Featured Image
Dr. Zain ChaglaYouTube

Help Canadian Dad who was fired for refusing vax: LifeFunder

(LifeSiteNews) — Even while maintaining that vaccines are important “in the fight against COVID-19,” a Canadian infectious disease doctor says the “logic” behind vaccine mandates no longer holds.

Last Wednesday, Dr. Zain Chagla, an infectious diseases physician and associate professor at McMaster University, wrote an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail in which he argued that even as a someone who supports vaccination against COVID-19, policies like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s vaccine mandate for travelers can no longer be scientifically justified.

After reiterating the mainstream narrative surrounding COVID-19 by saying that he  “wholeheartedly” supports vaccination against the highly survivable virus, Chagla goes on to state that “medicine is about recognizing what does and does not make sense based on the prevailing science,” and therefore, in light of the recent evidence, “we should reconsider our mandate requiring full vaccination for Canadians boarding a commercial plane or train for travel to domestic and international destinations.”

“The justification behind vaccine mandates is that they help prevent transmission. But this does not seem to be the case any longer, with the Omicron variant,” Chagla wrote in his May 11 piece.

“We know that vaccine efficacy in this regard wanes significantly: Data from the UK Health Security Agency shows the effectiveness of two or three doses of vaccine against spreading the Omicron-variant infection over time approaches zero,” added the doctor.

Continuing, Chagla mentions the reality of naturally-acquired immunity, stating that “the efficacy of a prior infection against reinfection approaches that of two doses of vaccines,” and “since many unvaccinated individuals have likely been infected, they may now have a similar level of immunity to their vaccinated peers.”

Chagla also mentions that vaccination as a necessary means of protection is circumstantial, using the example that “A triple-vaccinated 70-year-old with diabetes, for instance, would still have a higher risk of hospitalization than an unvaccinated 30-year-old.”

“Of course, discriminating against the ability to travel based on age would be unethical. So wouldn’t discriminating based on risk of severe disease be unethical, too?” questioned the doctor, adding that “there are real equity issues with keeping it [the Trudeau government travel ban on the unvaccinated] on the books.”

“Many individuals may not be able to access essential life events, visit family or friends, or engage in employment opportunities, because of these regulations. While we may have beliefs around vaccination, denying an individual the ability to say goodbye at a funeral is not a part of our values as Canadians,” Chagla penned.

Trudeau’s “travel ban,” as it is often referred to, has been a major source of controversy in Canada as the nation heads deeper into the post-COVID era.

While all 10 Canadian provinces have rescinded vaccine mandates and vaccine passports for citizens, Trudeau’s federal government has upheld its stringent mandate that requires those traveling via plane, train, or boat to be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19.

As a result, the Trudeau government is being sued in federal court over the policy, and on September 19 will have to provide legal justification for how the discriminatory measure does not violate the rights of Canadians as defined in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The major plaintiff in the case against Trudeau is Brian A. Peckford, a former premier of the province of Newfoundland and the last-living drafter and signatory of the Charter.

Help Canadian Dad who was fired for refusing vax: LifeFunder


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.