Search this site

4.7.2 Traditional Childhood Vaccine Safety Concerns 4.7.2 Traditional Childhood Vaccine Safety Concerns Reference to the Original NCI Report The Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada (November 28, 2023) primarily addressed concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines but also identified broader systemic issues in vaccine safety. Testimonies from the NCI Vancouver Hearings expanded the discussion to include traditional childhood vaccines, focusing on safety protocols, adverse event reporting systems, and the cumulative effects of increasingly complex vaccine schedules. Introduction The Vancouver NCI hearings brought renewed attention to the safety of traditional childhood vaccines, a topic that has long been overshadowed by debates surrounding newer vaccines, such as those developed in response to the COVID-19 event. While the original NCI report primarily focused on issues related to COVID-19 vaccines, testimonies from experts and advocates at the NCI Vancouver Hearings broadened the conversation to encompass systemic challenges in the evaluation, monitoring, and implementation of childhood immunization programs. Prominent experts, including Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Michelle Perro, and Dr. Stephen Malthouse, raised significant concerns about the current state of vaccine safety protocols. Their testimonies illuminated critical gaps, such as insufficient safety testing, the systemic underreporting of adverse events, and the failure to adequately assess the cumulative risks of vaccine adjuvants and contaminants like aluminum and glyphosate. Witnesses emphasized that these shortcomings not only undermine vaccine safety but also erode public trust in vaccination programs. A central theme of the testimonies was the lack of rigorous placebo controlled trials to evaluate the long-term effects of traditional childhood vaccines. Witnesses explained that many vaccines are tested against older vaccines or an adjuvant rather than inert placebos, a practice that obscures potential risks and fails to provide a clear understanding of safety profiles. This issue is compounded by the systemic underreporting of adverse events through monitoring systems like VAERS, which capture only a fraction of vaccine related injuries. Experts highlighted how this underreporting distorts public health data and limits the ability to identify and address potential safety concerns. The testimonies also shed light on the cumulative risks associated with expanded vaccination schedules. Witnesses expressed concern that the administration of multiple vaccines within short time-frames places an unacknowledged burden on children’s developing immune and neurological systems. Adjuvants like aluminum, used to enhance immune responses, were flagged as potential contributors to neuro-developmental disorders, while glyphosate contamination was linked to disruptions in the gut-brain-axis, immune function, and overall health. Additionally, no studies have been conducted on the combined effects of these vaccines, even though they are now administered in groups of three to four at a time. Beyond technical critiques, witnesses like Dr. Malthouse and Dr. Thomas emphasized the ethical dimensions of vaccine safety, particularly the importance of informed consent and parental authority. They argued that current policies often marginalize parents, undermining their ability to make decisions in the best interest of their children. Transparency in vaccine safety evaluations and regulatory processes was identified as a crucial step toward rebuilding public trust and fostering collaborative decision-making. This section synthesizes the insights and concerns raised by witnesses, providing a comprehensive examination of traditional childhood vaccine safety. Their testimonies underscore the pressing need for systemic reforms, including more rigorous safety evaluations, improved adverse event monitoring, and policies that prioritize transparency and individual choice. By addressing these critical issues, public health authorities can better ensure the safety and well-being of children, while restoring confidence in vaccination programs. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Dr. Paul Thomas Overview of Testimony Dr. Paul Thomas, a board certified paediatrician and leading advocate for informed vaccine choice, presented evidence-based testimony on the health effects of traditional childhood vaccines. Drawing from his clinical experience and research, Dr. Thomas highlighted significant disparities in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. His testimony raised critical concerns about vaccine safety testing, the use of aluminum adjuvants, underreporting of adverse events, and the erosion of informed consent and parental rights. According to Dr. Thomas: 54% of US children are “chronically ill” 13% require special education 16% have a developmental disorder 11% have ADHD 1 in 35 have autism Millions have asthma and eczema 1500 new cases of cancer in US children are reported annually Infant mortality in the US is the highest of any high income country Autism was reported in 1 in 10,000 children in 1970 and was 1 in 35 in 2020. In 2020 a review of Dr Thomas’ entire paediatric practise over a decade was subject to a published peer review article. In his practise there were 561 unvaccinated children and 2763 variably vaccinated, mostly with his “vaccine friendly” protocol. The cumulative number of office visits over the ten year period was reported, separated by vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The results were as follows: Vaccinated Unvaccinated Asthma 350 50 Allergic rhinitis 400 50 Urticaria and Eczema 680 180 Dermatitis 750 500 Behavioural problems 320 60 ADHD 160 0 Anaemia 1000 150 Sinusitis 110 20 Respiratory infections 5500 1500 Otitis media 3100 1100 Conjunctivitis 1000 400 Gastroenteritis 700 130 Other infections 2000 700 Key Points from Testimony Health Outcomes in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children: Shared findings from his peer-reviewed study, which revealed lower rates of chronic conditions such as asthma, ADHD, and autism in unvaccinated children compared to their vaccinated peers. Highlighted that vaccinated children showed higher incidences of eczema, developmental delays, and autoimmune disorders. Discussed the improved health trajectories of children following his modified vaccine schedule, which spaces out vaccines and reduces exposure to adjuvants and preservatives. Dr. Thomas originally promoted a modified vaccine schedule in 2016 known as the "Vaccine-Friendly Plan." Since then, based on research and clinical data from his practice, he has moved away from that plan and now emphasizes that unvaccinated children appear to be the healthiest group overall. Aluminum Adjuvants and Neurotoxicity: Criticized the use of aluminum as a vaccine adjuvant, emphasizing its neurotoxic properties and potential harm to developing brains. Cited research linking aluminum exposure to neuro-developmental disorders such as autism, especially in infants with immature detoxification systems. Highlighted that the cumulative aluminum doses from the standard vaccine schedule often exceed safety thresholds established by regulatory agencies like the FDA. Adverse Event Reporting Gaps: Identified systemic flaws in vaccine safety monitoring systems, such as VAERS, noting that they capture only 1–2% of actual vaccine-related injuries. Emphasized that the underreporting of adverse events distorts public perception of vaccine safety and hinders efforts to identify and mitigate risks. Raised concerns about the lack of mechanisms to track long-term adverse effects, leaving critical gaps in safety evaluations. Informed Consent and Parental Rights: Advocated for transparent and accessible communication of vaccine risks and benefits to empower parents in making informed decisions. Criticized policies and practices that pressure or coerce parents into following the standard vaccine schedule without considering individual health needs. Emphasized the importance of respecting parental authority and the right to choose what is best for their children’s health. Call for Individualized Vaccine Approaches: Argued that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to childhood vaccination ignores the unique health needs of individual children, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Advocates for informed consent and careful evaluation of vaccine risks, emphasizing that unvaccinated children in his practice were the healthiest. While he previously supported personalized vaccine schedules, his more recent findings have led him to question the safety and benefit of routine childhood vaccination altogether. Dr. Thomas’s testimony highlighted systemic deficiencies in traditional vaccine safety protocols, including inadequate safety testing, gaps in adverse event reporting, and reliance on neurotoxic adjuvants like aluminum. Dr. Byram Bridle Overview of Testimony Dr. Byram Bridle, a virologist and vaccinologist with extensive experience in vaccine development and safety research, provided testimony critiquing the current oversight and evaluation processes for traditional childhood vaccines. His testimony focused on the inadequacy of safety testing, the risks associated with aluminum adjuvants, and the bio-distribution of vaccine components. Drawing on scientific studies and his expertise, Dr. Bridle highlighted systemic flaws in vaccine safety protocols and called for reforms to address these critical issues. Key Points from Testimony Insufficient Safety Testing: Criticized the lack of long-term, placebo-controlled trials using inert substances, noting that such trials are essential to identify potential risks and long-term health outcomes. Explained that vaccines are often tested against older vaccines and adjuvants instead of true placebos, obscuring safety concerns and preventing a clear assessment of their risk profiles. There are no studies have been conducted on the combined effects of these vaccines, even though they are now administered in groups of three to four at a time. Flaws in Regulatory Oversight: Highlighted selective reporting practices by health agencies, which often fail to provide the public with a comprehensive understanding of vaccine safety. Argued that regulatory bodies do not adequately enforce protocols to ensure vaccines undergo independent and unbiased safety evaluations. Aluminum Adjuvants and Neurotoxicity: Raised concerns about the widespread use of aluminum as a vaccine adjuvant, emphasizing its neurotoxic properties and potential to cause long-term harm. Cited studies showing that aluminum can accumulate in the brain and other organs, leading to neuroinflammation and contributing to conditions such as autism, ADHD, and other developmental disorders. Pointed out that the cumulative aluminum exposure from multiple vaccines often exceeds established safety thresholds, particularly for young children with underdeveloped detoxification systems. Bio-distribution Concerns: Discussed evidence showing that vaccine components, including adjuvants like aluminum, do not remain localized at the injection site as previously assumed but travel to various organs throughout the body. Warned that this systemic spread of vaccine components could disrupt neurological and immune systems, leading to unintended health consequences. Cumulative Risk Assessment: Emphasized the need to evaluate the combined effects of administering multiple vaccines within short timeframe and the administration of combination vaccines, particularly in young children who are most