Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Our dumb country: an update

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

Belated welcome to Canada, Sir. We’re like this sometimes

Posted with permission from Paul Wells

PAUL WELLS

Sir Mark, I presume?

Here at the Paul Wells newsletter, we get results. It just always seems to take more work than it should. Today we have an update on Sir Mark Walport FRS FRCP FRCPath FMedSci FRSE, who was asked last summer by the government of Canada to look into Canada’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have known this since several days after Sir Mark’s work began. (Sir Mark is one of the UK’s leading medical research administrators. Over ’ome, I learn, if somebody is both a physician and a knight you address them as Sir Or Lady Firstname, followed by the appropriate abbreviations for their credentials, not as Dr.) I waited until November for the government to announce it, and was surprised when this didn’t happen. In fact I assumed my source was mistaken. (My source didn’t even want to be a source, they were just somebody who knew stuff and was chatting with me.) I have a longstanding interest in the notion that governments, being the creature of fallen humans, can benefit from introspection. So I thought some outside eyes-on the COVID response might help reduce the casualty count of some future catastrophe. The most recent of several posts I wrote to that effect is here.

My source kept assuring me that the Sir Mark thing was a real thing, and the government kept keeping schtum, so in November I finally gathered up my courage and wrote to the health ministry to ask whether this thing that I knew was happening was, you know, happening. The finest modern communications strategists have now perfected the government’s communications to the point where if you ask the government any question at all about anything at all, a process begins whereby dozens of people Working From Home figure out a way to suck your brains out through your nose using a ceremonial ceramic straw, and indeed this is what happened here.

Twelve days and two follow-up emails after I sent my query, a process I detailed with a kind of heartsick fascination in this post from November, I received this response:

The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant and complex health, social and economic impacts on our society.

As the Government of Canada continues its transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic response phase, internal and external partners are undertaking reviews of their role in the government’s response to COVID-19 and are identifying strategies to strengthen Canada’s preparedness for future health emergencies.

This reply was a thing of terrible maddening beauty, like the planet-smashing robot in the second-season Star Trek episode The Doomsday Machine, and I stared at it helplessly, the way William Windom did when the whale-shaped automaton finally turned in space and descended on him with its immense glowing orifice. This response, built up layer after layer by nameless armies of the powerless like the Pyramids themselves, managed to acknowledge the accuracy of my request while providing no actual information. It was the sound of one hand clapping, performed by committee.

Well, that was it for me. I tapped out. I was done. But Cathay Wagantall, whom I don’t believe I’ve met, picked up the baton from my shattered grasp. Wagantall is the Conservative MP for the riding of Yorkton — Melville, in Saskatchewan. Members of Parliament are allowed to send written questions to the government, which is required to reply. At the end of Nov., as I noted at the time, Wagantall put the following question on the Order Paper:

You can click on that to read it in full, but essentially she asked: What’s Sir Mark doing, when will we hear more, what’s it cost and why haven’t you said so?

The thing about the House of Commons is, it does have some powers, and thus cornered by one of its members, the government finally relented. On Monday the government tabled Sessional Paper 8555-441-2022 in response to Wagantall’s question. Here it is!

In this reply we learn real things, without quite learning the answer to everything Wagantall asked. In August Health Canada, PHAC and the Chief Science Advisor (that’s Mona Nemer) asked for an “independent expert panel” to “conduct a review of the federal approach to pandemic science advice and research coordination.” Sir Mark is indeed the panel’s chair.

Note that his mandate is narrow. He hasn’t been asked to look at medical supply, pharmaceutical production capacity, quarantine practice, stay-at-home orders, curfews, the wisdom of in-person vs. virtual schooling, or all the myriad of other issues that are worth looking at. This is neither proper nor improper, it just is what it is. Did you hear much about the advice Dr. Nemer provided the government during COVID, in her capacity as Chief Science Advisor? I bet you didn’t, though she wasn’t secretive about it, it just didn’t get much attention amid everything else that was going on. Sir Mark will apparently mostly be looking into how to make this little-noticed corner of the pandemic response work better. As for all the other stuff a government could look at — maybe they’ll leave it in the hands of a future generation of political staffers who are, for the moment, baristas! Maybe there’s some other after-action process going on, but we asked for the wrong one! One never knows, do one!

Sir Mark isn’t getting paid much, and, mirabile dictu, his report will be made public within two months. I’ve got a hunch that wasn’t the original plan.

Share

The response to Wagantall’s Order Paper question is signed by Mark Holland, the Minister of Health. I notice that, like many ministers who were moved in 2023, Holland inherited his mandate letter from his predecessor, Jean-Yves Duclos. I also notice that mandate letters no longer contain this paragraph, which appeared in every mandate letter to the original 2015 cabinet:

We have also committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government. It is time to shine more light on government to ensure it remains focused on the people it serves. Government and its information should be open by default. If we want Canadians to trust their government, we need a government that trusts Canadians. It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect – they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

I guess that was then.

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
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 7 hours ago

Trust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny

Business / 7 hours ago

Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

COVID-19 / 8 hours ago

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

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

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”

“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X