More Vax-Fascism: College of Physicians and Surgeons

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

God, I hope not. The end needs to come soon, lessons need to be learned.... 😂

Careful what you wish for.

.

[eyeball]

It's just that the best learned lessons are usually hard and often painful. It is what it is.

[User]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The term anti-vax is kind of like a cross that big pharma uses to ward off oversight.

No, it is just a term that has been around for over a hundred years and came back into popular use when the "anti-vax" crowd started to grow with the phony vaccines cause autism nonsense in the 90's. 

I use the term to accurately describe the people who fall into this general category today pushing misinformation and lies regarding vaccines in general. 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, there is no "anti-vax". 

We vaccinated all of our children. 

That doesn't mean that I should never question whether or not the vaccines are safe enough. 

I mean i agree, fair enough point.  But it still is a fringe opinion website.  Doesn't mean its valueless, but it's not the same as a mainstream medical journal.

[Venandi]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That doesn't mean that I should never question whether or not the vaccines are safe enough. 

And that's the point of all this for a lot of people (myself included). Trivializing covid specific concerns, especially with uninformed biologically ignorant rhetoric like "are you a horse?" ended up creating more hesitation, not less. 

This was poorly rolled out, questions were not answered they were ridiculed, that actually caused people (dare I say) like me who have had just about every vaccine known to man to look deeper... and the deeper I looked, the more inflamed and ill informed the rhetoric became. This was why so many military people took releases rather than the vaccine... while the numbers weren't huge, it was absolutely unprecedented in my experience. These folks were then lumped in with the lunatic anti-vax crowd when they very clearly and most definitely were not anti-vaxers.

There really should have been a lesson in that... but there wasn't. And don't be fooled by the official numbers either, the list of voluntary releases far exceeded the disciplinary ones usually cited; it was one manipulation too many IMO.

In the end I think it affected people at both ends of the spectrum by providing ammunition to full blown conspiracy zealots and by simultaneously horrifying thoughtful people who simply questioned the safety of mRNA specific vaccines. It also forever changed some relationships and attitudes.

I never thought I'd see people cheer when their neighbours got fired. For me, it was the dawn of a new Canada and for the first time, I was glad I retired.

Edited November 26, 2025 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, User said:

No, it is just a term that has been around for over a hundred years and came back into popular use when the "anti-vax" crowd started to grow with the phony vaccines cause autism nonsense in the 90's. 

I use the term to accurately describe the people who fall into this general category today pushing misinformation and lies regarding vaccines in general. 

 

Buddy, adults are saying: "I'm running out of reasons to not believe that vaccines are causing autism. Let's get to the bottom of it, and if that's actually the case then let's see if there's some way to get children the necessary protection without the risk of autism."

But for some reason cultist dipshits are saying: "Anyone who says 'vaccines might be causing autism' is just a dummy-dumdum. Everyone should just ignore any alleged evidence that suggests such a thing. They are anti-vax kooks and they wanna get their own children killed by easily preventable diseases. HAAAAHAHAHAAA!!! HAHAHA!!!!" 

How is what you're saying not childish and stupid? How long can you just ignore thousands of people with first-hand knowledge? What do those people have to gain from lying?

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I mean i agree, fair enough point.  But it still is a fringe opinion website.  Doesn't mean its valueless, but it's not the same as a mainstream medical journal.

Medical journals, including NEJoM and The Lancet, quickly posted fake studies about the failure of HCQ which they had to retract, they trumpeted all of the vaccine overestimations about safety and efficacy like they were "scientific facts carved in stone", and they refused to print anything showing the success of ivermectin. 

I dunno if you saw it, but I posted an article right from the NiH talking about "the success of ivermectin in clinical trials at the early stages of covid". Why did they downplay the positive results of dirt-cheap, off-patent medication while railroading everyone towards a highly expensive and improperly vetted mRNA jab?

What part of 'science' says that "forcing pregnant women to get a hastily/improperly tested mRNA jab was the right thing to do"?