vulnerable to toxic exposures. There are no studies conducted on the combined effects of these vaccines, even though they are now administered in groups of three to four at a time. Argued that the current vaccination schedules fail to account for the cumulative impact of adjuvants, preservatives, and other components on overall health and development. Call for Reforms: Advocated for stricter safety standards and independent oversight in vaccine development to ensure unbiased and transparent evaluations. Urged regulatory agencies to prioritize public health over industry interests by enforcing rigorous safety protocols and providing accurate data on vaccine risks. Dr. Bridle’s testimony underscored the critical need for comprehensive reforms in traditional vaccine safety protocols. By addressing gaps in safety testing, regulatory oversight, and cumulative risk assessment, his insights highlighted the importance of establishing higher safety standards to protect children’s health and restore public trust in vaccination programs. Dr. Jessica Rose Overview of Testimony Dr. Jessica Rose, a computational biologist and expert in vaccine adverse event data analysis, provided testimony that focused on systemic weaknesses in vaccine safety monitoring and the potential risks associated with vaccine components and contamination. Drawing from her extensive experience analyzing data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), Dr. Rose highlighted significant underreporting of vaccine related adverse events and raised concerns about the role of aluminum adjuvants and contaminants such as glyphosate and DNA fragments in vaccines. Dr. Rose’s analysis of VAERS data: VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Database) is a US program for vaccine safety monitoring managed by the Centres for disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) though the database is open entries from countries other than the US. Reported adverse events from vaccines averaged approximately 39,000 per year up to the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. In the year following COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, reported adverse reactions rose to 753,047. Deaths reported to VAERS in the decade prior to the mRNA vaccine introduction were approximately 150 per year. In the year following the introduction of the COVID-19 injections, this rose to 10,596. It is estimated that only 1-2% of adverse effects are reported to the VAERS database, meaning the actual numbers are likely much higher, potentially significantly higher. The reluctance to report may stem from the time-consuming nature of the reporting system, as well as active discouragement from medical regulatory and licensing authorities in many cases. It is sometimes argued that the large increase in reports is because a very large number of mRNA vaccinations given during the COVID event, but Dr Rose has analyzed the data to compare reported adverse events for COVID-19 vaccines versus the next commonest vaccine given, the influenza vaccine, normalized by dose. Adverse Events (AES) reported per 1,000,000 doses of influenza vaccine is 55 AES reported per 1,000,000 doses of COVID-19 vaccine is 1378, a difference of 25x. Deaths reported per 1,000,000 influenza vaccinations is 0.3 Deaths reported per 1,000,000 COVID-19 vaccinations is 21, a difference of 70x. Cancers reported per 1,000,000 influenza vaccinations is 0.3 Cancers reported per 1,000,000 COVID-19 vaccinations is 10, a difference of 33x. In addition, the number of cancers reported since 2020 has risen each year since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines and shows no evidence of falling. There are increasing anecdotal reports of late stage cancers in younger patients, though the data are not conclusive. Dr. Rose’s Analysis of VAERS Data in Children 0-17 Although healthy children face virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, and are not significant spreaders of the virus, vaccination for this age group has still been aggressively promoted. VAERS data show a significant increase in adverse event (AE) reports since COVID-19 injections introduction, especially in the 12-17 age group, with a total of 43,743. 14% of these AES are considered “serious”, meaning the child had to have time off school, was hospitalized, or died. A total of 200 deaths have been reported, with 58 of these deaths occurring within 24 hours of injection. An analysis of Canadian data revealed 146 adverse events (AES) reported in children aged 0 to 17. Of these, 55% were classified as serious, and there were 3 reported deaths. These data far exceed the CDC’s normal recall criteria for newly introduced vaccines, but no action has been taken. Key Points from Testimony Adverse Event Reporting in VAERS: Pointed out that VAERS, the primary system for tracking vaccine-related adverse events, captures less than 1–2% of actual incidents, leading to a distorted understanding of vaccine safety. Cited data showing high rates of adverse events linked to aluminum containing vaccines, particularly in young children, including developmental delays, neurological disorders, and other chronic health issues. Criticized the reliance on passive reporting systems like VAERS, which depend on individuals to voluntarily report adverse events, resulting in substantial data gaps. Aluminum Adjuvants and Neuroinflammation: Highlighted the neurotoxic properties of aluminum, commonly used as an adjuvant to enhance immune responses in vaccines. Discussed research linking aluminum exposure to neuroinflammation, which may contribute to developmental and behavioural disorders such as autism and ADHD. Raised concerns about the cumulative effects of aluminum from multiple vaccines administered during early childhood, when detoxification systems are still underdeveloped. • Vaccine Contamination: Dr. Jessica Rose presented findings regarding contaminants in COVID-19 vaccines, including residual DNA fragments resulting from the use of bacterial plasmids in the manufacturing process. She stated that these DNA fragments were introduced when E. coli was used to produce spike protein-encoding plasmids for large-scale vaccine production. Dr. Rose further testified that compendia standards for biological product safety and quality were not adhered to. Warned that these contaminants could have unknown long-term effects on children’s health, including disruptions to immune function and increased risks of autoimmune disorders. Criticized inadequate oversight in vaccine manufacturing processes, calling for stricter regulations and independent monitoring to prevent contamination. Call for Systemic Reforms in Monitoring and Manufacturing: Advocated for the overhaul of vaccine safety monitoring systems to ensure comprehensive data collection and analysis of adverse events. Called for independent investigations into the long-term health effects of vaccine components and contaminants. Emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in vaccine manufacturing and safety evaluations to rebuild public trust. Dr. Rose’s testimony highlighted critical flaws in vaccine safety monitoring and manufacturing, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reforms to protect children’s health. By emphasizing the risks posed by aluminum adjuvants, underreported adverse events, and vaccine contamination, she made a compelling case for improving safety standards and fostering greater transparency in public health policies. Dr. Michelle Perro Overview of Testimony Dr. Michelle Perro, a paediatrician with over four decades of clinical experience and expertise in environmental health, provided a comprehensive critique of traditional childhood vaccine safety during the Vancouver NCI hearings. Her testimony emphasized the interconnectedness of vaccine components, environmental toxins, microbiome health, and the cumulative impacts of medical interventions on children’s long-term development. Drawing from her clinical practice and research, Dr. Perro identified critical gaps in vaccine safety evaluation and highlighted the need for a holistic, integrative approach to addressing systemic failures. Key Points from Testimony Glyphosate and Microbiome Disruption: Highlighted the presence of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, as a contaminant in vaccines and discussed its adverse effects on the microbiome. Explained how glyphosate disrupts the gut-brain-axis by depleting beneficial gut bacteria and promoting harmful strains, such as Clostridia, which can impair serotonin production, a neurotransmitter essential for mood regulation. Linked microbiome imbalances caused by glyphosate to neurological and developmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorders, anxiety, and depression. Aluminum Adjuvants and Cumulative Toxic Burden: Criticized the widespread use of aluminum as a vaccine adjuvant, emphasizing its neurotoxic properties and the lack of research into its long-term effects on children. Discussed studies showing that aluminum can cross the blood brain barrier, accumulate in the brain, and contribute to neuroinflammation, which is associated with cognitive and behavioural disorders such as ADHD and autism. Warned that current vaccine schedules fail to account for the cumulative toxic burden of multiple vaccine components, including aluminum, administered within short timeframes. Cautioned that the administration of combination vaccines has not been studied. Environmental and Dietary Factors in Vaccine Safety: Addressed the synergistic effects of environmental toxins, such as pesticides and chemicals, with vaccine components, amplifying risks to children’s health. Highlighted how poor diets, rich in processed food and low in essential nutrients, further compromise the gut-brain-axis and exacerbate vaccine-related health challenges. Call for Integrative Research and Transparency: Advocated for independent, integrative research into the cumulative risks posed by vaccine schedules, environmental toxins, and dietary factors. Criticized the lack of transparency in vaccine safety evaluations and called for greater accountability in addressing these systemic issues. The Need for Holistic Solutions: Emphasized the importance of adopting holistic approaches to vaccine safety that consider environmental, dietary, and medical factors in tandem. Urged policymakers to prioritize strategies that support microbiome health, reduce toxic exposures, and educate families on maintaining overall health and resilience. Dr. Perro’s testimony offered a holistic perspective on the intersection of environmental health and vaccine safety. By exposing the systemic failures in evaluating cumulative risks and highlighting the role of the microbiome in children’s health, she underscored the urgent need for comprehensive reforms in vaccine protocols and public health policies to safeguard children’s well-being. Dr. Stephen Malthouse Overview of Testimony Dr. Stephen Malthouse, a family physician with extensive clinical experience, critiqued the safety evaluation and oversight of traditional childhood vaccines. He raised concerns about the lack of rigorous safety testing, systemic underreporting of adverse events, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies on vaccine research and regulatory processes. Key Points from Testimony Insufficient Safety Testing: Highlighted the absence of long-term, placebo controlled trials using inert substances, which obscures the true safety profiles of traditional childhood vaccines. Emphasized the need for independent studies to assess the cumulative risks of vaccine components over time. Adverse Event Reporting Gaps: Criticized current