Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Quebec microbiology professor fired for his public opposition to COVID shots

Published

12 months ago

6 minute read

Professor Patrick Provost, formerly of Laval University

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dr. Patrick Provost has 35 years’ experience working as a biochemist, notably in RNA, lipid nanoparticles, and genomics, and he has publicly stated that the COVID jabs “are not vaccines.”

A Canadian professor of immunology and microbiology has been sacked from his job at Quebec City’s Université Laval because of his strong opinions against the mRNA COVID injections.

Dr. Patrick Provost has 35 years’ experience working as a biochemist, notably in RNA, lipid nanoparticles, and genomics, and he has publicly stated that the COVID jabs “are not vaccines.” On March 28, 2024, he got a letter from the Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance, André Darveau, telling him he was no longer employed by Université Laval.

Provost stated that Université Laval’s treatment of him because of his views on the COVID shots is “illegal, unjust, unreasonable and abusive.”

“I am probably the first professor to be dismissed in the exercise of his academic freedom since (Quebec’s) ‘Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment,’ which is supposed to protect it, came into force on 7 June 2022,” wrote Provost to his work colleagues in a letter dated April 23.

On May 3, 2024, nine fellow professors signed an open letter to Université Laval which called on the university to give him his job back. It was published by the Brownstone Institute.

“Patrick Provost drew a line at what amounted to medical experimentation on children,” the professors wrote.

“He was in a good position to grasp the potential harms of the Pfizer and Moderna modified mRNA injections. He came to the conclusion some time ago that the risks outweighed the rewards, at least where children were concerned.”

“Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA products are based on a completely new technology and are not ‘vaccines’ – the definition of which was changed in September 2021 – in the traditional sense of the term as understood by the general public,” Provost wrote in his own letter.

“Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new ‘vaccines,’ I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So, I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognised concepts, solid scientific evidence, and reasoning.”

Provost was suspended from his job four times before his firing.  In 2022, he was suspended for eight weeks without any pay, and then again for four months last year, which LifeSiteNews reported. After his suspension in 2022, Provost noted to the press that censorship protecting the mainstream COVID jab narrative is so intense that even speaking against it is “worse than the N-word.”

“You’re condemned by the media, by the government, and you’re chased and put down,” he said.

In June 2022, Provost spoke out against COVID restrictions and said that the COVID shots should not be given to kids: the risk they have of getting the virus is lower than the risk of suffering side effects from the shot, he said.

Provost’s long career has seen him win three Discovery of the Year awards. He has also obtained close to $6 million in government funding which allowed him to train some 60 students over the years. His research has been published in about 100 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and he has been cited in over 16,000 articles.

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of receiving the experimental COVID mRNA jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

Of note, in 2022, British Medical Journal editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues discerned analysis that the COVID shots are more likely to put a person in hospital with a serious adverse event than to keep a person safe from COVID.

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards, or the university they work at.

Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views, has received the support of billionaire Tesla owner Elon Musk.

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
COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

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

Business / 6 hours ago

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Crime / 14 hours ago

Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links

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