What Happened: The Canadian government has announced that it’s implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines. According to the government, the program “will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.”
This means that people who are vaccinated to protect themselves against COVID-19, or vaccinated for any other disease and experience an adverse event or injury after the immunization, will be eligible for compensation.
This program is a “no-fault” program, meaning the vaccine manufacturer (pharmaceutical company) nor the government will be held liable for the vaccine injury. It’s is similar to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created by the United States in 1986, which is now referred to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program has paid approximately $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children, while shielding pharmaceutical companies from any wrongdoing. The funds come from taxpayer money.
Health Canada claims that they approve vaccines after reviewing scientific evidence that shows the benefits outweigh the risks. According to Health Minister Patty Hajdu, “Canadians can have confidence in the rigour of the vaccine approvals system, however, in the rare event that a person experiences an adverse reaction, this program will help ensure they get the support they need.”
The federal government also says that the chances of someone experiencing a truly serious adverse reaction after vaccination are “extremely rare – less than one in a million.”
This is a comforting thought, but no statistics or data were given to back up this claim, and it’s also a clam that’s made by the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) in the United States with no evidence provided either. These claims have been heavily debated by many. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States cause injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim.
The main doctors involved with the study were Michael Klompas, M.D. and Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci.
Klompas is a Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Lazarus was a Harvard Medical School professor for 11 years, and was a professor there during this pilot study.
Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference.
If we look at examples from individual vaccines themselves, there is also some confusion. For example, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
Why This Is Important: Information about vaccines is important especially in a time where, at least it seems, vaccines are going to be mandatory in order for some people to work, travel, go to a concert or the cinema and more. A lot of people are asking if this is justified, as it is not blatant mandatory vaccination measures, but rather a way of mandating a vaccine in another form that will take away some of the rights and freedoms that people were used to prior to the pandemic.
There are a number of concerns many doctors and scientists are raising about vaccines, and have been raising about vaccines for quite some time. Here’s one example I recently wrote about, out of many.
It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, even among many physicians and scientists. This has actually been observed for a while. For example, one study published in the journal EbioMedicine in 2013 outlines this point, and it’s one of many to do so.
At a 2019 conference on vaccines put on by the World Health Organization this fact was emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project.
According to her.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…
The point is that there is information on both sides of the coin, information that sometimes completely contradicts what we often hear from mainstream media. The strange thing is that the points made by vaccine safety advocates and informed-consent supporters remain completely unacknowledged by mainstream media, and as a result a large portion of people are completely unaware of these concerns.
Why does mainstream media always use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” and ridicule?
A paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social democracy titled, “Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State Pharma Nexus” by Professor Paddy Rawlinson from Western Sydney University may provide the explanation.
Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.
The Takeaway: Do we really want to live in a world where we give so much power to a small group of people and governments who can decide what we can and can’t do based on whether or not we take a vaccine? Where will we draw the line? Why isn’t freedom of choice a priority here, especially for such a low mortality virus?
Why are so many doctors and scientists who oppose these measures being censored and unacknowledged? We see this with The Great Barrington Declaration with regards to lockdown measures. Why is science being censored?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. –
COVID-19, just like 9/11, is forcing more people to ask questions about how our world really operates and whether or not governments actually execute the will of the people.
At the end of the day we have to ask, why are controversial topics so poorly covered and ridiculed by mainstream media? Why do so many of us have so much trouble looking at new information, especially information that contradicts what we believe and have been made to believe? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and effective if we are clam, centered within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?