adverse event tracking systems for failing to capture the full scope of vaccine-related injuries, pointing out that many events go unreported. Stressed the need for improved monitoring systems to ensure accurate data collection and analysis. Concerns about Vaccine Adjuvants: Highlighted the neurotoxic properties of aluminum adjuvants commonly used in vaccines and their potential link to chronic illnesses such as autism and ADHD. Warned about the long-term health implications of cumulative aluminum exposure in children. Pharmaceutical Influence on Public Health Policies: Expressed concerns about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on vaccine research, regulatory oversight, and public health recommendations. Called for greater transparency and independence in vaccine development and approval processes to restore public trust. • Parental Authority and Informed Consent: Criticized policies that undermine parental authority by allowing vaccine administration without informed parental consent. Advocated for empowering parents with clear, unbiased information to make informed decisions about their children’s health. Dr. Malthouse’s testimony highlighted significant flaws in traditional vaccine safety protocols and emphasized the need for systemic reforms, including stricter safety standards, improved adverse event tracking, and enhanced transparency in public health decision-making. His insights underscored the importance of empowering families to make informed choices in the best interest of their children. Kathy Stack Overview of Testimony Kathy Stack testified about her experience as a mother of a child with Down syndrome and the health complications he faced following early childhood vaccinations. As an intensive care nurse at the time, she followed standard medical advice but later questioned the impact of vaccines on her son’s health. Her testimony focused on the immediate and long-term effects of vaccination, medical responses, and broader concerns about vaccine safety. Key Points Early Childhood and Initial Health Status: Stack gave birth to her son, in 1989. He was born a healthy 10-pound, 3-ounce baby and was diagnosed with Down syndrome at birth. Despite his diagnosis, he met developmental milestones in his early months. She documented his progress, including smiling and reaching for her face. Adverse Reaction to Vaccination: At three and a half months, she took her son for his first diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, following medical recommendations. Within hours of receiving the shot, he developed a high fever and became highly irritable. She treated him with Tylenol and put him to bed but did not initially suspect a severe reaction. • Medical Complications and Concerns: Stack’s concerns about vaccine safety grew as her son’s health issues persisted. She later questioned whether the vaccine may have contributed to developmental and health challenges beyond his Down syndrome diagnosis. Her experience led her to reevaluate her trust in standard medical practices regarding childhood immunization. Kathy Stack’s testimony highlights concerns about vaccine safety, particularly for children with pre-existing conditions such as Down syndrome. As both a mother and a healthcare professional, her perspective illustrates the challenges parents face in making informed medical decisions. Her experience underscores the need for greater transparency and thorough investigation of adverse reactions to childhood vaccinations. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by the Witnesses The Vancouver NCI hearings exposed systemic failures in the safety evaluation, monitoring, and regulatory oversight of traditional childhood vaccines. Witnesses consistently raised concerns about insufficient safety testing, significant underreporting of adverse events, and the cumulative risks posed by adjuvants and contaminants. These issues highlight critical gaps in the existing framework for ensuring vaccine safety and public trust. Insufficient Safety Testing Witnesses, including Dr. Stephen Malthouse and Dr. Byram Bridle, emphasized the lack of long-term, placebo controlled trials using inert substances to assess vaccine safety. Current practices often compare new vaccines to older ones that may already carry risks, obscuring the ability to identify long-term or cumulative health effects. Dr. Malthouse criticized the absence of independent studies assessing the cumulative risks of vaccine components over time. Dr. Bridle explained that the reliance on flawed safety evaluation protocols prevents a clear understanding of the potential neurological and developmental impacts of vaccines, particularly for young children. Underreporting of Adverse Events Systemic underreporting in vaccine monitoring systems, such as VAERS, was a recurring theme. Dr. Jessica Rose highlighted that VAERS captures less than 1–2% of vaccine-related adverse events, creating significant data gaps. This underreporting distorts the safety profile of vaccines and hinders efforts to address potential risks. Dr. Malthouse called for improved monitoring systems and mandatory reporting by healthcare providers to ensure accurate tracking of adverse events. Cumulative Risks of Vaccine Adjuvants and Contaminants The testimonies of Dr. Thomas, Dr. Perro, and Dr. Malthouse raised concerns about the cumulative risks posed by vaccine adjuvants, such as aluminum, and contaminants, such as glyphosate. Dr. Thomas highlighted the neurotoxic properties of aluminum and its links to developmental disorders, including autism and ADHD. Dr. Perro explained how glyphosate contamination disrupts the microbiome and the gut-brain-axis, contributing to neurological and immune dysfunction. Dr. Malthouse emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative toxic burden resulting from multiple vaccines administered in short timeframes, and the administration of combination vaccines. Erosion of Trust and Parental Authority Witnesses criticized the lack of transparency in vaccine policy development and the exclusion of parental voices. Dr. Malthouse and Dr. Thomas emphasized the importance of respecting parental authority and providing clear, unbiased information to enable informed consent. Physicians Lack Substantial Knowledge Concerning Vaccines Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Stephen Malthouse stated that physicians generally lack substantial knowledge about vaccines and vaccine combinations. Dr. Paul Thomas: He emphasized that physicians are not adequately educated on vaccine safety, especially regarding cumulative risks and aluminum adjuvants. He explained that vaccines are not tested against inert placebos, making it difficult even for doctors to evaluate safety claims accurately. In his updated position, he explicitly stated that after more research, he no longer recommends his former “Vaccine-Friendly Plan,” acknowledging that the data since 2016 shows even that reduced schedule has risks. Dr. Stephen Malthouse: He was even more direct, stating that doctors are not given proper education on vaccines, and are instead “indoctrinated with propaganda”. Dr. Malthouse criticized the practice whereby physicians are often not involved in administering vaccines, resulting in their exclusion from the active decision-making process. He expressed concern that, particularly when public health authorities oversee vaccination programs in schools, medical professionals are sidelined from individualized patient care and consent discussions. He also noted that doctors are not in a position to explain vaccine risks and alternatives to children because they themselves don’t understand the vaccines well enough. Conclusion The testimonies from the Vancouver NCI hearings revealed significant systemic shortcomings in the safety evaluation and oversight of traditional childhood vaccines. Experts identified critical issues, including insufficient safety testing, significant underreporting of adverse events, and the cumulative risks posed by aluminum adjuvants and contaminants like glyphosate. Additionally, witnesses highlighted the erosion of parental trust due to a lack of transparency and the exclusion of parents from decision-making processes. It is essential that healthcare providers receive comprehensive, evidence-based education on the full spectrum of vaccine-related information, including both the known benefits and risks, as well as the unknowns resulting from insufficient long-term safety studies and limited research on combined vaccine schedules. This education must also address concerns related to potentially harmful components, such as aluminum and other adjuvants, whose cumulative effects remain inadequately understood. Ensuring that physicians are properly informed will enable them to engage in transparent, honest communication with parents. In turn, this will support truly informed consent, allowing parents to make decisions that reflect a balanced understanding of both the proven and potential risks and benefits associated with vaccination. These findings underscore the need for comprehensive reforms to ensure that childhood vaccine policies prioritize the safety, health, and well-being of children. By addressing systemic flaws, and fostering open dialogue with families, public health authorities can rebuild confidence in vaccination programs and better protect the youngest members of society. Recommendations Improve Safety Testing: Mandate long-term, placebo-controlled trials using inert substances for all vaccines. Require independent research to assess the cumulative risks of vaccine components, including adjuvants, preservatives and the safety of combination vaccines. Until comprehensive safety testing is completed, a precautionary approach should be adopted. This includes limiting the use of certain vaccines in children, enhancing adverse event monitoring, and ensuring that parents receive full disclosure of both known and unknown risks to support informed decision-making. 2. Enhance Monitoring Systems: Revamp adverse event reporting systems like VAERS to ensure comprehensive and accurate tracking. Implement mandatory reporting requirements for healthcare providers to capture vaccine-related injuries effectively. 3. Reassess Adjuvant and Contaminant Safety: Conduct independent studies into the long-term neurological and developmental effects of aluminum adjuvants. Eliminate glyphosate contamination and harmful substances, such as aluminum, mercury and others from vaccines. 4. Enforce True Informed Consent and Parental Involvement: It is essential that healthcare providers receive comprehensive, evidence-based education on the full spectrum of vaccine-related information, including both the known benefits and risks, as well as the unknowns resulting from insufficient long-term safety studies and limited research on combined vaccine schedules. This education must also address concerns related to potentially harmful components, such as aluminum and other adjuvants, whose cumulative effects remain inadequately understood. Provide parents with clear, evidence-based information about vaccine risks and benefits. Empower parents to make informed decisions regarding the vaccination of their children based on individual health needs rather than standardized schedules. Ensure that vaccinations are no longer administered in schools to uphold parental authority and to prevent children from experiencing undue pressure, whether from school authority figures or from peer influence among classmates. 5. Strengthen Regulatory Oversight: Ensure independent oversight of vaccine safety evaluations to eliminate conflicts of interest. Increase transparency in clinical trial data, regulatory processes, and public health communications to restore trust. Hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for any harms their products cause. 6. Address Cumulative Risks: Develop guidelines to evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple vaccines administered within short time-frames. Prioritize research into the combined impacts of combination vaccines, environmental toxins, dietary factors, and vaccine components on children’s health. 7. Rebuild Trust and Accountability: Foster open dialogue with families and include parents and child development experts in policy-making processes. Promote ethical oversight to ensure vaccine policies prioritize the well-being of children over industry interests. By implementing these recommendations, Canada can establish a safer, more transparent, and family-centred framework for childhood immunization. These changes are critical to addressing public concerns and protecting the health and future of Canadian children. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

