Vaccine mandate prevention act

[rigpiggy]

From what I’ve seen, all of us so-called «tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists» provide peer reviewd studies, data, observations, experiences, and easily verifiable information to back our claims.
Meanwhile, the ones who call us «tinfoil hat conspiray theorists» primarily use ad hominems, bandwagon, and other logical falacies, as well as parroted mainstream talking points to back theirs.
Interesting, isn’t it?

The reason so many vaxxed people are pushy and adamant about us getting it too, is because deep down they fear they made a mistake and don't want to be alone with their choice.
If they go down, we have to go down with them. It's inconceivable that we made the right choice and they didn't. THEY followed the science. WE have to be wrong.

When someone says «trust the science», I say: ask your doctor if a drug with so many pages of side effects is right for you.

I have not seen any “peer” reviewed papers in any respectable medical journal posted verifying your side, plenty the other way but guess what, I don’t give a shit what you do or don’t do, but I disagree with the information you used to get there.
Both sides are entrenched and the W.H.O has declared Covid no longer a pandemic, maybe we move on.
BTW, I don’t feel in any way, shape or form that I made a mistake, not even deep down. I haven’t had a booster in over a year now but I did get two and don’t regret it.
You can scream from the rooftops that you were wronged but I guarantee you one thing, 99% of those who rolled up their sleeves don’t give a rats ass about your feelings! At least I know I don’t!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276958/. Found that a single dose within 48 hrs of first symptoms had a 4x reduction in viral load throughout recovery. But I guess the NIH isn't considered legitimate.

[CpnCrunch]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276958/. Found that a single dose within 48 hrs of first symptoms had a 4x reduction in viral load throughout recovery. But I guess the NIH isn't considered legitimate.

Nope and nope. That's just the protocol, not the study itself. Here is the study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli ... 8/fulltext

No significant difference in viral loads at day 4 or 7.

[cdnavater]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276958/. Found that a single dose within 48 hrs of first symptoms had a 4x reduction in viral load throughout recovery. But I guess the NIH isn't considered legitimate.

Nope and nope. That's just the protocol, not the study itself. Here is the study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ecli ... 8/fulltext

No significant difference in viral loads at day 4 or 7.

Lol, thanks for calling him out, literally says they are going to study this protocol but no findings posted.
When he posted that directed at me, I looked and didn’t bother responding because I am tired of giving “them” a platform but clearly they just hope you don’t notice, it’s kind of gaslighting I guess.

[rigpiggy]

Ii found the results on another page, but didn't go back through my history to find the link. The graph showing the results I posted were there they had 3 groups. Control, doxy/ivomec and just ivomec. I will find it again and post.

[khedrei]

Ii found the results on another page, but didn't go back through my history to find the link. The graph showing the results I posted were there they had 3 groups. Control, doxy/ivomec and just ivomec. I will find it again and post.

I wouldnt waste your time. These guys could see 1000 people take one of these shots and 999 of them die, all right in front of their eyes, they would still line up to take it brcause the "experts" said that complications are rare and "the science" says the death rate of covid is higher than 99.9 %. They would follow the crowd off a cliff if the experts said the cure was down there. I bet they were the ones in those videos putting plastic bags on the heads of their kids in shopping carts at Walmart chasing people around who walked against the directional arrows.

[TG]

I wouldnt waste your time. These guys could see 1000 people take one of these shots and 999 of them die, all right in front of their eyes, they would still line up to take it brcause the "experts" said that complications are rare and "the science" says the death rate of covid is higher than 99.9 %. They would follow the crowd off a cliff if the experts said the cure was down there. I bet they were the ones in those videos putting plastic bags on the heads of their kids in shopping carts at Walmart chasing people around who walked against the directional arrows.

Lol, you're the one who would follow a fringe group down a cliff! Science is trying to prevent that.

[khedrei]

Nice...

I know you are but what am I?

