Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid Vaccination for kids 8 and 11.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by pinkHouses View Post
    ^^^This is a stereotype and is absolutely untrue.
    Plenty of uneducated stupid people on both sides.
    Here is another saying: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Just saying that part of the post served no purpose and was offensive.
    Disagree. It was not offensive- actually I thought it was a rather rainbows-&-sunshine of Janus to phrase it that way.

    I would've said anti-vaxxers are stupid and frankly deserve to lose custody (i.e. decision making powers) of their children.

    Also- your point about uneducated people on both side is what now? there are stupid people everywhere?

    now- people who are vaccine hesitant- I get that. Because you're scared. And fear is not logic based, most of the time. I say treat those people with understanding.

    But as Tayken said earlier:

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Not going to the court and against the door to get your child vaccinated because the other parent is anti-vax is nonsense. Let the anti-vax parent try and get their kicks in... they will fail horribly and in the pro-vax parent's favour.

    GET YOUR CHILD VACCINATED!

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #47
      Took me 2 seconds to find 4 Ontario medical doctors that could be labelled anti-vaxxers on this:
      Rochagne Kilian, Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi and Patrick Phillips

      Can we all agree that medical doctors are educated people?
      Thank you.


      With so many of the people here having been through the muck in court I would think that I wouldn't be reading such personal and untrue insults; I can only imagine what your affidavits looked like if you wrote them yourself.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pinkHouses View Post
        Took me 2 seconds to find 4 Ontario medical doctors that could be labelled anti-vaxxers on this:
        Rochagne Kilian, Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi and Patrick Phillips

        Can we all agree that medical doctors are educated people?
        Thank you.


        With so many of the people here having been through the muck in court I would think that I wouldn't be reading such personal and untrue insults; I can only imagine what your affidavits looked like if you wrote them yourself.
        It took me 2 seconds to google the doctors you listed and figure out their licenses have been suspended or their under sanctions.

        Legitimate doctors are not opposing the vaccine.

        So to your question "Can we all agree that medical doctors are educated people"? No.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by iona6656 View Post
          Disagree. It was not offensive- actually I thought it was a rather rainbows-&-sunshine of Janus to phrase it that way.
          I thought I was being rather nice as well. The antivax position is clearly incorrect, so antivaxxers are either idiots or uneducated. I was suggesting the latter.

          I have personally convinced about half a dozen vaccine-hestitant people to get the shot. They mostly did not understand what was going on, especially with all the misinformation flying around. I was able to break down the issues and address their specific concerns. Yay!

          Antivaxxers are a different breed, they cannot be convinced, because their arguments are pure fantasy. If I say invisible unicorns visit me at night, you cannot possibly prove otherwise.

          Comment


          • #50
            You were being nice. I was wondering if you had banged your head or something.

            Fitting that there was another decision against an anti-vaxxer dad: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/do...2022bcpc9.html

            Hopefully they find that missing girl out west who was kidnapped by her dad because he didn’t want her vaccinated.

            Comment


            • #51
              A common sense ruling from Justice Pararatz on this issue.

              https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...2onsc1198.html

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by mamabear1234 View Post
                A common sense ruling from Justice Pararatz on this issue.

                https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...2onsc1198.html
                This is a major ruling. I can see it affecting many cases.

                I'm obviously disappointed, and it seems like the father argued his case poorly. Until now, you did not have to actually prove that vaccines work. This case seems to change that, for the worse. Now parents will have to actually show that vaccines work, which will drive up costs AND litigation.

                Until now, litigating against vaccines was foolish, because you were guaranteed to lose. Now it might go either way, which means that litigation is a reasonable strategy.

                Poor father, he should have had the kids vaccinated 6 months ago, the court rulings would have been solidly in his favour at that point.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The law is now unclear at the Superior level. It's time for Court of Appeal intervention.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                    The law is now unclear at the Superior level. It's time for Court of Appeal intervention.
                    I'm waiting.

                    I'm also waiting for a true battle of the experts.

                    While I kinda agree with the Pazaratz ruling ^....my concern is that it reads as if he was ruling *against* the father rather than on scientific evidence presented. I think, based on the case law I have read, that the courts will find in favour of the science- being the risk of covid outweighs the risk of the vaccine for children. My understanding is many pediatrician feel this way.

                    I also get concerned with the "I did my own research" thing. Yes, the mom in this case presented scientific articles (and they sounded peer reviewed). BUT did she present ALL scientific articles published on this issue of vaccine for children?

                    Years ago- I tried a case against a group who were against fluoride in water. Those people are kooky. BUT during the trial- there was evidence presented on scientific studies showing what happens with over fluoridation. Scary stuff. However, thankfully for me- a UofT PhD student actually did her thesis (and published it) on a comparison of all scientific studies regarding fluoridation. It aggregated the studies- and allowed her to draw the conclusion that fluoride addition is not needed and can be harmful in areas with high naturally occurring fluoride in the water. But it is and can be incredibly helpful virtually everywhere else.

