEXPECTED, side effect. 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So they absolutely DID NOT properly warn canadians that there were risks.

They did warn there were risks. 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They instead said the risks of an unknown effect were much much lower or non existent, certainly no more than other vaccines which was COMPLETELY UNTRUE, 

Where did they say this?

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you just admitted that I was selling the truth all along and that you've been lying for the better part of three pages because you couldn't cope with the truth.

No, I made no such admission.