Says the person who thinks it was a good idea to stay inside and not get exercise. I do what makes sense. You feel free to keep thinking big pharma and our government has our best interest at heart. Keep scarring down those pills to stay healthy.

[rigpiggy]

Viral clearance

The mean duration to viral clearance was 9.7 days (95% CI 7.8–11.8 days) for the 5-day ivermectin arm (p = 0.02), 11.5 days (95% CI 9.8–13.2 days) for the ivermectin + doxycycline (p = 0.27) arm, and 12.7 days (95% CI 11.3–14.2 days) for the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that the proportion of patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly reduced in the 5-day ivermectin group (Figure 1 , below). Virological clearance in the 5-day ivermectin group was significantly earlier compared to the placebo group on days 7 and 14 (hazard ratio (HR) 4.1, 95% CI 1.1–14.7 (p = 0.03) and HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.0 (p = 0.02)). The trend was similar for the ivermectin + doxycycline group on days 7 and 14, but this was not statistically significant (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6–9.0 (p = 0.22) and HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.8–4.0 (p = 0.19)).

[CpnCrunch]

Viral clearance

The mean duration to viral clearance was 9.7 days (95% CI 7.8–11.8 days) for the 5-day ivermectin arm (p = 0.02), 11.5 days (95% CI 9.8–13.2 days) for the ivermectin + doxycycline (p = 0.27) arm, and 12.7 days (95% CI 11.3–14.2 days) for the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that the proportion of patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly reduced in the 5-day ivermectin group (Figure 1 , below). Virological clearance in the 5-day ivermectin group was significantly earlier compared to the placebo group on days 7 and 14 (hazard ratio (HR) 4.1, 95% CI 1.1–14.7 (p = 0.03) and HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.0 (p = 0.02)). The trend was similar for the ivermectin + doxycycline group on days 7 and 14, but this was not statistically significant (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6–9.0 (p = 0.22) and HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.8–4.0 (p = 0.19)).

Like picking cherries? PS that's a completely different trial to the one you posted earlier. I bet you also think homeopathy works because there are positive RCTs for that too...

[rigpiggy]

Maybe read the other post. I said, whoops, however I would look up my search history and lost the one I had been looking at. Please mask up at work, so I know what people to slamclick

[CpnCrunch]

Maybe read the other post. I said, whoops, however I would look up my search history and lost the one I had been looking at. Please mask up at work, so I know what people to slamclick

You post one study that is positive, but ignore all the others, including the meta-analyses which show that it doesn't work. Trust the science, unless you disagree with it, then pick the study that agrees with your weird preconceived ideas.

[khedrei]

Maybe read the other post. I said, whoops, however I would look up my search history and lost the one I had been looking at. Please mask up at work, so I know what people to slamclick

You post one study that is positive, but ignore all the others, including the meta-analyses which show that it doesn't work. Trust the science, unless you disagree with it, then pick the study that agrees with your weird preconceived ideas.

The same way you ignore my examples of men claiming to be women when you accused me of making up that statement. You ignore things you don't like all the time on this board.

Walk the walk first before you accuse others you sad pathetic hypocrite.

[Aviatard]

You are a prime example of what is wrong with this polarized world today.

Also these warm and inclusive words of brotherly love:

I hope for your sake you wake up. Unlike you, I don't wish illwill upon people who don't agree with me.

I've resisted the urge for name calling but you are making it very difficult.

you sad pathetic hypocrite.

[CpnCrunch]

The same way you ignore my examples of men claiming to be women when you accused me of making up that statement. You ignore things you don't like all the time on this board.

Walk the walk first before you accuse others you sad pathetic hypocrite.

No, I watched the tiktok, and you're just being a dick as usual. Get over your irrational fear of trans people and drink some cheap Bud Light.

[TG]

Nice...

I know you are but what am I?

Says the person who thinks it was a good idea to stay inside and not get exercise. I do what makes sense. You feel free to keep thinking big pharma and our government has our best interest at heart. Keep scarring down those pills to stay healthy.