4.1.3 Teacher and Administrative Bias 4.1.3 Teacher and Administrative Bias Introduction Teacher and administrative bias in schools refers to the subtle or overt influence of personal beliefs, values, or institutional policies on how educators and administrators deliver education and interact with students. In educational contexts, maintaining neutrality is a foundational principle that ensures all students are exposed to balanced and objective instruction. This approach fosters critical thinking, encourages respectful dialogue, and promotes the development of independent thought. However, when bias enters the educational environment, it risks undermining these principles and may create a learning atmosphere where certain perspectives dominate to the exclusion of others. Concerns about teacher and administrative bias are particularly pronounced when addressing sensitive or controversial topics such as gender identity, social justice, environmental activism, or political ideologies. Witnesses at the Vancouver NCI hearings described how certain viewpoints are sometimes presented as definitive or non-negotiable, leaving little room for alternative perspectives. This can create an environment where students feel pressured to conform to specific ideologies, stifling open dialogue and discouraging the exploration of diverse viewpoints. Bias can manifest in various ways, from the content of the curriculum to the interactions between teachers and students. For example, curriculum materials may reflect a single ideological stance, omitting alternative perspectives or critical analyses. Classroom dynamics can also be affected, with educators unintentionally or intentionally promoting specific viewpoints during discussions, thereby influencing how students interpret or engage with complex topics. Furthermore, administrative decisions, such as the adoption of policies or the handling of dissenting opinions from parents or staff, can reinforce perceived biases, eroding trust between schools and their communities. For parents, these biases raise significant concerns about the fairness of education and the role of schools in shaping students’ moral and social values. Many parents view education as a partnership where schools and families work together to prepare children for an open minded and free society. When schools prioritize certain ideologies or exclude parents from decision-making processes, it can strain this partnership and lead to tensions over the perceived erosion of parental rights in guiding their children’s development. The implications of teacher and administrative bias are far-reaching. Witnesses emphasized how biases can affect students’ intellectual and emotional growth, potentially discouraging critical thinking and limiting their ability to form well-rounded perspectives. Bias can also impact classroom dynamics, creating divisions among students and fostering environments where dissenting opinions are marginalized. For educators, the pressure to align with institutional ideologies may hinder their ability to teach freely and objectively, further perpetuating the cycle of bias. Addressing these challenges requires a commitment to transparency, openness to ideas, freedom of speech and accountability within educational institutions. Schools must actively promote ideological neutrality, ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented in curriculum materials and classroom discussions. Professional development for educators can play a critical role in helping them recognize and mitigate their own biases, fostering a more balanced and supportive learning environment. Additionally, schools should engage parents and community members in meaningful dialogue about educational content and policies, reinforcing trust and collaboration. Unfortunately much of the professional development training currently being offered is highly charged with ideologies which do not necessarily align with the local community social norms. The testimonies presented at the Vancouver NCI hearings highlight the importance of addressing teacher and administrative bias to create equitable and open non-biased ideologically neutral educational environments. By prioritizing neutrality and fostering open dialogue, schools can empower students to think critically, engage respectfully with differing viewpoints, and develop the skills necessary to navigate a complex and diverse world. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Several key witnesses addressed the issue of teacher and administrative bias, describing instances where personal or institutional biases appeared to affect the educational experience of students. Barry Neufeld Overview of Testimony Barry Neufeld is a former school board trustee who has been a vocal critic of SOGI 123 and its implementation in British Columbia schools. He has consistently advocated for balanced educational practices that respect different perspectives. Key Points of Testimony Bias in Curriculum Implementation : Neufeld criticized how programs like SOGI 123 were introduced without balanced debate or input from a broad range of stakeholders. He argued that the program promotes a specific ideology, sidelining alternative perspectives. Suppression of Dissent : Neufeld highlighted how educators or administrators who questioned these programs were often marginalized, creating an environment where open dialogue was discouraged. Paul Jaffe Overview of Testimony Paul Jaffe is an advocate who represented Barry Neufeld in his legal battles, regarding opposition to SOGI 123. Jaffe’s testimony during the NCI Vancouver Hearings emphasized the challenges and consequences faced by individuals, including parents, who voice concerns about perceived bias within educational systems. Key Points of Testimony Consequences of Speaking Out : Jaffe highlighted the backlash Neufeld faced for expressing his concerns about the ideological content of SOGI 123, including public criticism, professional ostracization, and legal challenges. This served as a broader warning about the risks parents and community members might face when questioning institutional policies. Chilling Effect on Free Expression : Jaffe argued that the treatment of Neufeld and others creates a chilling effect, deterring parents and educators from voicing legitimate concerns about teacher or administrative bias. He emphasized that this stifles open dialogue and prevents critical examination of controversial programs. Systemic Resistance to Dissent : According to Jaffe, educational institutions often dismiss or marginalize opposing viewpoints, further alienating parents who feel their voices are not respected. He noted that this resistance erodes trust between families and schools and discourages different perspectives from being represented in educational settings. Jaffe’s testimony underscores the systemic barriers parents may face when challenging perceived bias in schools and highlights the need for protecting free expression and fostering open dialogue. Hila Russ-Woodland Overview of Testimony Hila Russ-Woodland, an educator and advocate, testified about administrative priorities that she believes disregard parental and student concerns in favour of institutional policies. Key Points of Testimony Institutional Bias : Russ-Woodland described instances where controversial classroom materials and activities were prioritized without adequately considering the concerns of parents or the developmental readiness of students. Favouritism Toward Specific Agendas : She expressed concerns that some schools prioritize certain ideological viewpoints, fostering an imbalance in the educational experience. Chris Elston (Billboard Chris) Overview of Testimony Chris Elston, known as "Billboard Chris," is an advocate who focuses on the impact of gender ideology on children and the role of educators in promoting these ideas. Key Points Normalization of Ideologies : Elston criticized how educators promote specific ideologies, particularly around gender identity, without presenting diverse perspectives. He argued that this creates an unbalanced learning environment for students. Influence on Student Perception : He noted how teacher bias can shape students’ understanding of complex social issues, often discouraging critical thinking and exploration of alternative views. Emily Duggan Overview of Testimony Emily Duggan is a parental rights advocate who has actively opposed the perceived lack of balance in programs like SOGI 123. Her testimony focused on the need for transparency and inclusivity in curriculum development. Key Points of Testimony Ideological Bias in Curriculum : Duggan testified that programs like SOGI 123 reflect a singular ideological perspective, often excluding alternative viewpoints. She argued this approach undermines diversity and critical thinking in education. Lack of Transparency : Duggan emphasized that the lack of openness about such programs perpetuates administrative bias and alienates parents from their children’s education. Pierre Barnes Overview of Testimony Pierre Barnes, an advocate with personal experience in foster care, testified about the impact of administrative policies on parental trust and student welfare. Key Points of Testimony Policies Undermining Parental Authority : Barnes highlighted administrative policies that encourage teachers to withhold information about students from their parents, particularly on issues like gender identity. He argued this practice fosters mistrust and demonstrates administrative bias. Impact on Family-School Relationships : He stressed that such policies erode the foundational trust necessary for effective collaboration between families and schools. Amrit Birring Overview of Testimony Amrit Birring is a parent and community advocate who has spoken out against administrative complicity in promoting biased policies and practices in schools. Key Points of Testimony Administrative Complicity in Bias : Birring argued that school administrations often promote content and policies reflecting specific ideological stances while disregarding parental and community input. Call for Accountability : He called for greater accountability in administrative decision-making to ensure that policies and practices align with community values and diverse perspectives. These profiles provide a detailed foundation for discussing teacher and administrative bias in education. