(Canadian Covid Care Alliance) — David Beatty’s attempted legal argument (Globe and Mail: January 3, 2022) for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations is founded on the kind of unsupportable ‘evidence’ that generations of law students have been taught to avoid. On January 6, 2022, Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos speculated that provinces might consider a broader vaccine mandate for similar reasons. It is alarming that such a heavy-handed response which violates the basic human rights and freedoms of Canadians is even proposed or envisioned.
Mr. Beatty’s claim that, “unvaccinated people are much more likely to become infected and spread the disease” is patently false. It is overwhelmingly contradicted by the latest real-world evidence published by numerous government agencies globally. No vaccine manufacturer is even making such a claim. Indeed, based on the daily case counts reported January 3, 2022 by the Ontario Government, the fully (99/100,000) and partially (78/100,000) vaccinated make up 70% of COVID-19 cases, on a per capita basis (see graph). The evidence undeniably shows what many are now beginning to realize from personal experience – these experimental gene-therapies are not particularly effective.
These inoculations do not provide durable sterilizing immunity and, therefore, fail to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Moreover, hospital admissions are mostly represented by vaccinated patients (70-76%: see pie chart). Since the vaccinated can catch and spread the virus with similar viral loads as the unvaccinated, there is no factual, legal, or moral justification for the existing mandates, let alone mandatory vaccination. Mr. Beatty also completely discounts the high degree of natural immunity that is already prevalent in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated alike. (covid-19.ontario.ca/data)
Also unsupportable are his statements that the balance to be considered when weighing the merits of mandatory vaccination is, “the certain death of many compared to the very small chance of a tiny number of people having to endure what in some cases could be a severe allergic reaction.” With a near 100% survival rate, and effective early treatment protocols being recognized world-wide, COVID-19 is not as deadly as predicted by wildly inaccurate models which have guided draconian health policies. Evidentially, it is mostly the frail and elderly with significant co-morbidities who need additional protection, which is readily available. Mr. Beatty also understates the risk of adverse reactions, as demonstrated by Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial data of its own vaccine. In fact, Pfizer’s trial showed that, compared to their placebo control group, the vaccinated were 300% more likely to experience an adverse event, 75% more likely to suffer a severe adverse event, and that there was no statistical evidence of a survival benefit. Pfizer’s own data show its shots do more harm than good (see: www.CanadianCovidCareAlliance.org). These refer only to the immediate and near-term adverse events; the longer term is unknown. Many medical treatments have been shown to be unsafe, their approvals withdrawn, and their use discontinued even well after full regulatory approval, such as Thalidomide, Vioxx, and Chantix.
Along these lines, he fails to recognize that a vaccine mandate will cause disproportionate harm to various demographic groups. For instance, children and youth are at virtually zero risk from COVID-19, yet the vaccines are acknowledged by the manufacturers themselves to present risks of serious harm including blood clotting, myocarditis, and pericarditis. Joining many other western governments, the Ontario Government has recognized this and withdrawn AstraZeneca’s vaccine from use and recommended against Moderna’s product for youth and children for this very reason.
Finally, his claim that vaccine mandates are unquestionably legal by citing a 116-year-old precedent from a foreign court is disingenuous and ignores well-established Canadian law. The Supreme Court of Canada in 1980 ruled in the case of Hopp v. Lepp that it is an assault to perform a medical procedure without a patient’s fully informed consent. Mandatory vaccination, by definition, means that the voluntary consent of the patient can never be obtained, making any such law illegal and unenforceable. Further, in 1996, the Federal Government, in a report issued by the Public Health Agency of Canada, stated that: “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution.” Thankfully, at least Alberta’s and Saskatchewan’s Premiers have declared they have no intention of furthering Duclos’ vision of the future.
As legal, financial, media, medical, and scientific experts, many of whom work in the fields of virology and immunology, the members of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance seek to ensure that only the best, most accurate, and up-to-date scientific evidence is used to formulate public policy, for the benefit of all Canadians. Unfortunately, Mr. Beatty’s assessment and proposal instead promotes unjust discrimination and more harm.
Byram Bridle – PhD, Associate Professor of Viral Immunology
Philip Britz-McKibbin – Professor, Chemistry and Chemical Biology, McMaster University
Claudia Chaufan – MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Health Policy, York University
Bruce Day – lawyer/mediator
John Hardie – BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
Brian Heck – BA, LL.B.
Russ Hiebert – BA, MBA, LL.B. – former lawyer and Member of Parliament
Steven Pelech – PhD, Professor, Medicine, University of British Columbia
Julie Ponesse – PhD, Author, former Professor of Ethics and Ancient Philosophy
David Ross – FCPA, FCA, President, Canadian Covid Care Alliance
Judy Stinson – BA, CNP, former Broadcast Journalist, CBC National TV News
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.