Edited November 26, 2025 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, Venandi said:

And that's the point of all this for a lot of people (myself included). Trivializing covid specific concerns, especially with uninformed biologically ignorant rhetoric like "are you a horse?" ended up creating more hesitation, not less. 

This was poorly rolled out, questions were not answered they were ridiculed, that actually caused people (dare I say) like me who have had just about every vaccine known to man to look deeper... and the deeper I looked, the more inflamed and ill informed the rhetoric became. This was why so many military people took releases rather than the vaccine... while the numbers weren't huge, it was absolutely unprecedented in my experience. These folks were then lumped in with the lunatic anti-vax crowd when they very clearly and most definitely were not anti-vaxers.

There really should have been a lesson in that... but there wasn't. And don't be fooled by the official numbers either, the list of voluntary releases far exceeded the disciplinary ones usually cited; it was one manipulation too many IMO.

In the end I think it affected people at both ends of the spectrum by providing ammunition to full blown conspiracy zealots and by simultaneously horrifying thoughtful people who simply questioned the safety of mRNA specific vaccines. It also forever changed some relationships and attitudes.

I never thought I'd see people cheer when their neighbours got fired. For me, it was the dawn of a new Canada and for the first time, I was glad I retired.

There's also the fact that people were banned from social media for posting about the Wuhan lab while Fauci was pimping the BS pangolin narrative. 

then about 2 years into covid we found out that Fauci actually funded GoF on the bat coronavirus in the Wuhan lab. He was 100% lying about the most likely origin of covid the whole time and our MSM somehow 'missed' that story, but they sure didn't miss the chance to call Joe Rogan a liar while he was telling the truth about ivermectin. 

In the end conspiracy theorists won 50-0, the MSM was exposed, again. The "kooky allegations" all turned out to be true, and the MSM went ofer during covid. 

[User]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, adults are saying: "I'm running out of reasons to not believe that vaccines are causing autism. Let's get to the bottom of it, and if that's actually the case then let's see if there's some way to get children the necessary protection without the risk of autism."

No, people who do not understand logic are being exploited by others ' fear-mongering. 

You might as well say you are struggling to find ways not to blame microwaves for autism. 

You love to play this game where you dance around the line here and pretend you are not an anti-vaxxer and support vaccines like Measles, and then you come back and push this nonsense. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

But for some reason cultist dipshits are saying: "Anyone who says 'vaccines might be causing autism' is just a dummy-dumdum. Everyone should just ignore any alleged evidence that suggests such a thing. They are anti-vax kooks and they wanna get their own children killed by easily preventable diseases. HAAAAHAHAHAAA!!! HAHAHA!!!!" 

No, the vast majority of the world is not a "cult" for believing basic facts and understanding basic concepts around logic and rejecting anti-vax fear-mongering, lies, and propaganda. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

How is what you're saying not childish and stupid? How long can you just ignore thousands of people with first-hand knowledge? What do those people have to gain from lying?

So... you are an anti-vax person, and you don't support the MMR vaccine now?

 

[WestCanMan]

31 minutes ago, User said:

No, people who do not understand logic are being exploited by others ' fear-mongering. 

You might as well say you are struggling to find ways not to blame microwaves for autism. 

You love to play this game where you dance around the line here and pretend you are not an anti-vaxxer and support vaccines like Measles, and then you come back and push this nonsense. 

No, the vast majority of the world is not a "cult" for believing basic facts and understanding basic concepts around logic and rejecting anti-vax fear-mongering, lies, and propaganda. 

So... you are an anti-vax person, and you don't support the MMR vaccine now?

Your confirmation bias is just as bad as eyeball's Iron Dome of Dumb, and your whole point is based on a false dichotomy logical fallacy... FTI there are more options that just:

1. All vaccines are 100% perfect and anyone who questions any aspect of their safety and efficacy is an anti-science nutjob
2. All vaccines are garbage that is just meant to kill people or make them ret4rded

By stating that you believe that crap you're admitting to being a cultist m0r0n.

[User]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Your confirmation bias is just as bad as eyeball's Iron Dome of Dumb, and your whole point is based on a false dichotomy logical fallacy... FTI there are more options that just:

1. All vaccines are 100% perfect and anyone who questions any aspect of their safety and efficacy is an anti-science nutjob
2. All vaccines are garbage that is just meant to kill people or make them ret4rded

By stating that you believe that crap you're admitting to being a cultist m0r0n.

So... now you argue against a strawman and create a false dilemma. I never said vaccines are 100% perfect and that was not the argument, nor was it a general argument about safety and efficacy. I never said it was any such either/or proposition as you describe here. 

No, you were playing to the DURRRRRRRRRR Vaccines cause Autism DURRRRRRRRRR claim. 

This is exacly why logic matters in a discussion, because what you are doing is not honest debate at all.

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, User said:

So... now you argue against a strawman and create a false dilemma. I never said vaccines are 100% perfect and that was not the argument, nor was it a general argument about safety and efficacy. I never said it was any such either/or proposition as you describe here. 

Yes, that absolutely is your line in the sand. Any talk of vaccine-induced injuries is off the table for you. People who talk about vax-injuries are nutjobs.

If that's not the case, then why can't you acknowledge the injuries discussed in this thread? 

Why is the bar for declaring someone "died of covid" so low, that any mention of a sniffle or a sneeze in the past two weeks makes it a fait accompli, but proving a vax-induced death requires the sworn testimony of a rabbi, a priest, an imam and a nun, plus a certificate of "I don't know how the F you got this signed" from the Pfizer lab itself?  

VAERS is like a black hole of vaccine injury info.

[User]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Yes, that absolutely is your line in the sand. Any talk of vaccine-induced injuries is off the table for you. People who talk about vax-injuries are nutjobs.

Now you are just outright lying. YOU are pushing BS about vaccines causing Autism, all I am saying is that is BS.

You can't actually defend your BS, so instead you are like DURRRRRR Vaccines are not 100% perfect DURRRRRR
 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

If that's not the case, then why can't you acknowledge the injuries discussed in this thread? 

What injuries? You are on here pushing the vaccines cause Autism. Of course, I do not acknowledge that when there is no real evidence of this happening. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Why is the bar for declaring someone "died of covid" so low, that any mention of a sniffle or a sneeze in the past two weeks makes it a fait accompli, but proving a vax-induced death requires the sworn testimony of a rabbi, a priest, an imam and a nun, plus a certificate of "I don't know how the F you got this signed" from the Pfizer lab itself?  

And... as usual, you go off on some irrelevant tangent to this discussion. 
 

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Medical journals, including NEJoM and The Lancet, quickly posted fake studies about the failure of HCQ which they had to retract, they trumpeted all of the vaccine overestimations about safety and efficacy like they were "scientific facts carved in stone", and they refused to print anything showing the success of ivermectin. 

I dunno if you saw it, but I posted an article right from the NiH talking about "the success of ivermectin in clinical trials at the early stages of covid". Why did they downplay the positive results of dirt-cheap, off-patent medication while railroading everyone towards a highly expensive and improperly vetted mRNA jab?

Early studies showed potential for ivermectin but there was nothing conclusive.  They've followed up and done lots of studies and they show that ivermectin does hardly anything to help with COVID.  I haven't heard about your "fake studies" assertion so can't comment there.

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What part of 'science' says that "forcing pregnant women to get a hastily/improperly tested mRNA jab was the right thing to do"?

I don't believe in forcing anyone to take any jab, unless they work with vulnerable populations like the elderly or sick in hospitals, long-term care etc.

The vaccines were approved by emergency order knowing the full long-term testing hadn't been done.  The health risks of not being vaccinated and being exposed to and spreading the virus far outweighed the health risks of taking the vaccine.  The # of lives saved and longterm health helped for people who took the vaccine far, far outweigh the small # of harms the vaccine caused  The people more worried about taking the vaccine than getting exposed to the virus while unvaccinated were uneducated fools, it makes no logical sense.

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The people more worried about taking the vaccine than getting exposed to the virus while unvaccinated were uneducated fools, it makes no logical sense.