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by the Witnesses Influence of Personal Beliefs on Instruction Witnesses such as Barry Neufeld and Emily Duggan raised concerns about educators allowing personal beliefs to influence instructional practices. For example, Neufeld testified that programs like SOGI 123 encouraged teachers to adopt specific ideological stances, particularly regarding gender identity and social justice. Duggan emphasized that such advocacy risks prioritizing personal or institutional ideologies over balanced education. While educators play a vital role in promoting diversity and inclusion, it is crucial that they maintain neutrality to foster critical thinking. Allowing personal beliefs to dominate classroom discussions can pressure students to conform to specific viewpoints, discouraging open inquiry and exploration of alternative perspectives. Schools should aim to create environments where students can critically assess multiple ideas and form their own informed opinions without feeling coerced. Lack of Alternate Perspectives in Curriculum Content Duggan and Paul Jaffe highlighted that some curriculum frameworks, such as those addressing gender identity, present one-sided narratives, often excluding alternative viewpoints. Duggan argued that students are rarely exposed to differing perspectives, limiting their ability to critically evaluate complex issues. Jaffe added that administrative support for certain ideologies further discourages dissent or discussion of alternative viewpoints, stifling intellectual diversity. Education thrives on the exchange of ideas, enabling students to engage with varying perspectives and develop critical thinking skills. When curricula favour a singular narrative, it creates an echo chamber that undermines students' ability to engage respectfully and thoughtfully with broader societal debates. Balanced content is essential for fostering open-mindedness and academic integrity. Administrative Support for Certain Ideologies Paul Jaffe and Pierre Barnes testified that school administrations often align with specific ideological stances, creating environments where questioning these positions is discouraged. Jaffe highlighted the backlash Barry Neufeld faced when he publicly critiqued SOGI 123, noting that administrative bias against dissenting views perpetuates a culture of suppression. Barnes added that policies restricting parental access to information, such as those involving a student’s gender identity, demonstrate administrative alignment with specific ideologies over family engagement. Administrative support for particular ideologies can alienate parents, students, and educators who hold differing views, creating a climate of distrust. School administrations must uphold policies that support respectful discourse and protect different perspectives without endorsing specific viewpoints. Impact on Student Expression and Classroom Dynamics Witnesses including Duggan, Dr. Ponesse and Hila Russ-Woodland highlighted how teacher and administrative bias impacts classroom dynamics, leading students to feel reluctant to express differing opinions. Duggan recounted instances where students felt pressured to align with dominant classroom ideologies to avoid ostracization. Similarly, Russ-Woodland described how biased instructional practices created environments where alternative perspectives were disregarded. Classrooms should be safe spaces for exploration and intellectual growth. When bias influences classroom dynamics, students may feel marginalized or silenced, which undermines their confidence and ability to engage critically. Encouraging respectful dialogue and presenting multiple perspectives are vital to fostering a balanced learning environment. Implications for Parental Trust and Community Relations The perception of bias in schools also affects trust between parents and educational institutions. Witnesses such as Neufeld and Birring emphasized that when teachers and administrators take explicit stances on sensitive issues, it alienates parents who feel their values are disregarded. This lack of alignment between home and school creates tension and erodes trust, particularly when parents are excluded from conversations about curriculum content or policies. Building trust requires schools to respect multiple family values and ensure transparency in policy decisions. By involving parents in curriculum development and maintaining open communication, schools can foster stronger community relationships and promote a shared commitment to student success. Conclusion The witness testimonies highlight significant concerns about teacher and administrative bias in Canadian schools. These include the influence of personal beliefs on instruction, lack of diverse perspectives in curriculum content, and administrative alignment with specific ideologies. Witnesses emphasized how these factors can stifle intellectual growth, suppress dissenting voices, and erode trust between families and schools. By addressing these issues, educational institutions can create more balanced environments that support critical thinking, respect different perspectives, and uphold the rights of students and families. Recommendations Promote Ideological Neutrality in Classroom Instruction: Provide professional development for educators on maintaining neutrality when presenting sensitive or controversial topics. Train teachers to facilitate balanced discussions that respect different viewpoints and encourage critical inquiry. 2. Encourage Different Perspectives in Curriculum Content: Ensure that curriculum materials present a variety of perspectives on complex social issues. Conduct regular reviews of educational content to identify and address potential biases, promoting intellectual freedom. 3. Establish Policies Against Administrative Endorsement of Ideologies: Develop clear guidelines to prevent school administrations from endorsing specific ideologies. Implement safeguards to ensure policies support open discourse and protect the rights of students, parents, and teachers to express different opinions. 4. Create Guidelines for Teacher Conduct and Bias Awareness: Develop guidelines to help teachers recognize and mitigate their own biases in instructional practices. Include regular training on respectful communication and handling all perspectives effectively. 5. Implement Classroom Climate Assessments: Conduct periodic surveys to gather feedback from students and parents on classroom dynamics. Use this data to identify areas where teacher or administrative bias may be affecting the learning environment. 6. Strengthen Parental Engagement and Communication: Enhance communication with parents regarding curricular content and policies, ensuring they are informed and involved. Create avenues for parents to share concerns and participate in discussions about sensitive topics. 7. Protect Free Expression for Students and Educators: Uphold policies that protect the right of students and educators to express opinions without fear of reprisal. Ensure that dissenting viewpoints are respected and given equal consideration in classroom and administrative settings. 8. Establish an Oversight Committee for Bias and Neutrality: Form an oversight committee to review curriculum, classroom practices, and administrative policies for signs of bias. Include educators, parents, and students in the committee to ensure a balanced approach. By implementing these recommendations, schools can foster an educational environment that values freedom of thought, critical thinking, and mutual respect, while strengthening trust between families and educational institutions. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

7.1.8 Emergency Planning & Plan Execution 7.1.8. Emeergency Planning & Plan Execution Introduction An essential role of any government is to plan for and act appropriately during times of national or regional emergencies. This function of government has been recognized in Canada for decades, and in the 1950s the federal government established a training college to provide emergency training courses and to foster training and cooperation in emergency situations between federal, provincial, and territorial governments. Emergency response training is still provided by the federal government through the Canadian Emergency Management College. On their website, Public Safety Canada states the following: Natural disasters, pandemics, cyber incidents and terrorism can all cause emergencies in Canada. Emergencies can quickly escalate in scope and severity, cross jurisdictional lines, and take on international dimensions. Emergency management planning can save lives, preserve the environment and protect property by raising the understanding of risks and contributing to a safer, prosperous, sustainable, disaster resistant, and resilient society in Canada. Emergency management is a core responsibility of the Government of Canada and a collective responsibility of all federal government institutions. This is why Public Safety Canada is taking steps to promote a coordinated approach and more uniform structure to the management of emergencies by providing guidance to federal government institutions on how to develop emergency management plans. A coordinated approach to emergency management planning will strengthen the Government of Canada‘s capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from major disasters and other emergencies. The “Emergency Management Planning Guide” supports federal institutions in meeting their responsibilities under the Emergency Management Act to prepare and maintain mandate-specific emergency management plans. The Guide provides the framework for federal government institutions to undertake mandate-specific all-hazards risk assessments and planning activities within all four integrated functions of emergency management: mitigation/prevention , preparedness , response , and recovery . The Government of Canada has a federal policy for emergency management, as set out on the following website: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/plc-mrgnc-mngmnt/index-en.aspx According to the federal policy for emergency management: The federal government is responsible for emergency management at the national level in its exclusive jurisdictions and on lands and properties under federal responsibility. Provincial and territorial governments exercise responsibility for emergency management within their respective jurisdictions except where legislation allows for direct federal intervention or for shared responsibility. If any emergency threatens to overwhelm the resources of a province or territory, federal institutions may respond to the request or if an emergency has a national implication. A provincial request for assistance during an emergency indicates that the province requires federal support to achieve an objective. While the province may indicate the specific resources and capabilities required, in most instances federal departments and agencies will need to define the appropriate response. Federal institutions can also make preparations in advance of anticipated need or request for assistance from a province or territory. In researching how the provincial governments have integrated their own emergency response programs, a number of provincial programs were reviewed. The government of Manitoba‘s website includes a copy of The Emergency Measures Act which sets out the responsibilities of the provincial and municipal governments in case of an emergency. Other provincial governments and territories in Canada have similar legislation to deal with emergencies. In Ontario, the legislation is called the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act In Alberta, the legislation is called the Emergency Management Act . It is imperative, following the implementation of emergency plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate