YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

What an awesome idea. People who have consistently been wrong and censored the correct people are making more rules to censor more. More censorship and coercion will definitely convince people to take the shots. As someone who's fully vaccinated against polio, smallpox, chickenpox, measles etc., I still get called an anti-vaxxer. My buddies in the military who have more vaccinations than the general public get called anti-vaxxer because they don't want to take the COVID vaccine since they have already had covid infection. Amazing.

Currently, the government of Canada has misinformation on their own YouTube page and government site:

1. The Canadian government uploaded "How do I know COVID-19 vaccines are safe without long-term data?" on March 25, 2021, 4 months after vaccine was authorized under the interim order and when merely 4.45% of Canada was fully vaccinated. The government's video completely sidesteps the entirely valid question about lack of long-term safety data and stated: "Clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have been taking place since the spring of 2020 and millions of people around the world have already been vaccinated. The vast majority of side effects from vaccines are minor and occur soon after vaccination." The video obviously doesn't answer the actual question about lack of long-term safety data because it's impossible to know this in the very short period that the vaccines have been in the market. Without knowing this data, it is also impossible to give informed consent to the treatment.

One-Third of the drugs approved by the FDA and (by inference) Health Canada from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients. 71 of the 222 drugs approved were withdrawn, required a "black box" warning on side effects or warranted a safety announcement about new risks. The median follow-up period was 11.7 years and it took a median of 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light and issues were more common among psychiatric drugs, biologic drugs, drugs that were granted "accelerated approval" and drugs that were approved near the regulatory deadline for approval. Drugs ushered through an accelerated approval process were among those that had higher rates of safety interventions.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/26253...

So when the median follow-up period was 11.7 years and it took a median of 4.2 years after the drugs were approved for these safety concerns to come to light and this was more common for those given "accelerated approval", is it not a valid for people to be concerned about long-term safety tests? With such a horrible track record for drug approvals and delayed withdrawals and discoveries of side effects, coercing young, fit and healthy people with negligible risks to inject an irreversible, involuntary, non-long term safety tested, short-lasting, unaccountable and rushed vaccine without any guarantees of how many and how often boosters will be required is wildly unreasonable.

https://youtu.be/f4lJHthI0tE

2. The government also uploaded a video titled "Do I need to get the vaccine if I've already had and recovered from COVID-19?" on September 3, 2021. The video shows Dr. Marc-André Langlois, Executive Director of the Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net) and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, state that you should still receive both COVID-19 vaccine doses even if you’ve previously had a COVID-19 infection. The video completely fails to explain the rationale behind inoculating those with prior infection induced natural immunity when over 15 studies have now demonstrated that individuals with natural immunity from prior infection have longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization compared to the vaccine-induced immunity. We have had over 18 months and millions of cases to work with world wide to study natural immunity and yet, Dr. Langlois, claims that it is still unclear how long natural immunity protection from an infection lasts and unclear of the reinfection from variants. Health officials had a 1 year head start to study natural immunity from infection before the vaccine was even rolled out, and yet they are falsely claiming that they know more about the vaccine than natural immunity. This, clearly shows that the government's claims are not based on any science or logic.

https://youtu.be/wGbZc7q9Dpk

3. The government also uploaded a video titled "How long does it take for the COVID-19 vaccine to work after I receive it?" on September 3, 2021. The video again shows Dr. Marc-André Langlois, state that the second dose of the vaccine "boosts" the immune response and is essential "for longer lasting protection and better protection against the variants." This is also misleading because we know now that the fully vaccinated effectiveness declines to anywhere between just 16% to 66% in 3-6 months.

https://youtu.be/1jUh0VvG-b4

4. Even Health Canada's September 16, 2021 approval for the Pfizer vaccine misleadingly claims it prevents COVID even though they know that it is now uncontested that the vaccine does not "prevent" COVID in any meaningful way. It's just a potential severe symptom mitigator, not a prevention:

> "COMIRNATY is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019"

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-sum...

