Health Canada uses shoddy science to disregard biodistribution and fertility concerns with COVID-19 vaccines

Canada’s drug regulator clings to shoddy science and rejects safety concerns around bioaccumulation, biodistribution and intergenerational repercussions associated with the novel COVID-19 mRNA injections.

Remove Ads

Health Canada maintains its stance on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, despite mounting evidence challenging this view.

Conservative MP Colin Carrie's inquiry in the House of Commons prompted scrutiny into Health Canada's authorization process for Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines, particularly regarding vaccine components, spike protein production, bioaccumulation, biodistribution, and safety analyses.

Health Canada's response to Carrie's inquiry showed a lack of adequate, long-term safety data and disregarded safety concerns as irrelevant.

The agency, tasked with drug safety regulation, stated that quantifying antigen expression post-vaccination wasn't a regulatory requirement and dismissed the need for what they called “invasive techniques” to assess where the components of the novel injections end up in the body. This echoed misinformation spread by Dr. Tara Moriarty of COVID-19 Resources Canada in 2021, that the vaccine stays at the injection site, something that was debunked by a JAMA-published study showing mRNA transmission through breast milk.

Viral immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle attempted to sound the alarm on biodistribution data – revealing alarming findings of lipid nanoparticles accumulating in vital organs post-vaccination – which he was maligned, smeared and cancelled for.

Despite these continued concerns, Health Canada says “there is no scientific justification to support that the presence of mRNA and/or antigen expression can provide information of potential safety concerns in addition to the safety evaluation conducted as part of the clinical trial and post-market surveillance. Therefore, there is no basis for having this as a regulatory requirement.”

The agency claims to have used “non-clinical pharmacokinetic studies” to evaluate biodistribution and found no cause for concern. They link to the Spikevax product monograph to support this claim.

It says rats were administered three, only weekly doses of the vaccine in amounts equivalent to the human vaccine and even though adverse events were reported, they indicate that the vaccine was working and that “full or partial recovery from all findings was observed following a 3-week recovery period,” which coincides with the study completion date.

The original study explains that only a handful of rats were followed for a total of 38 days after their third injection. Apparently, this is robust safety data.

Health Canada goes on to say that genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies were irrelevant to this type of vaccine, which contradicts findings by genomics expert Kevin McKernan, who discovered undisclosed plasmids like the SV40 promoter in vaccine vials.

The agency says that they reviewed developmental and reproductive toxicity studies as part of their regulatory evaluation but those, too, show inadequacies.

In sourcing the study on Pfizer’s Comirnaty shot, a mere 44 female rats (no males) were assessed before, pre- and postnatally.

Both the mother rats and their offspring were monitored to the end of lactation, 21 days post-delivery. Health Canada says this is “considered sufficient to characterize and support the use of these vaccines in the clinical development program.”

The agency's unwavering adherence to a narrative of safety and effectiveness, despite mounting evidence challenging this view, highlights systemic shortcomings in regulatory oversight, undermining public trust and safety.

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads