Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Ruling in favor of fired vaccine-free workers could end provincial jab mandates, former AG says

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Arbitrator Nicholas Glass determined that the mandates in British Columbia were not valid and therefore the vaccine free must receive compensation.

A former attorney general for British Columbia said a recent case in which an arbitrator ruled in favor of union members who worked for courier giant Purolator but lost their jobs because they chose to not get the COVID shots could mean the end to healthcare worker jab mandates in the province.

According to Suzanne Anton, who was justice minister under British Columbia’s former Liberal government Premier Christy Clark from 2013 to 2017, the Purolator ruling is a potential “game changer.”

Arbitrator Nicholas Glass, as per a 196-page ruling made on December 14, stated that “the grievances complained that the grievors were improperly terminated or placed on involuntary unpaid leaves of absence.” He ruled the vaccine-free workers must receive compensation as the mandates were not “valid.”

As it stands, British Columbia under its NDP government is the only province in Canada forcing healthcare workers to have the COVID shots. According to Anton, the Purolator ruling could eventually help all the healthcare workers, including doctors and nurses, in the province who were fired because they chose not to get the shots.

Hundreds of British Columbia healthcare workers are suing the provincial health officer, Bonnie Henry, via a class action, for the province’s COVID shot mandates, which do not allow them to work.

According to the suit, Henry claimed that the “vaccination is safe, very effective, and the single most important preventive measure for health professionals […] to protect patients, residents and clients, and the health and personal care workforce, from […] COVID-19.”

However, the lawsuit points out the adverse side effects of taking the jab, including blood clots. It further cited a study that revealed that 5,770 out of 18,198 individuals (26.7%) who took the shot experienced an adverse reaction.

Anton, as she noted to The Epoch Times, said that Glass’ ruling was a “very well-written decision and it is the first time that a decision maker has gone down this road of, first of all, ordering compensation, that I know of.”

She said the ruling calls into question the “British Columbia Public Health Officer,” adding that the healthcare workers have public support, as people she talks to “are really surprised that they’re still fired.”

As per the ruling, Purolator has been ordered to give compensation to its hourly employees who did not get the COVID shots, which includes lost benefits and wages, between July 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023.

Purolator has also been ordered to give compensation to owner-operators beginning from the first date they lost income.

Purolator ruling will send ‘shock waves through the system,’ former AG says

Anton observed that the province’s healthcare worker COVID jab mandate is “political” and that the province’s Minister of Health, Adrian Dix, is “behind [Dr. Henry] all of the way.”

Henry, as early as yesterday, has still defended the healthcare COVID jab mandates as needed.

When writing in a guest column in Business in Vancouver (BIV), Anton observed that healthcare workers might soon “get their relief,” adding, that “The Purolator decision can only help.”

She also noted how the Purolator case will send “shock waves through the system,”

“It’s been my view for some time that mandate issues need to be properly litigated, and this case shows the startling results which can develop when a well-informed arbitrator or judge has good evidence to work from,” Anton noted.

On September 15, 2021, Purolator, like many Canadian companies around that time, mandated that its workers get the COVID shot to be allowed to its workplaces. Workers were given until December 25, 2021, to comply, with the full policy coming into force on January 10, 2022.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots themselves have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result of this, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

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
Business / 9 hours ago

Who owns Canada’s public debt?

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Bonnyville RCMP targeted by suspect driving a trackhoe

Business / 11 hours ago

BUILD CANADA NOW: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from Energy Leaders

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