5. Health Canada approved Pfizer on September 16, 2021 using 6 month old outdated data (data cut-off dated March 13, 2021) claiming the vaccine showed a vaccine efficacy of 91.3%. Why use 6 month old data? They also said it's to "prevent coronavirus disease 2019". We know it does not "prevent" COVID. We know it's a potential severe symptom mitigator, not a prevention.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-sum...

6. Quebec’s July 25, 2021 onwards "Being vaccinated, it’s a win Contest" lottery makes misleading and false claims such as "reap the benefits of optimal long-term protection, including protection from the variants of the virus." It is uncontested that the vaccine efficacy declines in 3-6 months and this doesn’t provide "optimal long-term protection". So Quebec is clearly offering such monetary benefits under false promises.

https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/sante/documents/Pr...

Plus informed consent requires the consent to be provided without coercion and without undue inducement and unfair incentives. Yet governments are running multi-million dollar lotteries to violate informed consent.

7. Ontario government also makes false promises when mandating vaccines stating: "You can protect yourself, your loved ones and your community by getting the COVID-19 vaccine." This is similar to the Federal government's misleading claims saying "You’ll have very good protection against infection, including against most current variants of concern."

The vaccine neither prevents you from catching COVID, not spreading it and the effectiveness declines in 3-6 months. Yet governments continue to mislead people.

8. Similarly, in the US, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) changed the definition of a "vaccine" after August 26, 2021:

CDC defines Immunity as "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

On August 26, 2021, CDC defined a vaccine as: "A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.g...

However, by September 2, 2021, CDC changed the definition of a vaccine to: "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194040/https://www.cdc.g...

These 2 have very different meanings. Till August 26, vaccines were supposed to "produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease" whereas now they claim it only "stimulates the body’s immune response against diseases" - i.e. it doesn’t produce immunity, nor protects the person from the disease.

Based on these new changes, any therapy that boosts the immune system would meet the new pseudo-definitions of "vaccine" and "protect". Even a smoothie with healthy fruits and vegetables such as spinach, yoghurt and garlic would qualify as vaccines as they "stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases."

9. Even though Pfizer and Federal government states that the Pfizer vaccine is effectiveness starts "1 week after the second dose", yet their data continues to use 2 weeks for detailing the breakthrough cases.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health...

The number 1 principle of doctor-patient relationship is informed consent. All this misleading messaging by the governments makes people give "misinformed" consent. Imagine you were told a medical procedure is 95% effective at preventing you from catching HIV without any disclosures that this effectiveness declines rapidly. 3 months later, you realize that you still caught HIV, it was only around 16-66% effective and few months from now, you have an even higher chance of catching and spreading COVID. Would you be okay with this?

I have countless such examples. Those pushing for censoring misinformation are the biggest purveyor of misinformation.

...and we're still in peacetime. Wait until you see what you're not allowed to post once that changes.

The fact that they completely ignore natural immunity in the USA is enough to be concerned about their motivations.

Off topic, but as an astronomer I have to dispute your characterization of the development of heliocentric theory. Around the time of Copernicus and Galileo heliocentrism was a radical idea, but it also had a number of problems. Astronomers of the time expected that if heliocentrism was true and the Earth was moving we should observe parallax of the stars as the Earth orbits the Sun. But no such parallax was observed (and it took another three centuries before telescopes were good enough to measure this phenomenon). In fact it was more than 150 years before any direct proof of the Earth's motion was found (from a measurement of the aberration of light at the end of the 17th century).

Of course Galileo was put under house arrest and Bruno was burned at the stake, but in the case of Galileo, the reasons were more political in nature (going out of his way to insult the pope), and in the case of Bruno it was because of his heretical theological ideas (like the idea that the Trinity doesn't exist) rather than his scientific ideas. That doesn't excuse the Church's actions, but they really just weren't all that interested in the science.

Monopolies like Youtube should be prevented from censoring content.