4 ms·

Canadian citizens have freedom of movement in our constitution, it should not be contingent on getting an invasive medical procedure using a product from a fore

Canadian citizens have freedom of movement in our constitution, it should not be contingent on getting an invasive medical procedure using a product from a foreign profit seeking pharmaceutical corporation.

mthoms 5y ago
The vast majority of Canadians would disagree with the characterization of simply getting a shot in the arm as an "invasive medical procedure". Please, stop the over dramatization. It's embarrassing. Children, babies and pets get needles all the time. It's literally a fact of modern life. You know what isn't a fact of modern life? Polio.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  And guess what the blindingly obvious difference is for those children and babies that get their different vaccines? That it's fucking voluntary. It's a decision made by their parents or guardians based on their own health and risk criteria, with no authoritarian travel restrictions based on ambiguous science and apparent corporate cronyism thrown in on top of the situation. This is very different from what's being enforced now in Canada (and a number of other countries) for the COVID vaccines. That the government is blatantly doing this "for your own good" is revolting but unsurprising. That so many people who used to be proud of their country being a relatively free place applauding it is simply grotesque. If the excessive hysteria comes from anywhere, it's from regulatory bodies, politicians and supportive members of the public who are using this pandemic as an excuse for measures that most people would have flatly rejected in other circumstances. 99.4% of the population recovers from Covid normally, young people are barely touched by it compared to the mortality rates for so many other things, and despite the really vulnerable segments of the population being largely protected at this point, and having easy access to said protection, now no matter your age above 12, you're essentially forced to comply with something that no government should have a business of imposing like this. Piss off.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Nothing you just said changes the fact that no-one, not-ever, considers a needle an "invasive medical procedure". It's silly. Good rant though. Complete with childish swearing even!
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      The literal medical definition of invasive: ‘involving puncture or incision of the skin or insertion of an instrument or injection of foreign material into the body’ It’s not a subjective term.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        No one, outside your anti-vax group would describe an everyday needle as an "invasive medical procedure". But go ahead and keep using it for oh-so-dramatic effect. The rest of us will just keep rolling our eyes and laughing at you whining babies. Edit: Here's the entire legal definition - Invasive procedure means a procedure involving puncture or incision of the skin or insertion of an instrument or foreign material into the body including, but not limited to, percutaneous aspirations, biopsies, cardiac and vascular catheterizations, endoscopies, angioplasties, and implantations. Excluded are venipuncture and intravenous therapy. You see that last sentence? Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/invasive-procedure https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/invasive-procedure
        helloworld11 5y ago
        If anyone is speaking childishly, it's you, with smug condescension thrown right in. As should be obvious, an injection's level of invasiveness is dependent on context, and what is being injected. A needle into the body isn't just a silly little needle if it contains something that can kill or harm. I doubt you'd argue against it being invasive if some doctor in a psychiatric hospital where you were placed against your will decided to inject you with heavy doses of sedatives against your will as well, and against your insistence that you don't clinically need them. I'm not anti-vax or against the covid vaccines. I indeed believe they've done enormous good so far, but your arguments are absurdly absolutist in this context. People certainly deserve a fundamental right to choose if they're injected with certain medicines or not, and to impose injections of only recently created vaccines is certainly invasive under many circumstances, especially when it involves making such choices for minors despite their parents' wishes or even certain clinical recommendations..

mthoms 5y ago

The vast majority of Canadians would disagree with the characterization of simply getting a shot in the arm as an "invasive medical procedure". Please, stop the over dramatization. It's embarrassing. Children, babies and pets get needles all the time. It's literally a fact of modern life. You know what isn't a fact of modern life? Polio.

helloworld11 5y ago
And guess what the blindingly obvious difference is for those children and babies that get their different vaccines? That it's fucking voluntary. It's a decision made by their parents or guardians based on their own health and risk criteria, with no authoritarian travel restrictions based on ambiguous science and apparent corporate cronyism thrown in on top of the situation. This is very different from what's being enforced now in Canada (and a number of other countries) for the COVID vaccines. That the government is blatantly doing this "for your own good" is revolting but unsurprising. That so many people who used to be proud of their country being a relatively free place applauding it is simply grotesque. If the excessive hysteria comes from anywhere, it's from regulatory bodies, politicians and supportive members of the public who are using this pandemic as an excuse for measures that most people would have flatly rejected in other circumstances. 99.4% of the population recovers from Covid normally, young people are barely touched by it compared to the mortality rates for so many other things, and despite the really vulnerable segments of the population being largely protected at this point, and having easy access to said protection, now no matter your age above 12, you're essentially forced to comply with something that no government should have a business of imposing like this. Piss off.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Nothing you just said changes the fact that no-one, not-ever, considers a needle an "invasive medical procedure". It's silly. Good rant though. Complete with childish swearing even!
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    The literal medical definition of invasive: ‘involving puncture or incision of the skin or insertion of an instrument or injection of foreign material into the body’ It’s not a subjective term.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      No one, outside your anti-vax group would describe an everyday needle as an "invasive medical procedure". But go ahead and keep using it for oh-so-dramatic effect. The rest of us will just keep rolling our eyes and laughing at you whining babies. Edit: Here's the entire legal definition - Invasive procedure means a procedure involving puncture or incision of the skin or insertion of an instrument or foreign material into the body including, but not limited to, percutaneous aspirations, biopsies, cardiac and vascular catheterizations, endoscopies, angioplasties, and implantations. Excluded are venipuncture and intravenous therapy. You see that last sentence? Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/invasive-procedure https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/invasive-procedure
      - helloworld11 5y ago
        If anyone is speaking childishly, it's you, with smug condescension thrown right in. As should be obvious, an injection's level of invasiveness is dependent on context, and what is being injected. A needle into the body isn't just a silly little needle if it contains something that can kill or harm. I doubt you'd argue against it being invasive if some doctor in a psychiatric hospital where you were placed against your will decided to inject you with heavy doses of sedatives against your will as well, and against your insistence that you don't clinically need them. I'm not anti-vax or against the covid vaccines. I indeed believe they've done enormous good so far, but your arguments are absurdly absolutist in this context. People certainly deserve a fundamental right to choose if they're injected with certain medicines or not, and to impose injections of only recently created vaccines is certainly invasive under many circumstances, especially when it involves making such choices for minors despite their parents' wishes or even certain clinical recommendations..