It was listening to the educated fools who refused to be vaccinated that led so many other fools to their deaths.

Stupidity spread by word of mouth was always COVID's favorite vector.

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The people more worried about taking the vaccine than getting exposed to the virus while unvaccinated were uneducated fools,

If you can believe it, some of those fools weren't smart enough to understand that a spike protein (in the presence of lipid nanoparticles) couldn't possibly get distributed systemically. The truly ignorant ones were foolish enough to think that it might not "simply remain in the deltoid region."

And the worst of these wackos even opined that there was the possibility of S protein collection in organs and the potential for BBB penetration. Their ignorance probably accounted for the 18% of Canadians who thought they and other unvaccinated people should be interned until they came to their senses... and who could blame them eh?  After all, you were dealing with people who didn't believe your assertion that the virus wasn't easily spread on airplanes and cruise ships

I stopped following all this during the abject madness over Ivermectin. The people you call uneducated fools wanted to have a discussion about it’s antiviral properties because at 4 cents a pill, it was cheap, readily available and about as innocuous as a baby bunny.

But… instead of taking about it’s effect on viral loading (at the first sign of symptoms) by virtue of its ability to disrupt the virus’s attempt to enter host cells (by binding to transport proteins) and inhibiting replication, the people you deem to be wise said things like:

HA HA HA, LMAO… IT’S HORSE PASTE LOSER. ARE YOU A HORSE LMAO? Almost sounds like a Flybaby response after carefully considering the science eh? 

You now have three levels of vaccine hesitancy:

• The crazies... conspiracy theorists that see conspiracies under every hypodermic. The true anti-taxers types, a label you chose to use on everyone; 
• Immigrants from areas of low vaccination rates who are not subject to vaccination requirements as a condition of residence because progressives consider that racist; and
• People with enough basic knowledge to ask simple questions at the grade 13 or first year university level. Those are the folks you labeled CHUDS and they don't trust your a$$ after you trampled them underfoot and cheered when they got fired.

You were even warned that vaccine hesitancy across the board would likely increase as result of the ridicule, mandates, and t-shirt slogans that said “follow the science.” Turns out, that was a cover for ignoring the science.  

 

Edited November 27, 2025 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, User said:

Now you are just outright lying. YOU are pushing BS about vaccines causing Autism, all I am saying is that is BS.

You're raging and m0r0nic now.

You don't know whether or not vaccines cause autism, User. You simply do not, and you are relying 100% on the people who profit from vaccines to give you that information. 

Quote

You can't actually defend your BS, so instead you are like DURRRRRR Vaccines are not 100% perfect DURRRRRR

STFU, donkey.

This is a layered, nuanced topic and vax safety and efficacy of different "vaccines" is all over the map now.

Some things that we call "vaccines" are dangerous garbage. The covid 'vax' is completely unnecessary, dangerous, and useless. 

As for the traditional vaccines, at least their efficacy and the value that they provide actually offsets the danger of taking them. Does that make sense to you, you f'ing tool?

• If you're taking an actual, effective vaccine, which works extremely well at preventing a disease that has a good chance of killing or seriously harming you, then some risk level is worth it. Does that make sense to you? Because I guarantee that even eyeball and ex-flyer would understand that part. Probably herbie is the only person who would go against that.

Do I think that traditional "vaccines" are causing autism? Yes I do. I've now crossed over into the category of "people who believe that traditional vaccines play a major role in the autism epidemic." I'm also in the group of people that say "It's ridiculous to hide behind a wall of confirmation bias and completely ignore this topic, because there is too much evidence available to us now."

Just don't hang you immature, stupid, meaningless label on me because my positions are far too complex for you to understand.  

[WestCanMan]

OK, so I said that I'd provide proof of all that covid stuff again, and it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be because I haven't gone to that folder for a long time now.

I don't know if I will get to it all yet, but here's at least some of it....

