"B.C. Hardening Vax Stance"
Updated: Nov 14, 2022
Sent: October 14, 2021 11:18 AM To: news@castanet.net Cc: mayorandcouncil <mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca> Subject: "B.C. Hardening Vax Stance"
Dear Sir or Madam,
I read with alarm the very one-sided, propagandist article that you published online this morning and want to address my concerns regarding Castanet’s ever-increasing inclination to act as Bonnie Henry’s personal Pravda, as opposed to an objective media reporting service.
As we are all aware, Castanet’s affiliates recently received one million dollars ($1,000,000) from the Liberal Party. I would encourage Castanet to advertise this fact at the top of each story promoting the current government’s communist agenda.
Labeling healthy, asymptomatic people as “potentially lethal” may be the most ridiculous thing I have read in the past week, so kudos to your author for his or her hyperbole. As Castanet is well aware, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can share similar viral loads, with the only difference being that vaccinated people are purported to have less symptoms of having COVID-19. Therefore, if anyone is “potentially lethal”, it would be the vaccinated. Assuming that people are diseased until proven healthy is akin to assuming that everyone walking around is a rapist or a murderer – although, in the dystopian society you are trying to create, these deviants have more legal rights than those who claim bodily autonomy.
Similarly, Castanet’s inability (refusal?) to define double vaccinated, single vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in any of its articles is disingenuous. As we are all aware, most COVID-19 vaccine side effects happen in the first few days after one receives a vaccine. Assuming Castanet is following Dr. Henry’s guidelines, these people are defined as “unvaccinated”, and therefore any adverse effects they have, or effects that mimic COVID-19, are attributed to their status as an unvaccinated person. We also know that one is no longer “fully” vaccinated approximately 120 days post- second dose, and Castanet has failed to address this point in any of its articles.
I understand that likely none of your journalists is a doctor. However, surely someone within your business operation understands that when the government first promises that society will reach herd immunity at 75%, and then changes that goalpost to 90%, there is more than one interpretation for this change in directives. One, as you have correctly noted, is that the government was initially incorrect, but is now correct in thinking that herd immunity will be achieved shortly. The other, as your journalists should be questioning, is whether achieving herd immunity is even possible for A VIRUS FOR WHICH THERE ARE ANIMAL RESERVOIRS. (Hint: no, the majority of leading virologists agree that it is impossible to eradicate any Coronavirus because of the fact that it is both found in animals and is constantly mutating, likely at an even faster rate due to the warpspeed rollout of these vaccines.)
“Cajoling”? “Enthusiastic urgings”? “Constant reassurance to ease any fears”? As your journalists should know, studies have shown that the most likely person not to receive a vaccine is someone with a Ph.D. Perhaps you can be slightly less patronizing to people who have likely done a lot more (unbiased) research than anyone in your organization. Perhaps also, you should perform some research on the Nuremberg Code and the Canadian Constitution, both of which prohibit coerced vaccinations for any segment of society. Informed consent is paramount to one’s acceptance of any medical treatment, and inferring that people who do not want to accept this vaccine are cowardly or bad citizens is grotesque. I note also that Castanet appears to have made a career out of failing to report on vaccine injuries that have been caused by these shot. Last week I was made aware of at least three patients at Vernon Jubilee Hospital who were suffering severe side effects from these vaccines – if only the Okanagan had an unbiased media source to report this.
As BC’s very own Pravda, you are to be commended on threatening people that they will lose their jobs if they refuse to take this treatment, without even considering the possibility that perhaps – just perhaps – extorting people to take a treatment for a disease that has a 99.97% recovery rate (and whose average victim is aged 86) is unethical.
“None of the provincial leaders – at least publicly – have criticized the holdouts to any degree.” Interesting statement, for a news source that constantly reports on how Mr. Horgan, Dr. Henry and Mr. Dix have no “patience” for the unvaccinated, and how this demographic is somehow responsible for creating a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” – notwithstanding that according to vaccination rates, this is statistically impossible. Unless, of course, the vaccines don’t work.
“People make bad decisions about their health all the time and no one criticizes them. When the consequences for others are so serious, and so fantastically expensive, it looks like it’s getting harder to resist that temptation.” Well, lucky for me I was playing Castanet Bingo today, and “inciting hatred and vilifying healthy people” was on my card. I need you to really, really think for a second. Does it seem reasonable that a provincial healthcare system meant for 5,000,000 people and worth over $22B annually should be paralyzed by less than 500 people “with” COVID-19 being in hospital currently? If the government cared about our health, would it close the gyms while keeping the cannabis stores open? Would it allow cigarettes to be sold in every corner store when the health costs associated with side effects is much more economically crippling to our society than the handful of hospitalized COVID-19 patients? If the government cared about its citizens, would it have deferred life-saving cancer screening procedures for over a year so that many, many people will face a lethal stage 4 diagnosis without even knowing they are sick or having a chance to prevent their death? If the government cared about its citizens, would it ever have churned the levels of panic we have seen over the past 20 months or enacted lockdowns that are known to cause depression and increase suicides, child abuse and opioid addiction? Think back to last March, when even one death was just too much – apparently that rule still only applies to COVID-19 patients, and not to people who have died from the vaccine (almost 200, according to the Government of Canada’s own under-reported records) or directly as a result of lockdowns.
I would encourage you to re-read this article critically, and use your God-given analytical skills. If 32% of new cases, and 26% of hospitalized patients, are double vaccinated people, does this mean that the vaccines work? Or perhaps – and I’m just spitballing here – maybe just perhaps, these experimental and rushed genetic treatments don’t work as advertised and the “hesitant” (aka “cautious”) are actually just utilizing their self-preservation skills. Speaking of which, has any journalist on Castanet’s staff reported on the fact that the following terms have been revised by the CDC and Merriam Webster specifically to allow for all of the current rhetoric being spewed: “vaccine”, “pandemic”, “anti-vaxxer”, “herd immunity”.
It appears that, in addition to its commitment to one-sided journalism, Castanet is morally bankrupt in its reporting. I’d like to take this time to remind you that the last time the Nuremberg Code was invoked, journalists were placed on the docket. Castanet’s inability to report objectively is unfortunately just more evidence of our current government’s hatred of democracy and its citizenry. I would encourage all of your workers to think about the kind of world you are creating for our children: a world in which one may not question “the science” without being threatened with losing one’s livelihood, a world in which everyone is forced to mask and socially distance, notwithstanding the plethora of studies that show they are ineffective (except for teaching compliance and submission), a world in which one cannot exercise autonomy over one’s body and make medical decisions based on one’s own comfort level, without being accused of being selfish and being excluded from society.
I’m happy to sit down with any of your journalists to offer my perspective on this matter as I understand it’s a real problem for Castanet finding anyone to speak to them on this issue. I’ll try to wipe the drool off of my chin and make sure I’m looking less slack-jawed and yokelly than I usually do.
Yours in democracy, autonomy and the innate belief that the truth shall set us free.