the emergency measures undertaken to evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating the risks associated with the COVID-19 outbreak, and to determine whether or not the steps taken actually adhered to the legislation at all levels of government as set out by the various legislations. To undertake this task, the Commissioners have relied on the testimony of various witnesses who appeared at the hearings. Testimony Concerning Emergency Planning & Plan Execution During Pandemic Direct testimony was received from witnesses concerning the actions of the various levels of governments during the COVID-19 emergency or pandemic. Witnesses included the following: Lieutenant Colonel David Redman Canada Deviated from Strategic Pandemic Response Lt. Col. Redman testified that most provinces and territories in Canada approach emergencies in a similar way. The emergencies measures organizations in Canada are tasked with responding to all manner of emergencies in Canada, while mitigating the effects of the emergency on the totality of Canadians‘ society. Every province and territory in Canada had a pandemic plan prepared prior to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020. https://pandemicalternative.org/index.php/resources/11-resource-pandemic-plan The following was taken from the Pandemic Alternative Website, as presented by Lt. Col. Redman: Pandemic Plans from around Canada Pandemic plans listed on the Government of Canada website https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/flu-influenza/pandemic-plans.html Alberta‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2014) https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/c89245b6-a7fc-4c24-be87-c2686341ffb5/resource/a652811e-42f2-4c0d-90af-54e0e759e05e/download/2014-albertas-pandemic-influenza-plan-apip-march-2014.pdf British Columbia‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2014) https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/emergency-pdf/bc-pandemic-influenza-consequence-management-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Manitoba‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/documents/influenza/Pandemic_Overview.pdf Newfoundland‘s Pandemic Plan (2007) https://www.gov.nl.ca/hcs/files/publichealth-pandemic-complete-pandemic-web.pdf New Brunswick‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2006) https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ps-sp/pdf/emo/Pandemic_Planning-e.pdf Northwest Territories‘ Pandemic Guide (2020) https://www.hss.gov.nt.ca/professionals/sites/professionals/files/resources/hss_pandemic_guide_and_checklist.pdf Nova Scotia‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2013) https://novascotia.ca/dhw/cdpc/documents/Respiratory_Response_Plan_for_Public_Health.pdf Nunavut‘s Pandemic Path (2020) https://gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/nunavuts_path_final_framework_-_eng_sm.pdf Ontario‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2013) http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/emb/pan_flu/pan_flu_plan.aspx Prince Edward Island‘s Pandemic Plan https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/publications/pandemic_influenza_contingency_plan.pdf Québec‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2006) https://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/2005/05-235-05a.pdf Saskatchewan‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2009) https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/vmd0jm0k.pdf Yukon Territory‘s Influenza Pandemic Plan (2020) https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/cs/cs-yg-pandemic-coordination-plan.pdf None of the provincial or federal governments fully utilized the recommendations contained in those existing plans. The COVID-19 pandemic response was flawed from the very beginning in the following ways: The responses did not take into account the emergency pandemic plans that had already been created; The overall goal of the pandemic response was incorrect. The stated goal was to “protect the healthcare system.“ A more appropriate goal should have been to minimize the impact of the virus/disease on all of society. The government did not utilize the preexisting emergency response apparatus that existed at all levels of government. Each province and territory had professional people trained in planning for implementing and monitoring an integrated response to any and all emergency situations. All emergency responses in Canada are to be under the direct control and supervision of elected officials. During the COVID-19 pandemic, control and authority of all aspects of Canadian society were handed over to non-elected bureaucrats within the healthcare area. These individuals were not elected, and had no substantive actual training in coordinating a response to an emergency situation. Fear and terror were used to control the population. The government representatives did not express confidence in their plan, nor did they express an overall plan to the population. No new surge capacity was constructed within the medical system, and the government took steps to eliminate normal services in order to free up resources. This resulted in lack of medical services for the overall population, including cancellation of care, diagnosis, and treatment of disease and injuries. A major planning mistake was bringing people infected with COVID-19 into existing hospitals, thereby potentially infecting the entire facility and staff. If COVID-19 had indeed been the deadly pathogen that we were told, separate treatment centres should have been set up to isolate COVID patients from the existing system that was needed to provide general healthcare. The sharing of resources across jurisdictions is a normal function during emergencies, but this practice was discouraged and demonized during the COVID-19 pandemic. The media used any hint of this to make the case that the healthcare system was overwhelmed. The government appeared to be unaware of what was going on in the healthcare system and in society overall. The measures that had initially been implemented were not adjusted based on the actual situation being experienced on the ground. An example of this might be that although it was understood as early as March of 2020 that different population groups had different levels of risk and outcomes from COVID-19, resources were expended needlessly in groups that had little or no risk from dying of COVID-19. Pandemics are “public emergencies,“ not “public health emergencies.“ The Premier of every province should have established a task force made up of major public sector ministries to lead, coordinate, and support the efforts. In no instance should public health have been put in the lead of the emergency plan and its overall execution across the entire society. The coordinating agency EMO (emergency measures organization) should have been in charge of the entire response across all societal sectors, this would have guaranteed a balanced and considered response. Those who developed and implemented the government response did not fully understand the economic and social impacts of the mitigative measures and attempted to minimize these impacts. Continuity of all services and businesses should have been a priority, with assistance being provided to those areas which were actually prevented from accomplishing their tasks. No considerations were given to the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Government and public health messaging failed to address and manage fear, and instead stoked and inflamed it. A realistic cost–benefit analysis was never carried out for each of the measures undertaken so that all effects of the proposed measures could be analyzed. Non-pharmaceutical interventions had previously been studied and most were determined to be non-effective; however, they were implemented without consideration of previous experience or reasons given for why they would be appropriate for this particular pandemic. No written plans were ever issued by the government or the media to the public so that citizens could make informed decisions. Government and media collaborated to promote a certain narrative without consideration of the actual known facts and information. Both the government and media developed a narrative which demonized persons who had tested positive for COVID-19 and/or were demonstrating symptoms of COVID-19. A recovery plan was never developed or implemented to address the widespread damage that had been done to Canadian society. Seventy-three per cent of all reported COVID-19 deaths occurred in long-term-care facilities. This is a controlled and contained population which should have effectively been addressed in a focused way. Medical professionals, who were asked during their testimony, had no training or awareness of any pre-existing influenza pandemic plan. Conclusions The Canadian response to the COVID-19 pandemic failed in all major areas of emergency response management. Emergency response was put in the hands of unelected health officers, and elected officials abrogated their legislated responsibilities. Emergency response planning and implementation must be carried out from the bottom up, since the circumstances of any emergency vary based on actual conditions on the ground. Federal authorities implemented emergency plans across the country, as opposed to only providing support to local emergency plans. Despite the existence of detailed pandemic response plans, the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic ignored most of these pandemic response plans. Existing emergency measures personnel and procedures were not utilized during the pandemic. The government pandemic plan did not evaluate the overall collateral effects of the measures implemented. The pandemic measures imposed by government did not take into account the evolving situation. Recommendations Based on the totality of the witness testimony, the following recommendations are presented: A. Emergency measures organizations (EMOs) must be in charge of planning, implementation, and recovery from any and all “emergencies.“ B. Public health officials should never be put in charge of emergency response. They should be a critical component of the planning but should never be charged with running a response. C. Emergency Management Act powers must supersede the powers of the various public health officers. The public health officers must come under the authority of the emergency management agencies. D. Elected officials must remain in charge of all emergency measures. E. Follow existing emergency plans. F. Make sure all emergency plans are publicized and the contents well known by stakeholders in all affected areas. G. Require mandatory training of emergency response personnel. H. Follow all emergency measures legislation in each jurisdiction. I. Emergency planning must be driven from the bottom up. J. Federal government should not be leading emergency response. They should be limited to supporting the requirements of the local authorities. K. Media and government cannot be allowed to collude to present a pre-approved information campaign. L. The consultation process should involve the public, and the comprehensive plan to tackle the pandemic emergency should be regularly, consistently, and promptly communicated to the public. M. In any future emergencies , the government should focus on mitigating public fear and anxiety rather than resorting to fear and terror as a means to secure compliance. N. Require mandatory cost–benefit analysis of any and all emergency measures considered and/or imposed. O. Require transparency in decision-making. P. Support open public discourse , without censorship. Q. Require a mandatory recovery plan to fix the collateral damage done by the pandemic measures. R. Require a mitigation plan for all societal damage done by the pandemic measures. S. Establish regulations to ensure that the elected officials are never sidelined or abrogate their powers to unelected bureaucrats. T. Commission an independent study which is required to include members of the emergency measures organizations from across Canada. U. Rebuild emergency response organizations across Canada. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript childcare employment loss, mask mandate opposition, autistic child regression claim, public health orders, rally participation, self-isolation requirement, protest organizing, Provincial Offences Act, breach arrest, mask exemption dispute, Shoppers Drug Mart incident, bail conditions, solitary confinement, media activism, gathering tickets Included in the Report: Mr. Todd McDougall Childcare Worker Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-118 Hearing Winnipeg Manitoba Date: April 15, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Employment departure, protest involvement, and repeated arrests related to opposition to COVID-19 public health orders in Manitoba. One Line Summary A longtime Winnipeg childcare worker describes leaving his job over mask policies and being repeatedly ticketed and arrested for protest-related public health order violations. Synopsis Todd McDougall testified that after 13 years working at a Winnipeg childcare centre, he became increasingly opposed to masking policies implemented in late 2020. He described concerns about the effects of masks and cohort restrictions on children, including what he characterized as regression in an autistic child who he believed was affected by reduced facial visibility. He stated that disagreements with management over enforcement of masking and public health measures, combined with his participation in rallies, led to escalating conflict and ultimately the end of his employment. McDougall explained that he began attending and later organizing rallies opposing public health orders, initially documenting events through his platform, Winnipeg Alternative Media. He reported receiving approximately 10 or 11 tickets for outdoor gathering violations and a mask-related offence. He was arrested in May 2021 under The Provincial Offences Act for allegedly continuing to participate in prohibited gatherings and was detained for approximately 24 hours on two separate occasions. He further described a second arrest related to an alleged breach of bail conditions after entering a retail store without a mask while claiming exemption status. He testified that he spent time in custody, including a period in solitary confinement, and characterized the enforcement of public health measures as excessive. Following his departure from childcare, he stated that he transitioned to work at a seed plant and continued involvement in activism and media activities. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

2. Response to the 2023 NCI Report 2. Response to the 2023 NCI Report Response by the Public The public response to the 2023 NCI Report has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. From coast to coast, Canadians have embraced the 2023 Report, recognizing its critical importance in evaluating the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2023 Report is freely available for download (PDF) on the NCI website, ensuring accessibility for all interested individuals. Additionally, hard copies of the 2023 Report are available for purchase on Amazon Books, catering to those who prefer a physical version. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/ The NCI 2023 Report has garnered tens of millions of Internet interactions, solidifying its status as the largest and most referenced repository of sworn witness testimonies in the world. This unprecedented level of engagement reflects the public’s deep interest in and concern about the issues addressed in the 2023 Report. The NCI and the public themselves have been actively promoting the 2023 Report, which has been read and referenced by millions of people worldwide. The widespread dissemination and discussion of the 2023 Report underscores the public’s desire for transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making. Response by the Government In stark contrast to the public’s enthusiastic embrace of the NCI 2023 Report, the response from the Canadian government has been one of silence and inaction. Despite being fully aware of the report’s findings and recommendations, the government has not initiated any dialogue with the NCI or the Canadian people. All political parties have largely ignored the 2023 Report, failing to take any meaningful action based on its findings. The government’s continued promotion of COVID-19 vaccinations for children as young as six months old is particularly troubling. This stance persists despite the dire and profound warnings presented in the 2023 Report and the substantial evidence that exposes the fraud of the narrative of vaccines being “safe and effective.“ The government’s refusal to engage with the 2023 Report’s findings or adjust its policies in light of new evidence demonstrates a disregard for the well being of its citizens. Response by the Legacy Media The response from the legacy media has been similarly disappointing. Despite the significance and uniqueness of the NCI 2023 Report, the legacy media has largely ignored it. While there has been some coverage by independent media and broadcasters, the mainstream media, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), has almost completely overlooked this groundbreaking work. This lack of coverage from major media outlets prevents the broader public from being fully informed about the critical issues raised in the 2023 Report. The media’s failure to report on the NCI findings contributes to a broader cover-up, hindering public awareness and discourse on the ongoing COVID-19 mandates and injections. Independent media has stepped in to fill the void to some extent, but the reach and influence of these sources are limited compared to mainstream outlets. Conclusion The lack of response from both the government and the legacy media to the 2023 NCI Report is deeply troubling. The government’s continued promotion of policies that have been thoroughly debunked by the 2023 Report’s findings, coupled with the media’s near-total silence, underscores the critical need for an update on these issues. The public’s strong support for the NCI’s work highlights the demand for truth and accountability, making it all the more essential to shed light on the ongoing cover-up and the reprehensible continuation of misguided COVID-19 policies. It is completely unprecedented that all levels of government and the legacy media would collude together in lockstep to ignore such a comprehensive and thorough treatment of what is arguably the most important period of our collective history. The government’s profound incursion into the very fabric of every single Canadian’s life and the incredibly dire ramifications these incursions have had on the foundations of Canada’s institutions and society should not be ignored. However, it continues to be ignored as all levels of government, all political parties both in power and in opposition, and all of the legacy media outlets, as well as many of our institutions, are jointly responsible for the horror that they visited upon Canadians for more than three years. The consequences of these—potentially criminal—actions cannot be overstated, and the guilt is shared by all parties who participated in these incursions. These parties feel compelled not only to ignore what has happened but also appear to be driven to continue this genocidal promotion of the very policies that were the subject of the 2023 NCI Report. The collusion to suppress and dismiss the 2023 Report’s findings is a grave injustice to all Canadians who have suffered due to these misguided policies. The 2024 Supplemental Report aims to address these issues head-on, providing the public with the information they need and deserve. By continuing to investigate and expose the truth, the NCI remains dedicated to holding those in power accountable and ensuring that such profound missteps are not repeated in the future. It is imperative that the public remains vigilant, informed, and engaged, to demand the necessary changes that will protect and uphold the values and freedoms that define Canada. The Responsibility of the Public If the public wants accountability, if the public wants change, it is imperative that the public becomes engaged in these discussions and the promotion of the results of the NCI Report(s). We cannot rely on our political leaders, their political parties, or our traditional institutions, including the police. We only have to review the testimony of retired Police Detective Donald Best to understand what the Ottawa Police Service is doing to silence Detective Helen Grus. We need consider the fact that certain institutions in Canada maintain a “vaccine mandate“ to this day. We must consider that Health Canada continues to promote and recommend these experimental mRNA “biologic“ injections to children as young as six months and to pregnant and nursing women. The people of Canada must themselves hold their “leaders“ to account. There is currently a federal election on the horizon, and incredibly, there is virtually no discussion about what happened over the past three years in Canada. It is up to the members of the public to raise these concerns, it is up to the members of the public to let the governing parties know that we now know what they did, and we the people must hold them to account. If not now, when? If not now, these governing parties will continue these policies and continue to impact Canadians. They must be sent a message now that we want answers, we want accountability, and we must make them listen to us. The current electoral cycle is the perfect opportunity to bring this to the forefront. Canadians must act now. Engagement can take many forms: discussing the findings of the NCI Reports with family and friends, sharing information on social media, attending town hall meetings, and questioning political candidates about their stance on the issues highlighted in the NCI Reports. By making our voices heard, we can influence the direction of our country’s policies and ensure that such profound missteps are never repeated. It is up to us—the public—to demand the change we want to see. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Canada Post employment, occupational health and safety, Canada Labour Code Part II, Westray Law, criminal negligence, workplace vaccine mandate, informed consent letter, work refusal process, definition of danger, personal protective equipment classification, employer due diligence, Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, PCR testing concerns, hazardous products regulations, workers compensation liability Included in the Report: Mr. Ryan Orydzuk Occupational Health and Safety Professional Expert Witness ID: NCI-W-134 Hearing Saskatoon Saskatchewan Date: April 21, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Application of federal occupational health and safety law and employer liability to workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandates. One Line Summary A former Canada Post safety officer argues that federal employers assumed full legal liability by implementing COVID-19 vaccine mandates as workplace safety measures. Synopsis Ryan Orydzuk testified as an occupational health and safety professional with over 15 years of experience at Canada Post, including roles as a safety officer and human resources business partner. He described submitting a formal “Letter of Informed Consent” to his employer containing approximately 90 questions regarding vaccine safety, employer due diligence, and compliance with the Canada Labour Code. He stated that his employer largely deferred to Public Health Agency guidance and did not substantively address his occupational health and safety concerns, leading him to initiate a formal work refusal process. Orydzuk argued that once employers implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates as workplace safety policies, they assumed full legal responsibility under Part II of the Canada Labour Code. He testified that vaccines were effectively treated as personal protective equipment, thereby triggering employer duties related to hazard identification, informed consent, training, and investigation of occupational illness. He referenced the Criminal Code (including the Westray amendments), the definition of “danger,” and employer obligations to prevent foreseeable harm, asserting that adverse event data met the legal threshold for workplace danger. He further raised concerns regarding PCR testing under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act and the handling of vaccine-related injuries under workers’ compensation systems. He concluded that employers failed to conduct adequate due diligence, improperly labeled employees as “non-compliant” rather than processing refusals under established occupational health and safety procedures, and avoided accountability mechanisms built into federal labour law. Orydzuk stated that no meaningful accountability has occurred to date and encouraged employees to examine their employers’ compliance with occupational health and safety legislation. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 21, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Law Society suspension, Reopening Ontario Act charges, Freedom Convoy participation, intimidation allegations, Magna Carta reference, Charter rights erosion claim, Bold Lie concept, vaccine contract critique, Pfizer profits discussion, no liability clauses, media fear messaging, Milgram experiment analogy, Stanford prison analogy, government overreach claim, wealth transfer allegation Included in the Report: Mr. Maurice Gatien Lawyer Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-284 Hearing Ottawa Ontario Date: May 18, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns regarding COVID-19 mandates, intimidation, vaccine procurement contracts, and suspension of Charter rights. One Line Summary Maurice Gatien testified that COVID-19 policies reflected intimidation, constitutional erosion, and one-sided vaccine procurement contracts lacking accountability. Synopsis Maurice Gatien, a lawyer called to the Ontario Bar in 1971, testified about representing individuals charged under COVID-19 emergency legislation and described being suspended by the Law Society of Ontario in September 2022. He recounted defending clients charged under the Reopening Ontario Act for participating in rallies and described what he characterized as widespread intimidation, including doxxing, harassment, and personal incidents following his public advocacy. He also described walking 110 kilometres to Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy to protest what he viewed as suppression of rights and institutional silence from legal and medical regulatory bodies. Gatien introduced the concept of the “Bold Lie,” drawing analogies from financial fraud, advertising history, and psychological experiments such as the Milgram, conformity, and Stanford prison studies. He argued that public messaging during COVID-19 relied on fear-based narratives, asserting that the population was told both that COVID-19 posed universal lethal risk and that vaccination was the sole solution. He cited local mortality statistics from Eastern Ontario, which he reorganized by age, stating that deaths were concentrated in older populations and that under-40 mortality was negligible, and questioned the proportionality of public health responses and media framing. He further criticized vaccine procurement contracts, describing them as one-sided agreements that included advance public funding, liability protections for manufacturers, taxpayer-funded marketing and distribution, and no profit-sharing or clawback provisions. He referenced large pharmaceutical profits and past regulatory fines as part of his concerns. Gatien concluded that Charter rights were effectively suspended during the pandemic without adequate parliamentary oversight, that dissenting professionals faced institutional pressure, and that foundational constitutional principles require vigilance to prevent future overreach. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Hospital Protocols, Patient Isolation, End-of-Life Care, Vaccine Policy, Health System Restrictions, Nursing Practice, Family Access Restrictions, Ethical Concerns Included in the Report: Ms. Cathy Careen RN Registered Nurse Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-004 Hearing Truro Nova Scotia Date: March 16, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Hospital Protocols and Patient Care During COVID-19 One Line Summary Registered Nurse Cathy Careen testified regarding hospital policies, patient isolation, and ethical concerns surrounding care practices during COVID-19. Synopsis Cathy Careen, a registered nurse, testified about her professional experience working within hospital settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. She described the implementation of hospital protocols, including visitor restrictions and isolation procedures, and discussed their impact on patient well-being and family involvement in care. Her testimony raised ethical concerns regarding end-of-life situations and the emotional effects of separation policies. She also addressed challenges faced by healthcare workers navigating rapidly changing directives and institutional mandates. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 May 4, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript vasovagal syncope, medical mask exemption, retail confrontation, pregnancy miscarriage, school mask anxiety, child suicide risk, homeschool decision, Unify Grassroots, vaccine passport injunction, court cost deterrent, premier meeting, media defamation, College disclosure policy, unvaccinated stigma, hospital birth concerns Included in the Report: Hon. Nadine Ness Former Law Enforcement Officer Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-156 Hearing Saskatoon Saskatchewan Date: April 22, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Personal experiences of medical discrimination, pregnancy-related healthcare concerns, and civic activism opposing vaccine mandates and passports. One Line Summary Former RCMP officer describes medical exemption conflict, activism against mandates, and concerns about healthcare treatment during pregnancy. Synopsis Nadine Ness, a former RCMP officer medically retired due in part to severe vasovagal syncope, testified that mask mandates posed significant health risks to her because heat triggers fainting episodes. Despite holding a medical exemption and wearing a face shield, she described repeated confrontations in public settings. In one retail incident while pregnant, she fainted after being required to sign a mask-related form, sustaining injuries and later experiencing a miscarriage the same day. She filed a complaint with the company, which subsequently removed the policy requiring the form. Ms. Ness also testified about the impact of school COVID-19 mandates on her 11-year-old daughter, who has OCD and anxiety. She stated that masking and sanitization policies exacerbated her daughter’s mental health condition, resulting in an assessment of medium to high suicide risk. In response, she co-founded a parent advocacy group, Unify Grassroots, which rapidly grew and organized presentations to school boards and legal efforts to challenge vaccine passport policies. Although an injunction application was not successful, she stated that the group became a provincial hub for professionals opposing mandates and advocating for informed consent. She further described public criticism and media scrutiny following a video she produced urging government officials to reconsider their approach to unvaccinated citizens. After speaking with the provincial premier, she reported a shift in public messaging but stated that she and her physician husband subsequently faced online attacks and professional complaints. She also testified that a College of Physicians policy required unvaccinated physicians to disclose their vaccination status publicly. During a later pregnancy, she described reluctance by a high-risk obstetrician to see her in person due to masking issues and recounted a hospital interaction she perceived as hostile, contributing to her decision to consider delivering outside a hospital setting. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Nova Scotia Health Authority, Public Health Supervisor, PCR Test Results, Negative Result Notification, Provincial Data Spreadsheet, COVID Case Reporting, Alleged Data Inflation, Case Count Discrepancy, 25 Percent Reporting Gap, Remote Work Setting, Vaccine Mandate, Unpaid Leave Threat, Early Retirement Under Pressure, System Lockout, Employment Termination, Vaccine Hesitancy, Facial Paralysis (Supervisor Adverse Event), Informed Consent Concerns Included in the Report: Ms. Linda Adshade Public Health Administrative Supervisor Both (Professional and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-035 Hearing Truro Nova Scotia Date: March 18, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic PCR Test Data Management, Alleged Case Reporting Discrepancies, and Termination Following Vaccine Mandate One Line Summary NSHA supervisor Linda Adshade testified that provincial COVID case numbers reported publicly exceeded internal PCR data by approximately 25 percent and that she took early retirement after refusing vaccination. Synopsis Linda Adshade testified that she worked for the Nova Scotia Health Authority and, during the pandemic, supervised a remote team responsible for notifying individuals of negative PCR COVID-19 test results. She stated that she received full provincial spreadsheets each morning containing both positive and negative test results. After isolating positive cases from the data, she concluded that the totals she observed did not match publicly reported figures, estimating that public case counts were approximately 25 percent higher than the data she reviewed. Adshade testified that her role was entirely remote and that she had no in-person contact with patients or clinical settings. When vaccine mandates were introduced for NSHA employees, she declined vaccination based on personal research and concerns about the speed of vaccine development. She also testified that her supervisor, who attempted to reassure her by receiving the vaccine, later reported experiencing facial paralysis following vaccination, which reinforced her decision. She stated that after informing management of her refusal, she was advised she would be placed on unpaid leave and potentially terminated. Her system access was removed effective December 1, 2021, prior to the stated policy implementation date. She elected to take early retirement three years before full benefits eligibility and testified that she and her husband now rely solely on his income. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.