HOSPITALIZATIONS:

Part of the reason the vax was pushed as being "necessary" for everyone to take was to reduce hospitalizations. The justification for forcing people who didn't need it, to take it, was to keep hospitalizations down, because theoretically, covid hospitalizations were overwhelming our medical community. 

Did the jabs succeed in keeping hospitalizations down? 

User, get a friend to show you where 2022 is on that graph, and ask them if hospitalizations were lower, similar, or higher.

If, by some miracle, you have a friend who isn't ret4rded, and isn't a liar, they will tell you that hospitalizations in 2022 DWARFED hospitalizations in 2020 and 2021. 

 

Actually, I'm not gonna do hospitalizations, deaths, deaths by vax status and all the other stats at the same time. I'm gonna go 1 by 1 and grind your idjit nose into them, User.

Tell me, can you admit that in 2022, after we "vaccinated" 85% of the population, did hospitalizations go down, like they were supposed to once we got enough people vaxed?

Do you think all of those hospitalizations were among the unvaxed? 

Just tell me what you think you know about the vaccines' effectiveness against hospitalizations, and then tell me if you think that the MSM gave you the impression that hospitalizations were up or down. 

Tell me how you can look at that graph, from Health Canada, and interpret it as a vaccine success story, and not a failure. Tell me how you think that 2020 and 2021 looked overwhelming, but 2022 didn't.

Let's drill down here and finish this one part of the topic, then we will move on to deaths. 

Edited November 27, 2025 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

On 11/25/2025 at 10:42 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I mean i agree, fair enough point.  But it still is a fringe opinion website.  Doesn't mean its valueless, but it's not the same as a mainstream medical journal.

I would argue that medical journals work for Big Pharma, not just with them, and definitely not for you and me or the medical community in general. I think their main goal, though unstated, is to rep for Big Pharma.

And I think we would agree that average Americans and Canadians don't buy ads in those magazines, we don't exert any pressure on them to say this or that, and we don't put a lot of time and energy into planting people on the boards or in editorial roles there who put our needs first. Big Pharma really really cares what is said in those mags. A positive review for a big pharma drug in one of those mags is like a license to print money.

I'd bet that the average person working in a prominent position in any one of those magazines has either made a lot of money from big pharma or they're going to. That's just my own opinion from what I've seen and heard, so take that for what it's worth. 

I think that the FDA would actually be held to a higher standard of integrity than medical journals, because they are funded by the public's dime, but you can find articles like this everywhere. Thousands of people have written about this:

https://thewhiterabbitreport.substack.com/p/how-big-pharma-controls-the-fda-lobbying

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Early studies showed potential for ivermectin but there was nothing conclusive.  They've followed up and done lots of studies and they show that ivermectin does hardly anything to help with COVID. 

And then when ivermectin was used in the real world, as it was in Uttar Pradesh, and covid rates fell dramatically, those inconclusive studies provided the rationale for saying "correlation is not causation". Basically, "when ivermectin was used in our labs it didn't work very well, so we won't attribute the success of the covid fight in Uttar Pradesh to the use of ivermectin." How convenient.

Oddly enough, one of the reasons cited for the decline in bad covid outcomes in Uttar Pradesh was "acquired immunity from prior covid waves", but our "scientists" here refused to consider acquired immunity was even a thing. People who had covid before just had to get the jab because acquired immunity couldn't be taken into consideration.

So acquired immunity was used as a tool when they needed it, and discarded when they wanted to push more vaccines.

 

 

 

FYI the actual reason for vaxing healthy young adults was because they have rockstar stats. I.e., whatever vax-status group you put those people in is gonna look good because bad outcomes just don't happen to them, and it's a massive population.

If you were Big Pharma wouldn't you want to have "15M Canadians in your vaxed group who all have a 0% chance of dying of covid" in your group?

By contrast, 95-yr-old COPD sufferers are gonna die whether they're vaxed or not, because they're easy pickins for covid. Whoever ends up with those people in their vax-status group is gonna look weak, because they're all gonna die instantly if they get sneezed on. So there's no pressure put on those people to take the jab. 

Quote

I haven't heard about your "fake studies" assertion so can't comment there.

