Canada’s Health Minister ignores science, pushes unproven vaccine guidance instead

Mark Holland, a career politician and seasoned bureaucrat, is placing political expedience above scientific integrity by championing unproven vaccine guidance for the concurrent administration of COVID-19 and flu shots, despite limited data and serious safety concerns.

Last week, Canada's Health Minister Mark Holland shared a social media post proudly announcing his receipt of both a COVID-19 booster and a flu shot. As a seasoned politician with no medical background, Holland claimed that staying “up to date with your vaccines” is the best way to protect yourself and the community. However, this assertion fails to align with scientific reality, particularly concerning the lack of evidence supporting the concurrent administration of COVID-19 vaccines alongside flu shots.

Holland's post links to the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), which has recently updated its vaccine recommendations. Among these, the committee continues to endorse the simultaneous administration of COVID-19 and flu vaccines for those aged six months and older. NACI’s guidance states that this concurrent dosing is meant to “reduce barriers to the provision of routine childhood immunizations and seasonal influenza immunization,” and calls the data backing up the recommendation “reassuring.”

NACI's vague assurances that the simultaneous injections are “reassuring” and “safe” aren’t grounded in evidence-based science. While the advisory body claims no “established safety issues” with concurrent vaccine administration, they also acknowledge that some studies show an increase in reactogenicity (side effects) when the vaccines are given together, which is okay because it’s “comparable to COVID-19 vaccination alone.”

These are the same vaccinations that Minister Holland called “remarkably safe” and “miracles of science” last year.

At least NACI’s guidance document refers to informed consent.

“Informed consent should include a discussion of the benefits and risks given the limited data available on administration of COVID-19 vaccines at the same time as, or shortly before or after, other vaccines,” it reads. Arguably, this discussion is best centered around the package insert, or the product monograph, which is a factual, scientific document on a drug product.

For example, Moderna’s SPIKEVAX product monograph for the new Omicron KP.2 variant explicitly states that the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women have not been established. It also makes clear that “no interaction studies have been performed,” leaving an alarming gap in the data about how this vaccine interacts with others. Yet, Health Canada and NACI continue to recommend concurrent vaccination without acknowledging these significant unknowns.

Disturbingly the product monograph makes it sound as though no safety or efficacy studies have been conducted for Moderna's new SPIKEVAX injection. Rather, its safety and effectiveness are "inferred" from previous studies of its previous formulations, which were only recently posted and have questionable results. Notably, the Phase Three trial data for the original formulation showed concerning adverse event rates, including 39.5% of participants experiencing moderately debilitating reactions (Grade 2), 19.7% experiencing severely debilitating reactions (Grade 3), and 14 participants experiencing life-threatening reactions (Grade 4) — nearly five-fold higher than the placebo group. Given these troubling results, relying on inferred safety for new formulations seems unsubstantiated and reckless.

Similarly, Pfizer’s product monograph for their Omicron formulation, COMIRNATY, states that there is “no data” available regarding its use in pregnant or breastfeeding women, or whether it is excreted in human milk. Much like Moderna’s monograph, Pfizer relies on “inferred” data from earlier studies to justify the new vaccine’s safety and efficacy. While Pfizer has attempted to study concurrent administration of their COVID-19 vaccine with the seasonal flu shot, they inferred effectiveness from a non-inferiority trial involving just over 1,100 healthy participants aged 18 to 64, who were only followed for seven days to a month, making the results far from long-term.

With such gaps in the evidence, it’s troubling to see these formulations promoted as safe for widespread use without clear, thorough testing.

The lack of concrete scientific evidence supporting concurrent vaccine administration is troubling, especially when it involves the health of vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, children, and the elderly. Health Minister Mark Holland and Canadian health authorities appear to be prioritizing expedience over thorough, evidence-based decision-making. Instead of waiting for robust data, they are relying on speculative conclusions drawn from limited studies, potentially putting millions at risk.

Informed consent should be at the core of all medical decisions, yet Canadians are being urged to accept vague assurances without the full picture, for political convenience rather than best practices.

When health and wellbeing are involved, it’s crucial to ensure public health policies are grounded in solid science — not vague inferences and half-baked assumptions. It is time for a more cautious, rigorous approach to vaccine guidance that truly prioritizes the health and safety of Canadians.

PETITION: No More Shots!

46,873 signatures
Goal: 50,000 signatures

Please sign our petition to demand that Canada’s Minister of Health, Mark Holland, take the mRNA COVID-19 shots off of the market immediately, following the revelation that Health Canada has confirmed the presence of at least one previously undisclosed plasmid, a residual DNA sequence.

Will you sign?

Tamara Ugolini

Senior Editor

Tamara Ugolini is an informed choice advocate turned journalist whose journey into motherhood sparked her passion for parental rights and the importance of true informed consent. She critically examines the shortcomings of "Big Policy" and its impact on individuals, while challenging mainstream narratives to empower others in their decision-making.

COMMENTS

Showing 4 Comments

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Robin Naismith
    commented 2024-11-28 05:51:59 -0500
    Clearly Mark Holland is a brainless Dumb Fuck that is shilling for the vaccines because he wants to stay in the good books with the government because he doesn’t want to loose his job or money he gets. He is a Disgrace to Canadians
  • Barry Farndon
    commented 2024-11-27 23:40:07 -0500
    Mark Holland is another non-critical thinking know-nothing shrill for the Libs and their WEF and big pharma overlords. You don’t need to be a physician or a scientist to look at the data that shows these C-19 vaccines are unsafe and not effective… Maybe look at the Pfizer C-19 mod mRNA vaccine testing documents, or just read what the contracts Canada signed with Pfizer and Moderna for the purchase of the poison. All this contradicts everything that we are fed from the approved narrative.
  • Dalyce McCue
    commented 2024-11-27 23:34:33 -0500
    Good report Tamara. Let’s see how long Holland lives. Many scientists give around 3 years before people start to die off, if it’s not instant. I know the mother of a 32 year old son who died of a heart attack. Another woman whose brother was found dead a week after getting vaxxed. Just a couple of examples.
  • Bruce Atchison
    commented 2024-11-27 20:55:50 -0500
    What propaganda! It’s time we stop all these MRNA shots. They’re in fact gene therapy.