"It's 'high time' that authorities revise definition of 'fully vaccinated'; experts"
I was absent a hot poker to direct into my eye this morning, so I thought I’d exercise the next best approach to self-harm and read a CTV article advocating for further COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The author of this article, Jennifer Ferreira, interviewed two “COVID-19 vaccine experts”, who both support the Government of Canada mandating a third COVID-19 jab in order to qualify as fully vaccinated – even though, of course, the promise was always that two jabs would return everyone to normal (just like “two weeks to flatten the curve” - *snort*). I could go into the issues with these experts’ statements regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; I could also analyze the problematic implementation of a mandatory “vaccine” program that has actually resulted in a higher number of cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, year-over-year, with the triple and quadruple jabbed disproportionately being represented in hospitals. However, let’s just focus on the objectivity and qualifications of your “experts” for this email, shall we?
Dr. Colin Furness, an “expert in infectious disease epidemiology from the University of Toronto” is quoted as saying that “[h]ypothetically, if we had a vaccine that prevented long COVID, hospitalization and death, but didn’t stop anybody from getting infected”, that treatment would be “wildly successful”. Dr. Furness has the grace to admit that “[t]here’s no question we don’t have that”, but then goes on to state that three doses of the vaccine should be required, notwithstanding the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is fleeting. A quick Google search of Dr. Furness reveals that he holds a “status cross-appointment to the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (DLSPH)”. As your journalists should know, DLSPH is funded by vaccine manufacturers, the World Health Organization, GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance (also funded by Pfizer Inc., Moderna, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, WHO, Unicef, the World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, amongst others. I know it’s a big ask, but perhaps your agency could refrain from quoting “experts” whose salaries are dependent on selling the product they are schilling? Or, at the very least, perhaps you could publish all conflicts of interest for your more credulous readers?
Dr. Nazeem Muhajarine is the other “expert” cited by Ms. Ferreira. I hopped over to Pubmed.gov and read Dr. Muhajarine’s article on “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal” and note that this paper states that the best predictor of receiving a vaccine is one’s perceived threat to the community, and therefore, “[m]essages that emphasize the risk faced by individuals who are not vaccinated may help to persuade some of those who are unsure, even in the context of declining overall case numbers”. So weird that Dr. Muhajarine is quoted in your article as stating that a third dose of the vaccine “will also help to further protect populations from new variants or sub-variants that may surface in the future”. Dr. Muhajarine is cited by the National Post in April, 2022 as stating that “unlike other variants Omicron is much better at working around immunity that’s induced either by vaccines or previous infections”; in other words, the third jab won’t work any better than the first two, but let’s coerce people into taking it anyway.
I didn’t bother digging too deeply to determine whether Dr. Muhajarine has any conflicts of interest in recommending that a third jab be mandated, but I do note that he seems to be trotted out on a regular basis as an “expert” witness advocating eternal masking, jabbing and lockdowns which of course begs the question of who is funding his rather extreme opinions; I’m assuming no one at CTV has any curiosity about said funding. I would hope that we could all agree that, since neither Dr. Furness nor Dr. Muhajarine appear to understand the implications of a vaccine mandate to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor the ethical concerns regarding mandating an experimental treatment, neither doctor should be cited for policy recommendations. And, given their propensity to disseminate misinformation re: the longevity and efficacy of the third jab (and the article’s reliance on relative risk reduction, as opposed to the less fear-inducing absolute risk reduction test), it is clear they should not be cited for scientific recommendations, either.
CTV’s job is to provide objective articles, with well-researched and documented statements from non-biased experts. Sorry – that was my attempt at humour! We all know that your real purpose is to act as Canada’s very own version of Pravda as you spew propaganda to the masses. Duly noted!
You should all feel very proud for your role in turning this country into a communist dystopia, it has not gone unnoticed.