The judges are using judicial notice for the court cases that have come up so that they aren't looking at credible evidence that there are concerns regarding the covid vaccinations or even masking (there has been an analysis that now shows the CDC did not have good evidence to say that masks were effective for example). Wouldn't someone's boss use the same thing to reject a public servant's issues saying it's already been determined that it's safe and effective?

By the way, this is the same line that they are using to say boosters are needed this fall. One of the doctor's in the CBC article even said the same things we know aren't true - "you will be less likely to get ill and less likely to die if you choose to get vaccinated." There's a study that shows the more shots people got the more they became ill with covid-19. The article also says that NACI says modelling predicts fall vaccination could "prevent thousands of hospitalizations and deaths across the country". The article says high risk people need it like pregnant women. There's no results from the trial that Pfizer started and abruptly stopped, so how can we say it's safe?

Would a public servants boss not point to this information to disregard your concerns if they differ?

Expand full comment