4 ms·
The linked article does not disprove the quoted claim, in fact it confirms it. The facts in that very article confirm that ice cream was employed as an incenti
by Huwyt_Nashi056 5y ago
The linked article does not disprove the quoted claim, in fact it confirms it.
The facts in that very article confirm that ice cream was employed as an incentive, that no parental consent is required for vaccination regardless of age in that jurisdiction [0] and that children were indeed eligible (and I'm sure the video confirms, present) for the vaccination [1].
[0] "Under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination"
[1] "health officials approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for ages 12-15"
- dragonwriter 5y agoAs you note, the article confirms peripheral elements of the claim. What the articld judges false is the central, lurid claim that “Video shows parents being blocked by police...”. What it shows is a anti-vax protestors being blocked by police. Its true that it confirms the “...as children were given the COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for ice cream without parental permission.” But without the first part (and the implication that comes with them together that it was not merely without parental consent but contrary to the expressed wishes of parents who were being forcibly kept from removing their children), the second part is...a lot less significant.