No you don’t do what make sense! And who said that if stuck inside you can’t exercise, not that anybody wants to be stuck inside…

I noticed that it’s only the anti-vax that still have an axe to grind, everyone else I know just carried on with their life.

As @TinFoilAwards put it:

This may come as a chock to some people, but if you are not an expert on some subject, then your opinions about it really do matter less than the opinions of experts.
It’s not indoctrination or elitism. It’s just that you don’t know as much as they do about the subject”

[khedrei]

You are a prime example of what is wrong with this polarized world today.

Also these warm and inclusive words of brotherly love:

I hope for your sake you wake up. Unlike you, I don't wish illwill upon people who don't agree with me.

I've resisted the urge for name calling but you are making it very difficult.

you sad pathetic hypocrite.

Huh? Are you trying to make a point?

Ill take a play from your book and say "do better" because posting partial quotes of things I said in the past makes no sense.

[khedrei]

Nice...

I know you are but what am I?

Says the person who thinks it was a good idea to stay inside and not get exercise. I do what makes sense. You feel free to keep thinking big pharma and our government has our best interest at heart. Keep scarring down those pills to stay healthy.

No you don’t do what make sense! And who said that if stuck inside you can’t exercise, not that anybody wants to be stuck inside…

I noticed that it’s only the anti-vax that still have an axe to grind, everyone else I know just carried on with their life.

As @TinFoilAwards put it:

This may come as a chock to some people, but if you are not an expert on some subject, then your opinions about it really do matter less than the opinions of experts.
It’s not indoctrination or elitism. It’s just that you don’t know as much as they do about the subject”

I'm glad you know me so well that you know exactly what I do.

The same way you ignore my examples of men claiming to be women when you accused me of making up that statement. You ignore things you don't like all the time on this board.

Walk the walk first before you accuse others you sad pathetic hypocrite.

No, I watched the tiktok, and you're just being a dick as usual. Get over your irrational fear of trans people and drink some cheap Bud Light.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said anything anti trans or where I indicated that I was fearful of trans people. I've asked you before to quote me. Why won't you??

[short bus]

calm down

[J Roc]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/exc ... ws-5561706



Canada’s defence chief received legal advice from the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) in 2021 that there was no evidence supporting a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members and that imposing one would be “fraught with legal risk,” an internal document obtained by The Epoch Times shows.

The document, issued on Feb. 2, 2021, by the JAG’s office, the military’s legal department, also cites guidelines by a physicians’ legal defence organization that warns against obtaining consent to administer vaccines under “compulsion” by an employer or others.
The document was prepared for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre a few months before the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) imposed a vaccine mandate.

“There is a subtle difference between ordering a member to be inoculated and indicating that it is required for either service generally (Universality of Service) or for a specific task or occupation (bona fide occupational requirement),” reads the document.

“We have no supporting evidence at this time that there is a need for all CAF members to be inoculated,” the document adds. “Therefore implying that it is required for compliance with U of S [Universality of Service] or a BFOR [bona fide occupational requirement], at this time, would be incorrect.”


Following implementation of the mandate, hundreds of members left the force through either voluntary release or expulsion. Official military figures confirm that the vaccine resulted in over 300 cases of adverse reactions, including 23 deemed serious.
The legal advice says the Canadian Armed Forces had an obligation to accommodate members to the point of breaching a “Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR)” and that “considerable scientific medical evidence” would be required “to substantiate a COVID-19 vaccination as a minimum operational standard.”

The document provides an example of a highly skilled sailor who could not receive the vaccine due to medical contraindication.

“However, a requirement based on the actual needs of the CAF and justified on the basis of scientific and medical evidence would provide the CAF the flexibility to accommodate certain members while allowing for a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, when legally justifiable,” it says.

