Only one year ago in Canada, unvaccinated were treated as lepers by ‘experts’ as holidays approached

Special to, October 24, 2022

Corporate WATCH

Commentary by Joe Schaeffer

Based on what we now know about coronavirus vaccines and transmission of the virus, is it impolite to call this a lie?

Thanksgiving advice 2021, from the lunatic asylum known as Justin Trudeau’s Canada: Unvaxxed? No turkey for you:

“The vaccines are really effective, but they’re most effective when you’re surrounded by vaccinated people,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, assistant dean at McMaster University’s department of biochemistry and biomedical sciences.

“If you introduce an unvaccinated person who might be infected into that group, then everyone’s risk of a breakthrough infection increases.”

Dr. Matthew Miller

Far from suffering any negative consequences from this outrageous statement, which was literally a call for rigid social isolation of the unjabbed, Miller is still being regularly trotted out by the big-box Canadian media today.

The nation’s flagship Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Oct. 7 featured him in an article touting a “science-backed approach to timing your next dose” of the jab. And Miller was still playing the same social-pressure tune. Only this time he was using the carrot instead of the stick:

There’s also the hassle of missing work or school; the potential of passing the virus onto vulnerable family members; and the possibility of acquiring chronic symptoms, whether it’s a long-lasting cough, a loss of smell or taste, or rare-but-debilitating health issues from more serious forms of long COVID. Up-to-date vaccinations are a key tool to try and prevent those outcomes.

That means there’s good reason to time your vaccination around higher-risk events, said Miller, since you’ll likely have more protection against infection for several months after getting a shot.

“Upcoming travel or a big indoor wedding as we move into the colder months of the year is a reason to accelerate the timing for which you might have been vaccinated — but probably not a reason to delay it,” he said, since that could leave you vulnerable to infection in the interim if it’s been six months or more since your last exposure.

Oh, by the way, here’s Miller’s McMaster University being given more than $12 million in one grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in November 2019. Surely that doesn’t affect the good doctor’s stance one bit.

The university received more than $6 million from Gates in 2015 and another $1.9 million in 2018.

As with Saturday’s bird, there’s a lot more grotesque falsehood left to pick over from that Thanksgiving article:

Having that awkward conversation with your unvaccinated relative or friend is actually the most ethical thing you can do, according to bioethicist Vardit Ravitsky, who teaches at Université de Montréal and Harvard’s medical school.

“It’s absolutely reasonable, beyond reasonable. I think it’s totally ethical,” Ravitsky said. “I think the people who should worry about the ethical aspects of their decisions are those who choose not to be vaccinated.”

At this point, she said, those who are able to be vaccinated but choose not to do so aren’t just doing the equivalent of driving without a seatbelt — they’re driving drunk.

“Not being vaccinated is driving drunk. You are actually risking others,” Ravitsky said.

“And so I think that even in this very, very sensitive context of families and friends, a part of our ethical responsibility right now is still to educate, to advocate for vaccination and to try and convince our relatives and friends to do the right thing.”

Ravitsky is crowned with that magical word in the 2022 medical profession: bioethicist.

She’s a real peach. This is her in January:

Ravitsky, who is an internationally respected authority in bioethics, said that it was necessary to restrict access to more than just “non-essential” businesses like liquor stores and cannabis stores. The government, she says, must go “all the way.”

“I would say if you need access to food, and access to medication. Grocery stores, supermarkets, pharmacies. Everything else that is not food and medication that you need for your health, at this point, becomes in a way, a luxury for you because you made your choice not to get the vaccine,” said Ravitsky.

“And we cannot allow you to circulate freely and increase the burden on the health-care system,” added Ravitsky, who chairs the COVID-19 Impact Committee of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and leads a dozen Canadian scholars who provide Canadian lawmakers with policy advice.

Ravitsky sure seems to be telling an untruth in this tweet. Second shot only? You’re headed for intensive care:

Remaining north of the border leads us to Dr. David Fisman. Is deliberate distortion too harsh a descriptor? Because this definitely seems to be a howling example of just that:

Lead author David Fisman, an epidemiologist and professor at the [Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto], said [his research team] found that vaccination status and the way that these groups mix interact in important ways.

“In particular, when you have a lot of mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, the unvaccinated people actually get protected by the vaccinated people, who act as a buffer – but that comes at a cost to the vaccinated,” said Dr. Fisman, who co-authored the study with PhD student Afia Amoako and infectious-disease epidemiologist and mathematical modeler Ashleigh Tuite.

The referenced report, which came out in April, reads more like a political diatribe than anything that can remotely be called “science”:

However, antivaccine sentiment, fueled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines in many countries, with adverse health and economic consequences. Although the decision not to receive vaccination is often framed in terms of the rights of individuals to opt out, such arguments neglect the potential harms to the wider community that derive from poor vaccine uptake.

Imaginary buffers to transmission are at the heart of this loaded thesis:

Vaccinated people were, as expected, at markedly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the epidemic; however, when random mixing with unvaccinated people occurred, they decreased attack rates in the unvaccinated people, by serving as a buffer to transmission. As populations became more separate with progressively increasing like-with-like mixing, final epidemic sizes declined in vaccinated people, but rose in unvaccinated people because of the loss of buffering via interaction with vaccinated people. Many opponents of vaccine mandates have framed vaccine adoption as a matter of individual choice. However, we found that the choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated.

And, wait for it… there’s the outrageously inappropriate “disclaimer” footnoted at the end:

David Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines, and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario.

The scandal goes beyond the name Pfizer. The doctor was paid by a teachers’ union to oppose re-opening schools during the height of the pandemic hysteria:

In the document, Fisman claims the fall reopening plan “will cause illness and deaths” in the community and presents smaller class sizes as one of the key mitigation measures required. Fisman’s labor board submission does not mention potential harms to kids from keeping schools closed.

The call for smaller class sizes has been a key focus of union grievances, both during the pandemic and in the years prior to it.

There have so far been zero deaths of school-aged children caused by COVID-19 in Ontario and Dr. David Williams, the province’s chief medical officer, has said when it comes to in-classroom transmission throughout the province, there has been “hardly any at all.”

An outraged parent said it well:

The news didn’t sit well with one parent activist.

“It’s inexcusable that a scientist – and a medical doctor – who is in a position to influence choices that have profound negative impacts on the well-being and mental health of children, accepted money from the ETFO to argue their agenda,” said Lia De Pauw, an organizer of Opening Schools and Daycares Safely Support Group.

“I think Dr. Fisman should be removed from the science advisory table immediately.”

In last week’s Corporate Watch we detailed how money was the key motivator behind the wholesale abandonment of medical ethics by certain doctors in the immediate aftermath of abortion being legalized throughout the United States in the 1970s. The same pattern of gross distortion, wild exaggeration and bullying behavior that marked the abortionist of 50 years ago is evident today among the medical professionals who recklessly pushed the coronavirus vaccine hysteria.

Action . . . . Intelligence . . . . Publish