Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Federal appeals court rejects challenge against Canada’s COVID vaccine travel mandate as ‘moot’

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier, former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Brian Peckford, and eight others contended citizens’ mobility charter rights were violated, but the case was dismissed because the restrictions are no longer in place.

The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed as “moot” a legal challenge initiated against the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over its COVID jab travel mandates that banned the vaccine free from travel.

The legal challenge was initiated by People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Brian Peckford, and eight others who said Trudeau’s mandates violated one’s mobility charter rights.

In a judgment issued November 9, Justice George R. Locke of the appeals court, on behalf of two other judges, ruled that the case was “moot for lack of live controversy” as the COVID travel jab mandates are no longer in effect.

“For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss all of the present appeals,” the judge wrote.

Bernier and Peckford’s lawyers had argued that their case had merit, despite the travel COVID jab mandates being gone, as they could be reintroduced at a moment’s notice.

The appeals court did note that while COVID travel vaccine mandates may be reintroduced in the future, this was “highly speculative.”

Bernier, who was a strong supporter of the Freedom Convoy and did not get the COVID shots, said he was “very disappointed” in the court ruling but vowed to continue the fight against the “unjust” mandates.

“I am very disappointed but not at all surprised by this decision considering the types of slanted questions and comments that the judges made during our hearing a month ago,” Bernier wrote November 9 on X (formerly Twitter).

“I will speak to my colleague Brian Peckford and the other appellants to determine our next step. I will continue to do everything I can to fight these unjust travel mandates and make sure they are never implemented again.”

The legal challenge made headlines as Peckford is the last living signatory to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into force in 1982.

In November 2021, the Trudeau government introduced COVID jab travel mandates, which remained in place until June 2022.

In October 2022, the Canadian federal court ruled Bernier and Peckford’s and the others court case as “Moot” in light of the federal government dropping COVID mandates in the same month.

Later, in April 2023, Bernier and Peckford, with the help of the JCCF, along with the others in the case filed an appeal in the “mootness” ruling.

JCCF said case was important as COVID travel jab mandates were a ‘Egregious infringement of Canadians’ mobility rights’

Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa heard Bernier and Peckford’s and the others’ court case. JCCF president John Carpay noted at the time that the case was important as well as unique.

“There has never been a more egregious infringement of Canadians’ mobility rights than what occurred due to the unconstitutional and unlawful travel vaccine mandates,” Carpay observed.

“For the Federal Court to find that it is not in the public interest to determine whether the Federal Government acted lawfully in prohibiting 5 million Canadians from flying across the country and internationally to see family members is a grave injustice that the Federal Court of Appeal ought to remedy.”

In September 2022, Bernier thanked all Canadian “freedom fighters” who protested against COVID mandates of all kinds after a federal travel jab mandate for air travel was dropped.

Bernier, who is a former MP and cabinet minister with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) before creating the PPC in 2018, was one of the most outspoken politicians against the COVID mandates. He would frequently criticize his former party for not speaking out against the mandates.

Eventually, the CPC under its new leader Pierre Poilievre, but after the mandates had been lifted, began to speak out against Trudeau’s mandates.

A recent bill championed by Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre that would have given Canadians back their “bodily autonomy” by banning future jab mandates was voted down yesterday Trudeau’s Liberals and all other parties rejected it.

In October 2021, Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector and said the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train both domestically and internationally.

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.

During the so-called COVID pandemic, Trudeau referred to those who chose not to get the experimental COVID shots as terrible people.

In 2021, Trudeau said Canadians “vehemently opposed to vaccination” do “not believe in science,” are “often misogynists, often racists,” and even questioned whether Canada should continue to “tolerate these people.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Economy / 7 hours ago

US strategy to broker peace in Congo and Rwanda – backed by rare earth minerals deal

Crime / 7 hours ago

Mexican Cartels smuggling crude oil in Texas, Southwest border

International / 8 hours ago

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

COVID-19

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Published on May 3, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.

In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).

Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.

Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.

Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).

 

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

Trending

X