The document also says that CAF members are required to obey lawful orders of their superiors, but that ordering them to submit to medical procedures “is fraught with legal risk.”
‘Consent Must Be Voluntary’
Citing prior case law, the document says lawmakers have allowed for the Armed Forces to require mandatory vaccination “under certain limited circumstances,” but members could still refuse by providing a “reasonable excuse.” It adds that there is no clear definition of what a “reasonable excuse” could be at that time.
The document also says it’s important that “informed consent” be obtained prior to vaccination.

Consent must be voluntary and “the patient must have the capacity to consent and consent must be informed,” it says.

The document references guidelines from the Canadian Medical Protective Association on the issue of consent.
“Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated. In this context physicians must keep clearly in mind there may be circumstances when the initiative to consult was not the patient’s, but rather that of a third party, an employer or a police officer,” the guideline says.

Based on this guideline, the JAG Office document concludes that, “As such, requiring CAF members to attend an inoculation event whereby they would be peer-pressured to consent could result in a finding that the member did not voluntarily consent to inoculation.”

Citing the Canadian Human Rights Act, the CAF legal department’s document also notes that discrimination based on disability, sex, or religion is forbidden.

“CAF would have to demonstrate, on the basis of sufficient evidence, that the accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the CAF, considering health, safety and cost,” it says.

Additionally, it talks about the relevance of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to life, liberty, and security of the person—as well as “potentially,” freedom of religion. But it notes that charter rights “are not absolute and may be limited in accordance with section 1, Reasonable limits.”

It adds that in the event that a member refuses mandatory inoculation on the basis of profoundly held personal believes, “we recommend that legal advice be sought.”

“While each situation presents its own set of facts, it appears likely that a mandatory vaccination order that does not allow for religious accommodation would interfere in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial,” the document says.

According to testimony by Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff Lt.-Gen. Frances Allen to a parliamentary committee in April 2022, out of the more than 1,300 CAF members who applied for exemptions on religious grounds or other reasons, only 158 had their requests approved.

The document recommends that any vaccine policy be: based on informed consent, free from physical force, based on scientific medical evidence, and consistent with all Canadian laws. It adds that the policy should be reasonable and in accordance with the Charter of Rights.

When asked about the document, a spokesperson with the Department of National Defence defended the CAF’s decision to implement the vaccination policy.

“The Canadian Armed Forces always bases its decisions on vaccination by considering the most up to date medical evidence and advice, the current federal posture, and the need to be operationally ready in terms of both force health and ability to act in an environment where any vaccine-preventable illness is a hazard to individuals and the mission,” spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin said in an email.
‘Ignored Every Piece of Advice’
Phillip Millar, a former combat officer who now has his own legal firm and has represented a number of CAF members challenging the vaccination mandate, describes the document as “damning.”
“It shows the [chain of command] was aware of the risks, how unnecessary the mandate was, and how it is clear that despite advice from the experts, the politicians ordered the go-ahead against legal advice,” Mr. Millar told The Epoch Times.

He said the document recommends that any type of vaccine policy be carefully crafted to require only what was necessary for operational effectiveness. That advice wasn’t heeded, he said.

“They essentially ignored every piece of advice coming from their own experts,” he said.

“What I think needs to be clear is that the government wanted to use the Canadian Armed Forces as an example to the public to enforce a universal mandate, and so they ignored the experts within the Canadian Armed Forces and ordered it anyhow.”

Mr. Millar said a reasonable vaccination policy would consider, for example, the case of a contained environment, such as a submarine, and have certain requirements in that situation.

“Instead, what they said is, everybody will get it and if you don’t get it, we’re going to fire you and destroy your life,” he said.

Since the earlier days that COVID-19 vaccines were first developed, it has now been shown that they don’t prevent transmission or infection.