Back at the beginning of the 'pandemic', when it was first theorized that HCQ might be a useful tool for fighting covid, triggering a massive wave of hate and scorn from leftists (yes, HCQ was highly political) The NEJoM and The Lancet published an article that showed no increase in positive outcomes, and an increase in deaths. 

The article was seized on by left-wing media outlets and heralded as 100% proof that HCQ didn't work, and then it was quickly retracted due to the flawed methodology and large-scale assumptions based on small sample sizes using the aforementioned flawed methodology.

It might seem like one small article, but in the larger picture, just remember that it was:

1. extremely easy to get anything published in a medical journal that was positive about the vaccines
2. impossible to get anything published that was negative about the vaccines
3. extremely easy to get anything published in a medical journal that was negative about alternative treatments,
4. impossible to get anything published that was positive about alternative treatments,

It's like an acceptance filter that amplifies one frequency while attenuating all others. 

Our MSM operated the same way. When Trudeau screwed up, as he did multiple times, our media ignored that aspect of the story, and no matter what Trump did, there was a negative spin put on it.

Eg, somehow there was a strong net positive message from the MSM because Trudeau allowed people to fly directly to Canada from Wuhan and walk around in our airports, care homes, public pools, restaurants, buses & trains, etc, and it was a net negative for Trump to stop people from Wuhan from doing that. 

So, how do these same people say that "social distancing works", but "preventing people from travelling to your country from a covid hotspot is useless"? That's not f'ing science, it's just MSM bullshit that people accepted because they were programmed to accept any criticism of Trump. 

Quote

I don't believe in forcing anyone to take any jab, unless they work with vulnerable populations like the elderly or sick in hospitals, long-term care etc.

TBH, if people are legitimately scared of a pathogen, and have faith in a remedy, there's no need to force them.

But this covid farce completely obliterated all trust in our institutions like the CDC and NiH, which were caught lying, retracting, moving the goalposts, falsifying narratives about at-risk populations, and walking back their promises over and over and over. 

Quote

The vaccines were approved by emergency order knowing the full long-term testing hadn't been done. 

I appreciate your tone, candor, and reasonableness, but I'm sorry, that is 100% wrong.

The reason that they needed "emergency order approval" instead of just regular approval was because the full long-term testing had not been done. That's by definition, so there's no real margin for error there.

Quote

The health risks of not being vaccinated and being exposed to and spreading the virus far outweighed the health risks of taking the vaccine. 

And that statement is based on a mix of false assumptions, false data, lies about testing, completely ignoring vax injuries, etc:

1. the 'vaccines' were never designed to stop or prevent the spread, and Pfizer and Moderna never did any testing at all to see if their jabs prevented the spread of covid, nor did they make any such claims. Yet the CDC (Rachel or Rochelle Wolinsky I think her name was) and NiH (Fauci) both clearly stated that "the vaccines prevent the spread of covid, and you can't pass along covid if you're vaxed". That's "THE LIE THAT FORCED FIFTY MILLION VACCINATIONS". In the end, we now know that the jabs were entirely useless at preventing the spread of covid. The chart i posted earlier today shows just how massively hospitalizations increased after we jabbed 85% of Canadians in 2021.
2. we were hearing reports of serious injuries to young people, and even deaths, long before our health authorities admitted that those things were actually happening. Canadians were under the impression that the covid jabs never caused any harm to anyone at all, long after that was known to be 100% false
3. The success of the vaccines was lied about in advance, after the trials were done, and lied about at every stage of the vaccination campaign. The data from Israeli ICUs was in while we were still being told the vaccines had extremely high success rates. 
4. The total lack of a need for vaccines in young adults and children was never fully explained to Canadians. They had a 0% need, and the vaccines were never intended to prevent the spread, so THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT FROM AND NEED FOR VACCINATING HEALTHY YOUNG ADULTS AND CHILDREN WAS ALWAYS ZERO PERCENT. When you combine a 0% need with even a 1% chance for serious injury, the choice to not vaccinate was crystal clear. Canadians were led to believe the opposite.   