                    My point is- if this goes to the Court of Appeal- I would hope we would get a comprehensive review of scientific studies to date. Someone somewhere has to be doing this research right?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Finally some sanity, why the father would press this and make unintelligent requests like "the kids will get all boosters" given what went on from mid-January to mid-february is odd he over reached. This was a good read.

                      Justice P says: it is incorrect to vilify and put labels on people just because they are opposed to vaccination or popular opinion or even the government.

                      Poor father, he should have had the kids vaccinated 6 months ago, the court rulings would have been solidly in his favour at that point.
                      6 months ago is not this year:
                      a) COVID Feb 20222 is not the COVID of 2020/21 and the vaccine is still 2020/2021.
                      b) Ontairo sent the kids back to school and are not mandating COVID reporting and will take action at 30% absenteeism. Basically they are saying your kids is getting sick.
                      c) Public health departments have stopped collecting data from the public (they turn away COVID reports)
                      d) There was no vaccine for the 10 year old and may not have been for the 12 year old and that was for good reason.
                      e) The political climate and fear has changed. Mandates are going away and there are no plans for new mandates.

                      The father should not have been so lazy as to throw away their opportunity for rebuttal, maybe they did not have one. The Justice made a really good argument of their own.

                      Now parents will have to actually show that vaccines work, which will drive up costs AND litigation.
                      They will lose.
                      Pfizer, the company that made the vaccine in question and even they say that the vaccine is not effective in preventing infection and they and all the data shows there are side effects to it.
                      Proving something is not a novel concept.

                      Good luck with a trial resolving the science because there is no data to support such an outcome for forcing the vaccination of children at this time.
                      Justice P outlined an argument in paragraphs 67, 68, 69 and 70 that pretty much crushes much of the "pro-vaccination" views that are extreme.

                      I don't know why people would be disappointed with this decision, he makes very good arguments.

                      There was hysteria and fear before; not now.
                      Some of those previous COVID rulings were absolutely stupid; the guy only being able to see his kid for 1 hour as opposed to 2hrs; the parent not being able to take their kid to a cottage after they followed all COVID protocols; probably many more.

                      If the flu vaccinations go over to mRna tech then I would expect those vaccinations to be challenged in court as well if there is science showing an increase in side effects.

                      Good luck in getting a court to determine what the science is anytime soon. It has been very up in the air for more than a year now when it comes to kids.

                      For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated etc. Justice P was very clear on that here as well.
                      Last edited by pinkHouses; 02-28-2022, 08:50 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        That decision, the style of laying out facts. Is that how an affidavit should sound/be written? What parts?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                          The law is now unclear at the Superior level. It's time for Court of Appeal intervention.
                          Is it really unclear though? I think there's been 5 cases on this in Ontario? and Pazaratz is the only one who didn't find in favour of erring on the side of caution with the vaccine.

                          Also- can we talk about him using the term "Eskimo"? :|

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pinkHouses View Post
                            Finally some sanity, why the father would press this and make unintelligent requests like "the kids will get all boosters" given what went on from mid-January to mid-february is odd he over reached. This was a good read.

                            Justice P says: it is incorrect to vilify and put labels on people just because they are opposed to vaccination or popular opinion or even the government.
                            In my opinion Pazaratz overstepped in his commentary on the father's view. I get that his rulings can be a bit kooky. But he seemed to take real issue with the dad's evidence- which, if it wasn't relevant- just say so and move on? Did he really need to give a long winded lecture on tolerance.

                            Does anyone know how many of his decisions have been appealed? [calling Tayken to thread]

                            They will lose.
                            eh. I don't think they will.

                            I don't know why people would be disappointed with this decision, he makes very good arguments.
                            it's disappointing because he goes against what's in the best interest of the kids because he didn't like the dad's attitude.



                            Good luck in getting a court to determine what the science is anytime soon. It has been very up in the air for more than a year now when it comes to kids.
                            this is exactly why people are disappointed. Judges are not scientists. So maybe they should stfu about making any determinations on science?

                            For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated etc. Justice P was very clear on that here as well.
                            I thought we established that you can be educated AND hold idiotic viewpoints?
                            See Maxime Bernier. And basically anyone affiliated with the PPP.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I would no more argue with a "pro-vaxxer" than I would an "anti-vaxxer" or try to convince them that their views are unreasonable.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by pinkHouses View Post
                                Pfizer, the company that made the vaccine in question and even they say that the vaccine is not effective in preventing infection
                                Vaccines never prevent infection. That is not the purpose of a vaccine. I will presume that your formal science education was minimal at best.

                                For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated...
                                See above. You may have some education in something, but clearly no real background in the appropriate sciences that would allow you to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

                                Kinda like how chiropractors talk about their hundreds of hours of education. They still understand science less than my grade school children.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X