That is their job. They are supposed to be the experts.
They should of have known outcomes with all the supposed science and tax payer money they receive.
If I was in that business I would be responsible to know my product works and tested before i sent it out into the world.
For example, why are they against other countries running studies to prove the effectiveness of their product?
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-india-pfizer-idUSKBN2A50GE
Would an independent study prove something about the product was fishy? Release all documentation and discussion around the decision to cancel the eua in India to explain why it was cancelled after the Indian government requested independent study of the product.
Why didn't Canada do the same before unleashing the gene therapy product on Canadians? Were any independent studies done in Canada? No it's okay I know the answer: we outsourced all health decisions for Canadians to other nations to determine if a product is safe to use here bypassing national security procedures.
Well meme call out how unprofessional the "science" behaved over the last 2 plus years. If it was truly science, it would have been properly tested and validated prior to roll out to billions without informed consent.
It doesn't matter if they fixed the formulations over time to address deficiencies in the product, it's not science to use unwilling participants (lacking informed consent) as guiny pigs
It's funny that his status is "on appeal" but the pending is:
Cancelled:Hearing was scheduled (not started) and then cancelled. A new date is not required. Concluded:Hearing was held and a decision issued. The College’s hearing process is complete. Confirmed:A hearing date has been set by the College, respondent physician and lawyers. In Appeal:The Hearing Tribunal’s decision is being appealed to the CPSA Council/Appeal to Alberta Court of Appeal/Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In-Camera:The Hearing Tribunal will be considering an application to close this hearing to the public as per Section 78 of the Health Professions Act. If granted, no members of the public will be able to attend. In Progress:Hearing is underway/Outcome pending the conclusion of Tribunal deliberations. Postponed:Hearing was scheduled (not started) and is now postponed. No new date is set.
Sounds like someone political hates him
That's a lot of hearings not started!
https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/covid-protection.jpg
This is what "science" does to people's understanding of informed consent when not vetted by public knowledge.
Well the CDC and CMA have masters. You have masters to the voices you share
Quora is like Twitter. You choose the truth by public opinion rather than shadow councils sharing their paid for opinions.
Does what you've said prove he's wrong? Not so much.
You should try your opinion on Quora and see how fast your opinion survives.
Quora is publicly vetted. If you think they are wrong post there
https://www.quora.com/Is-myocarditis-permanent
The scarring is permanent. The answer to the question “is myocarditis permanent?” is “no", because the inflammation is not permanent, but that answer is sometimes given in a disingenuous fashion. The answer to the question “does myocarditis cause permanent damage?” is “yes", even though it may be to a small degree in many cases.
Justthenews is as valid as Salon or any rag out there. Why dismiss the messenger without considering the fact the CDC tried to hide issues with the shots through exclusions?
It took a year and a half to get "five excel files which likely took the CDC minutes to download and produce," ICAN said in its portion of the Nov. 4 joint status report filed with the court.
File ICAN-CDC-joint-motion-v-safe.pdf
When you file with a court it usually requires a case.
Once again, attack the messenger not the fact that these are all incidents in a court case.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/08/no-increase-myocarditis-covid-infection-unvaccinated/
Myocarditis is rarer in unjabbed vs jabbed as a fact.
The just the news article is coverage of a court case. Is the case not real?
Not sure what attacking the messenger does except to misinform the public by attempting to discredit the reporter somehow.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/08/no-increase-myocarditis-covid-infection-unvaccinated/
Two separate large studies show myocarditis from COVID is extremely rare. That's a lie that's been debunked.
As for heart issues, they were so rare that they weren't detected in the trials. They were noticed eventually at a rate of less than 2 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinations (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/194/45/E1529)
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/07/15/dr-moore-covid-vaccine-ontario-myocarditis/
Ontario's head doctor said 1 in 5000 or less will get myocarditis based on health Canada reports.
But the article i posted is refering to disclosure in court rather than hyperbole posted to websites that are in the business of making money from big pharma
The Big Short basically - indicates that the value here will disappear in the big crash that is coming 2023.
The Chinese synergies investor group created fake new money through inflated mortgages here are cashing out of Canada after artificially driving up house prices and leaving the Canadian taxpayer through the CMHC system to cover for the loss.
Looks like the foundation is crumbling
Since Health Canada relies on the CDC for justification of their policies as part of the "science" proof that CDC was covering for adverse reactions by leaving known side effects off of the official tracking mobile app used to justify children being vaccinated.
Court case with CDC refusing to release all the data.
No you're right i had my sentence formatted poorly
The grandma was riding a mobility scooter when the horse ran her down
Didn't they run over a grandma in a scooter?
It's 1981 and Trudeau senior all over again
Dark humour has no place when discussing crushing lives. They are then psychopaths and unable to use humour.
I didn't acknowledge that. You have proven that your sources are showing disingenuous artifacts from a system to discredit it.
Where is the Ombudsman report on VAERS accuracy?
Some journalist student fan fiction isn't real reporting.
And this is a great example of disinformation. No stats just personal opinion pieces by propagadists.
How many of the reports are by these so called "false reporters"?
And you are using this element of the process to discredit a legally required reporting system that can lead to people getting correct care so once again trying to "throw baby out with the bathwater" and attempting to discredit A legally required reporting system.
Discrediting a legally required reporting system using the pretext that someone has create a log in identity on the system is disinformation.
By throwing "baby out with the bathwater" you are creating a chill that could stop health professionals reporting adverse reactions.
By completing "step 1" you are implying that a report has been submitted to VAERS and accepted, but this is not true as shown by the number of steps "every" submission must got through to be registered in the system. Just having a case ID created does not create a complete report.
By spreading this lie to people you are risking health perfessionals belief and reliance on this legally required reporting system. You could be causing some people to not report their adverse condition and get the help they may desperately need.
India went with the option that would allow them to validate efficacy