Dr. Davidson struggling to answer whether 'informed consent' applies in Canada.
Davidson: "Historically it would have applied, before the pandemic."
4/
The commissioner asks Dr. Davidson about the difference risks of covid outcome based on age.
Davidson: "If you're a healthy child, you're risk of a bad outcome from covid approaches zero. If you're 80 you're at 1000x risk."
5/
He then gets posed a question about his view on widespread lockdowns.
Davidson: "It was my first major crisis moment.
6/
Dr. Davidson touches on an often ignored point, which is the hyperfocus on this single virus.
Davidson: "This one virus, which was one more way among a thousand other ways that we could die in life, was the only thing that Public Health was concerned with."
Dr. Davidson then talks about his hesitation over the speed at which the vaccines were released under Operation Warp Speed.
Davidson: "By definition, you don't have the long term data. Especially in terms of safety."
11/
Dr. Davidson continues on, conceding that he simply believed Public Health's endorsement of the vaccines as being 'safe & effective'.
Davidson: "I was naïve. I should have questioned things more. But I hoped that the powers that be knew what they were doing."
12/
Dr. Davidson shares his view on labeling the vaccines as 'safe & effective'.
Davidson: "I never just sit down with a patient and say 'this is safe & effective. Do it'. That's never how we talk about things."
13/
After having criticized the labeling of the vaccines as 'safe & effective', the commissioner asks Dr. Davidson how he felt about the mandates themselves.
Davidson: "It's one thing to heavily promote a vaccine. To then force people to take it is a whole new level."
14/
Dr. Davidson takes a moment to stress that he does not deny the severity of the virus.
Davidson: "It was serious. I'm not a covid denier."
15/
He then lays out the only situation where a mandate would be justified.
Davidson: "It would have to be a pathogen that is so serious, and the intervention is so safe & so effective that you can contravene informed consent."
16/
He then says that information was coming out that the vaccine was not effective, which undermined support for a mandate.
Davidson: "The whole argument for forcing vaccination on someone is null and void."
17/
The commissioner then asks Dr. Davidson about adverse effects.
Davidson: "It's not adverse effects DUE To vaccination, but FOLLOWING vaccination, because it's extremely difficult to prove."
18/
Continuing on, Dr. Davidson describes how there was a lack of reporting of adverse events.
Davidson: "We should have been encouraging people to report adverse events happening after."
19/
Dr. Davidson does proceed to answer the original question, as to whether he observed any adverse events.
Davidson: "I certainly had first hand experience of life threatening and minor events, shortly after vaccination."
20/
Dr. Davidson describes the cumbersome adverse events reporting system.
Davidson: "It took me 45 minutes to submit the report."
21/
The commissioner then asks a pointed question.
Commissioner: "The way that reporting system was set up, could it inhibit the reporting of adverse events?"
Davidson: "Yes".
22/
Dr. Davidson continues to criticize the Public Health Agency for undermining adverse events reporting.
Davidson: "We were relentlessly bombarded with how safe & effective the vaccines were. Safe & effective 1000x a day."
Dr. Davidson further criticizes Public Health for their thinly veiled threats.
Davidson: "We were informed by the College that if we publicly voiced anything other than support of Public Health's statements, we would be disciplined."
24/
Finally, Dr. Davidson wraps the issue of adverse events reporting together.
Davidson: "Not only is reporting cumbersome, the overall messaging was not 'be sure to look out for these adverse events'."
The commissioner asks another pointed question regarding adverse events reports.
Commissioner: "Is it your opinion that the messaging that you just described had a dissuasive effect on the reporting."
Davidson: "I don't know how it couldn't have".
26/
The commissioner asks another pointed question, this time about vaccine mandates.
Commissioner: "Is it your opinion that the implementation of vaccine mandates was a necessary measure?"
Davidson: "The vaccine mandates were an unnecessary measure".
27/
The commissioner asks one final pointed question.
Commissioner: "Is it your opinion that the implementation of vaccine mandates was a reasonable public safety measure."
Davidson: "No, they were not a reasonable public safety measure".
Crowd: Applause
28/
Dr. Davidson's response when asked of others leaving Nova Scotia.
Davidson: "Some of these are people that were fired for not getting vaccinated, Even now, two years later, they can't work as a health care worker unless they got those two vaccines, from two years ago."
29/
Dr. Davidson goes back and directly answers the question.
Davidson: "I know of dozens of doctors and nurses who aren't working. A few got vaccinated but, just like me, got sick of things and are in the process of moving away."
30/
Dr Davidson's sarcastically responds when the Commissioner said 'one would have thought there would have been an additional review process'.
Davidson: "One would have thought!".
31/
Dr. Davidson delivers a beautiful explanation for how everything went to hell.
Davidson: "A new Public Health elite emerged and they became obsessed with this virus. Then it became political. Then it became tribal."
@TheRealTedKuntz, President of @VaccineChoiceCA, drops its case against the government and they explain why in plain English (b/c our courts are broken).
What @TheRealTedKuntz is trying to say here is that the judges refused to listen to anything going against the main stream media narrative (ie. taking judicial notice of the mainstream story).
3/
Here, @TheRealTedKuntz is saying that the judges believed whatever the government said, and refused to believe they could be wrong.
First off, during the protests in Ottawa, there was an attempt to get the protestors under charges blocking critical infrastructure, like highways, which was one step below terrorism.
3/
After 4 years of covid where appointed judges stripped us of what we thought were God given rights, I don't want to give them any more power.
Let's go over the BC Supreme Court decision concerning the issue of the reasonableness of Bonnie Henry's October 5, 2023 health orders and whether it was reasonable for her to maintain that we are still in a state of emergency for covid 19 as of that date.
2/
As per usual, the title page is completely incomprehensible.
3/
Looks like the suit was brought by terminated healthcare workers, or what we generally just refer to as 'terminated nurses'.
The Office of Federal Housing Advocate (FHA) is talking about nationalization of housing, which is what the @bcndp are pushing for here in BC as well, but they are hiding behind the phrase 'low income housing'.
3/
The government destroys the economy, causing the rich to invest in land as a safe hedge, which drives up the cost of housing, which pisses off the poor, so the government regulates the rich until they, too, are poor. It's the socialism spiral.
There's a lot of buzz around this @rcmpgrcpolice document that is warning about civil unrest in Canada in the next 5 years, so let's go straight to the source.
I swore I would stop wasting my time analyzing the @liberal_party tyrannical bills, but @viraniarif's Bill C-63 is so disturbing that I couldn't resist.
I'm going to assume that the first two goals of this Act empower the government to go after its political opponents, and the third part turns social media companies into the surveillance arm of the state
3/
As a people, we look back and ask what our politicians were thinking when they introduced bad bills, like the 1917 War Income Tax Act. But here we see the growth of government power in real time. We ought to feel shame for what we are unleashing on future generations.