Quote

The # of lives saved and longterm health helped for people who took the vaccine far, far outweigh the small # of harms the vaccine caused 

Again, that's entirely based on false information. 

1. If the at-risk population wanted to take the jabs, that was always good enough
2. "Vaccine success" has only ever been evident, or should I say "allegedly evident", in clinical trials, not in real-world data, as far as Canada is concerned. 2022 was our worst year ever, and almost 90% of our vaxed deaths were among the multi-vaxed. 
3. How many 19-yr-olds should realistically suffer grievous injuries to save some 90-yr-olds? As a person who's much closer to 90 than 19, I say the answer is zero. When I'm 90 I don't want a 19-yr-old to to risk their life for me. That's entirely f'ing stupid. 
4. The number of harms was not small, and the harms included deaths and intolerable suffering and misery. Why has that information been kept from you? 

 

Look how many people died between these two dates, in each "death by vax-status" category, and then determine for yourself what percentage of the covid deaths in Canada occurred among the multi-vaxed. 

Between Aug 09 2022 and 25 Aug 2022, unvaxed deaths (the total number from Dec 14 2020 until until that date, so close to 2 years) went up from 10,645 - 10,800. That's an additional 155 deaths among the unvaxed.

2 doses went from 3,699 - 3,821. 122 deaths. 

3 doses went from 4,727 - 5,209. 482 deaths.

4 doses went from 708 - 1,031. 323 deaths.

The total is 155 + 122 + 482 + 323 deaths. 1,082 deaths. 155 deaths/1,082 deaths = 14.3%

14.3% of the covid deaths in Canada between those dates were among the unvaxed. 85.7% of the covid deaths in Canada between those dates were among the multi-vaxed. 

Those stats are taken from Health Canada's infobase site, by Statista. Here is the original Health Canada data for the last date:

The bottom-right chart in the pic above is where Statista gets their data from. That is from the Health Canada "infobase" page.  

Health Canada stopped giving out that data after Sept 25th, 2022. 

In short, 85.7% of covid deaths in Canada were among the multi-vaxed. That's in a year when deaths were up by more than 30% from the year prior. That's how well vaccines "worked" in Canada. Success? Not by my standards, but in a back room somehwere, it was determined that it was, using Case fatality Rate data. So apprently the unvaxxed just get infected at a massively higher rate to end up dying at the same rate as the unvaxed. Yay???

Remember, we have no idea what the vax rates are among the "elderly WITH serious underlying health issues" cohort. I.e., the "get covid  = sure to die" cohort. We just know the vax rates among the "elderly" group, which in itself is not a  huge risk category once you factor out the high number of "with underlying risks" people from their ranks. 

Edited November 27, 2025 by WestCanMan

[Goddess]

On 11/26/2025 at 3:07 AM, Venandi said:

This was poorly rolled out, questions were not answered they were ridiculed, that actually caused people (dare I say) like me who have had just about every vaccine known to man to look deeper... and the deeper I looked, the more inflamed and ill informed the rhetoric became.

Ditto.

On 11/26/2025 at 3:07 AM, Venandi said:

I never thought I'd see people cheer when their neighbours got fired. For me, it was the dawn of a new Canada

It was our collective humanity's Salem Witch Trials moment.

 

 

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ditto.

Speaking of which, you're one of WCM's peers - have you ever reviewed his analysis and what did you think of it?

More importantly can you explain why he hasn't submitted it to health authorities?

Is he afraid of a double-tap to the head? Can't this be submitted anonymously until it's safe to come out?

He could after all be in line for a Nobel and millions in prize money. Maybe it's death by panties he's worried about. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Ditto.

It was our collective humanity's Salem Witch Trials moment.

 

 

Was that quote in the Star from Dr Sohrab Latchmedial? 

[WestCanMan]

[WestCanMan]

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/cardiologist-medical-doctor-who-wanted-to-punch-anti-vaxxers-in-the-face-dead-after-covid-booster-shot/

Sohrab dead, no tears from me.