The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is still insisting that the novel COVID-19 injections have prevented millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths with very little scientific evidence to justify the assertion.
While discussing the Auditor General’s report that uncovered approximately $1 billion in COVID vaccine wastage, PHAC deflected that their measures prevented 30.7 million COVID-19 infections and saved 760,000 lives.
According to Blacklock's Reporter, Harpreet Kochhar, president of the PHAC said:
1.9 million hospitalizations were avoided and 34 million COVID cases were prevented by making sure there was early access to vaccines and we had public health measures in place.
PHAC sources a modeling study to justify this assertion that attempts to affirm the knee-jerk COVID-related restrictions as being beneficial. Measures included non-pharmaceutical interventions such as contact tracing, quarantine, and isolation with the nanny state closures of businesses, schools, and recreational venues, while mandating individuals to social distance from others and cover their nose and mouth with cloth garments.
The other measure employed was medical – that is, therapeutics and, later, novel mRNA vaccines.
The government authorized the use of monoclonal antibodies and anti-viral pharmaceuticals like Remdesivir and Paxlovid before rolling out the novel mRNA injections, while banning early treatment therapeutics like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
“Together, these observations show that without the use of restrictive measures and without high levels of vaccination, Canada could have experienced substantially higher numbers of infections and hospitalizations and almost a million deaths,” the abstract reads.
Yet a Canadian independent review committee discovered that the modeling used was heavily flawed. After all, Pfizer’s own trial data did not study the prevention of severe illness and/or death as clinical endpoints.
The Canadian Covid Care Alliance (CCCA) published a report that found that certain parameters used had predicted “substantially higher numbers of SARS CoV-2 cases, up to 13-times as many hospitalizations, and over 20-times more deaths from COVID-19, than actually transpired.”
The authors determined that simulation models can be useful as “policy simulators” but only if the assumptions that are fed into them are (at least somewhat) accurate and rooted in reality.
The estimated 800,000 deaths that would have resulted with no pandemic related suppression measures would have been “greater than any other historic event in Canada over the last 108 years,” the authors point out.
They show that the number of “Canadians that died in WWI, WWII, and from the Spanish Flu pandemic – combined – is still lower than 800,000 (at approximately 655,500),” while noting that that amount of deaths would have “large implications for all-cause mortality, more than doubling it from approximately 640,000 deaths to 1.4 million.”
This could have never happened due to a virus with a 99% survivability rate.
“The counterfactual scenarios [in this model] require that we subscribe to an imagined story of Canada’s pandemic that is pre-determined by the structure of [the authors model],” further notes the CCCA publication.
Conservative MP Kelly McCauley rightfully calls out this faulty study and the PHAC’s self-congratulations, as reported by Blacklock’s.
“It almost feels like we’re pushing a false narrative with this study of how successful the government was,” he said.