It's not good getting beat when football isn't the game.

Canada is a beautful place but man is it a retarded nation as a whole.

Thanks for letting us know how you feel about Alabamians and their lifestyle.

 
But Canada is about to make mega dollars off medi-tourism in September-November 2026. People are already booking and scheduling their families' flu shots for the 2026-2027 flu season. For some reason, people question RFK Jr's version. I'm planning this vacation for my family AS WE SPEAK. I'm booking and paying for it. I hope that we'll be allowed into the country. Who knows what the rules will be in September 2026? That's the scary part!

Southern states like Alabama are the likely punching bags for the left and you know that.  Never been there myself but you being offended the article is noted but laughable.  icky is rubbing off on you.

 
But being you are booking AND paying must mean it's true, lol.  There will be an ample supply of flu shots next season and just because the same folks that were vilifying others who didn't want the clotshot are the ones saying they won't trust RFK's CDC's shots next year is about as surprising as seeing cats on their FB pages.   As long as they're not aware of what you do, you'll be fine to cross back and forth as you choose.  With facial recognition and AI, it could be problematic I suppose.  I doubt they're preparing for an onslaught of USA medi-tourists though but medical tourism is a big topic in canada but not like you seem to think.

 
This is a condensed conversation with Grok...

 
What measures has the Canadian government taken to discourage its citizens from traveling abroad for medical treatment, medical tourism?

 
The Canadian government doesn't outright ban or heavily restrict outbound medical tourism—it's still legal and growing, with over one hundred five thousand people estimated to have gone abroad for non-emergency care just last year, mostly due to long wait times at home.
Instead, they focus on discouraging it through warnings and practical hurdles. The official Travel.gc.ca site—updated as recently as twenty twenty-four—lays out big risks: higher chances of complications, infections like drug-resistant bugs, counterfeit meds, or even unsafe organ transplants. They stress that provincial health plans usually won't cover complications from planned foreign procedures, and you could end up paying way more if things go wrong—like needing emergency evacuation or follow-up back home.
They push you to talk to a Canadian doctor first, research facilities hard, get solid insurance, and basically treat it like a gamble. It's not "don't go," but "think twice—it's riskier than staying here." Some groups like nurses push for a full ban, but nothing's passed federally.
Overall, the vibe is caution over prohibition—fix the domestic delays, and fewer folks would need to jet off for surgery.

 
Lagniappe...not to try and take away your spike of the football here but being you brought up medical tourism, ask the google machine which country has the highest per capita "medi-tourists".   Also, given canada and the chicoms have started dating, there's a good chance that vaccine your gonna pump into your family's veins will be made in china.  Another hint, be careful where you buy your token bottle of maple syrup.  Lots of knockoffs up there and even the good stuff doesn't have a very good shelf life.  Use it in the first month it can turn depending on how they processed it.  

Bey,  

 
The flu shot is planned in December of the year before by the World Health Organization. The US hasn't even started making one for our country. Actually RFK Genius said that we weren't allowed to make any more mRNA vaccines. Moderna's stock plummeted and now they're walking it back.  

 
The rest of what you said doesn't apply to me. I'm not Canadian traveling out of the country.  

 
Again, I ONLY post about what I know about. You make your health decisions and I'll make mine.  

 
Love,
Katie

But RFK Jr cuts corners to support a questionable, possibly unethical, Hep B vaccine trial.  
.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/new-documents-reveal-a-controversial-vaccine-study-s-unusual-path-to-cdc-approval/ar-AA1WLXTF
New documents reveal a controversial vaccine study's unusual path to CDC approval [Feb 19, 2026]
.
"In early December, two political appointees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began an unusual quest: to find a division within the sprawling agency that could process a grant proposal from a Danish research duo long admired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
.
"The grant request, marked as unsolicited, proposed a randomized controlled trial in the impoverished West African nation of Guinea-Bissau. The research would examine  whether a birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine - proven safe over decades - had potentially negative effects, such as skin ailments or neurodevelopmental disorders.  

"Inside the CDC, according to seven current and former employees, almost everything about the proposal and its pathway through the agency set off alarm bells and sparked fears of inadequate human research protections.

"The proposal had come without standard scientific review or typical competitive bidding. It planned to provide only half of the more than 14,000 enrolled infants with a highly protective birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, in a nation where hepatitis B plagues one in five adults, leading to high transmission rates from mothers to infants. And, CDC sources say, it came with intense pressure for approval from the director's office. "None of our scientists would touch this with a 10-foot pole," a CDC employee tells Rolling Stone.   The grant request was so radioactive, one scientist even refused to have it sent to their inbox.

New documents obtained by Rolling Stone reveal that the proposal was not vetted by, or homed within, a scientific center at the CDC. Instead, these documents show, it was routed straight from the director's office to grant management officials who approved it, a process that took only 10 days. An ordinary grant review process can take upward of a year.

Almost immediately after the $1.6 million grant was posted in the federal register on Dec. 18, scientists around the world denounced the study as unethical. Though U.S. health officials contended publicly that the study was proceeding, the Guinea-Bissau health secretary announced on Jan. 22 that it  would be halted while officials assessed the ethics of continuing.

On Thursday, in response to questions about irregularities with the Guinea-Bissau ethics approval identified by Rolling Stone, Ole Skøtt, dean of the health sciences faculty at the University of Southern Denmark, the study's listed grantee and home to its lead scientists, responded, "Your enquiry contains new information in relation to the validity of the ethical approval. I have therefore decided that this should be investigated. The Hepatitis B project has therefore been put on hold in order to assess the new information you have submitted."

 The study had been the subject of intensifying controversy for weeks. On Feb. 6, three ranking members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee demanded answers about the study from then-acting CDC director Jim O'Neill (who was recently removed in a staff shuffle). On Feb. 13, the World Health Organization released a statement expressing "significant concerns" with the study's scientific justification, ethical safeguards, and adherence to established research principles. Amid this uproar, the study's lead scientist, Christine Stabell Benn, has vehemently rebutted critics and defended the study's ethical underpinnings.   ...
.
"...  On Dec. 1, the grant was routed directly from the director's office to the grants management office, bypassing the agency's scientific divisions. Where the grant would normally list the relevant scientists under CIO, Beyda and Burns were listed instead, along with their division: the director's office.  "I worked at CDC for decades and I never saw anything like that," says a former CDC operations official who reviewed the records ..."
.
The full article is MUCH longer. There are other ethical problems at RFK's CDC.

END OF MESSAGE

....liberals defenders of Big Pharma and their stockholders.  Nice link....spends most of the article discussing earnings.  Am I surprised?  Lol, no, not in the least...