In partnership with the often shadowy Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Health Canada continues to rubber stamp novel COVID-19 mRNA
injections for Canadians.
As of July 14, Health Canada authorized the Moderna injection for babies, toddlers and preschoolers aged 6 months to 4 years old at a lower mRNA dose than that which is approved for 5 year olds and up.
This came the same day that the Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) — an alliance of over 600 independent Canadian doctors, scientists and healthcare professionals intent on sharing quality, balanced and evidenced based information to the Canadian public — launched their #StopTheShots campaign. In their launch video, they discuss poor clinical trial design, inadequate testing and safety data but also, their opinion that the benefits of what they refer to as genetic vaccines are short-lived and therefore the risk of the unknowns with the novel biologic does not outweigh the benefit as advertised by the manufacturers.
This risk versus benefit analysis is exactly what Dr. Marc Benoit and I discussed in May of 2021, when the announcement was made that Health Canada would move to approve the injections for adolescents aged 12 - 17. In that interview, we showed the e-mail that Dr. Benoit sent to the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) of Health Canada requesting the data that confirm the safety of this particular vaccine.
I reached out to them, too. A few weeks later, I did an updated report after Dr. Benoit’s e-mails showed that “feelings,” not facts, were driving Health Canada’s decision.
Then I filed an Access to Information Request (ATIP) with Health Canada, simply asking for the risk versus benefit calculation that they used to justify the rollout of this injection in youth. If you would like to support that work, you can do so at Rebel Investigates.com.
I went back and forth with them for weeks and they tried to bury me with one 254,188 pages of documents. I simply responded that I wanted the calculation. Then, in September of 2021, Health Canada took a 365 day extension to that basic ask.
In this report, I again reach out to the media contact for Health Canada. Again I asked what risk versus benefit calculation is being used to continue this novel injection authorization. My questions seem straightforward enough:
- What is the quantitative risk-benefit calculation that justifies use of the Pfizer injection in adolescents aged 12-17? and
- What is the quantitative risk-benefit calculation that justifies use of the Pfizer injection in adolescents aged 5-11?
My deadline was over a month ago and I still have not received a response.
More recently, transcripts have been published regarding a Constitutional Challenge against the federal government, which enforced and mandated unprecedented travel restrictions on Canadians. The challenge was brought forward by the only living signatory of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Hon. Brian Peckford, and leader of the People’s Party of Canada Maxime Bernier.
Recent documents published detail a cross examination of Celia Lourenco, the Director General of Health Canada, and the affidavit that she submitted. Lourenco confirms that she “made the decision to authorize the COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson).”
Further in her affidavit, she confirms that the clinical trials are required to demonstrate that the vaccine reduces symptomatic COVID by at least 50% .
The lawyer asks Lourenco if given the waning efficacy provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada to the court as evidence, if the injections would still qualify for authorization of this vaccine if that had been observed in the trial. Lourenco confirms it would not have, and fumbles on the actual threshold — which is below 50%, not the 40% that she references.
Then there are dozens of pages of cross examination where Lourenco, despite providing an entire page of points in her affidavit to explain the difference between relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), blunders and says that she would need to “consult with her team” about how to calculate relative risk reduction.
Is this an acceptable amount of incompetence from someone self-proclaiming responsibility for authorizing the administration of these novel biologics to the Canadian public?
The CCCA does an easy to understand video explaining the difference between RRR and ARR here.
It’s absolutely remarkable to think that this investigation remains relevant and entirely unanswered over one year later.
For something deemed and continually pushed on us as safe and effective, why the hold up?