A previous investigation by The Epoch Times showed that as of late 2022, there were 324 officially recognized cases of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination in the military, with 23 deemed serious. This was higher than the 16 hospitalizations that resulted from sickness with COVID-19.
‘Ensuring Our Operational Readiness’
The Canadian Press previously reported that an August 2021 briefing note presented to Gen. Eyre had said that requiring a vaccine mandate for all CAF members was unnecessary, and that doing so “may not constitute a legal order.”
Gen. Eyre told The Canadian Press in late 2022 that it was one of several legal opinions that he received.

“We get lots of legal opinions out there, but we can’t allow one legal opinion from stopping us from doing the right thing,” he said. “And here, the right thing is ensuring our operational readiness so that we can protect Canada and Canadian interests around the world.”
Lawsuits
Besides individual lawsuits, a group of around 330 active and former CAF members who said they were harmed by COVID-19 vaccine mandates have filed a class-action lawsuit against high-ranking members of the military, seeking some $500 million in damages.
The lawsuit, launched in June 2023, claims that the military abused its power by ignoring legislative limits on its actions, allowing the physical and/or psychological harm of unvaccinated members under the command of CAF-commissioned officers, ignoring established law on the right to privacy and the right to choose medical treatment, and ignoring established law on informed consent and regarding religious and spiritual belief.

In late September 2023, another group of 128 soldiers sued the military for alleged abuse of power on COVID policies, including telling soldiers to stay in a tent in winter and denying them heating unless they got vaccinated. Claims include “life-threatening” adverse reactions to the vaccines, as well as suffering from Bell’s Palsy, neurological issues, and heart problems after getting vaccinated.
In May 2023, an independent military administrative tribunal found that the CAF’s vaccine mandate violated the Section 7 charter rights of members who refused vaccination.
“I conclude that the limitation of the grievors’ right to liberty and security of the person by the CAF vaccination policy is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice because the policy, in some aspects, is arbitrary, overly broad and disproportionate,” wrote Nina Frid of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

The committee’s findings, which are non-binding, are sent to Gen. Eyre for consideration.

Matthew Horwood and The Canadian Press contributed to this report.

[J Roc]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/li ... ied-ruling

[cdnavater]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/li ... ied-ruling

Might be the only thing the liberals have done for the past years I agree with, ask most Canadians and they’ll agree.
Could they have ended the siege without it, we’ll never know

[‘Bob’]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/li ... ied-ruling

I would like to know what a proper solution would have been.

And I'd like it framed from the perspective of a resident or business owner in Ottawa and based on the complete incompetence (at best) or collusion (at worst) of the Ottawa Police.. and the fact that this was still a tiny minority who's demands--if they were complied with--would result in a constitutional crisis of dangerous precedence.

Autumn of Nations, this was not.

[J Roc]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/li ... ied-ruling

I would like to know what a proper solution would have been.

And I'd like it framed from the perspective of a resident or business owner in Ottawa and based on the complete incompetence (at best) or collusion (at worst) of the Ottawa Police.. and the fact that this was still a tiny minority who's demands--if they were complied with--would result in a constitutional crisis of dangerous precedence.

Autumn of Nations, this was not.

The government's response was the only dangerous precedent. Thankfully the courts have identified and corrected this, in turn setting a precedent that protects our rights and freedom. I believe this ruling benefits all Canadians, including the residents of YOW, regardless of how emotional they may feel about the convoy. This is a just ruling, which should bring comfort to everyone.

A proper solution? Well, that's an entire other debate. The point is, our current government mismanaged yet another situation during COVID, and has little respect for our rights and the law of the land. It's had been established that Section 1 isn't a get-out-of-jail card for ANY government and must be "reasonable and demonstrably justified." The EA was not, and the government broke the highest law of the land. The question(s) for me is; how long until we see lawsuits and when will MPs start resigning? It would be foolish to think otherwise.

[Inverted2]

It would be nice to see the Lieberals reduced to a minivan sized number of seats next year. It would be nicer to see them tried and held accountable and prosecuted for the crimes they’ve committed in the past few years.