5. Analysis 5. Analysis Introduction Following is the analysis, commentary, and recommendations as put forward by the Commissioners. To facilitate the analysis and review, the information has been divided into various broad areas as follows: CIVIL Legal, policing, policy, regulatory, human rights, emergency preparedness, government, private–public partnerships, anti-trust, monopolies, private corporations; SOCIAL Media, family, faith, education, community, service delivery, societal coercion; ECONOMIC Impacts related to financial matters at all levels—personal, family, corporate—and governmental expenditures and debt, government actions; and HEALTH Medicine, research, pharmaceuticals, regulating and safety monitoring, patient relations, doctor–patient relationship, industry health, messaging, incentives, regulatory collusion. Each of the categories listed above cannot be fully appreciated independently of each other. Each category is only a part of the much larger whole of the information presented, and specific subject areas cross categories. This reflects the intersectionality of all areas that were considered. 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.

3.1 Detailed Information from the Vancouver Public Hearings 3.1 Detailed Information from the Vancouver Public Hearings This section contains a tabular listing of the witnesses who testified at the public hearings in Vancouver. For a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the witness testimonies, we strongly advise the reader to refer to the official witness transcripts, which are included in section 8 of this Report. The transcripts provide verbatim accounts of what was said during the meetings and offer a more complete representation of the witnesses‘ statements. Additionally, if you prefer to directly access videos of the witness testimonies, they are also available on the NCI website for your convenience. https://rumble.com/c/NCIClips Details of each of the three days of public hearings held in Vancouver follows. List of Witnesses: Public hearings were held in Vancouver, British Columbia on October 17, 2024, through October 19, 2024. The schedule of witnesses is as follows: Vancouver, British Columbia, Day One, October 17, 2024 Name of Witness Subject 1 Leigh Dundas Child trafficking 2 Alex Newman Manipulation of education systems & globalist agendas 3 Dr. Julie Ponesse COVID-19 vaccine mandates and ethical concerns 4 Dr. Byram Bridle Safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in children 5 Kelsey Green Parental alienation 6 Vincent Gircys Erosion of police ethics: Helen Grus case 7 Paul Dirks SOGI and sexual mutilation of children 8 Alisa Horth Peer pressure, shaming and bullying of son at school 9 Amrit Birring SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) program 10 Karlene Duncan Sexualization of children & school resource materials Full transcripts of each witness’s testimony are included in Volume Three of this Report. Vancouver, British Columbia, Day Two, October 18, 2024 Name of Witness Subject 11 Dr. Paul Thomas Safety of vaccines & health of vaxed vs unvaxed children 12 David & Collett Stephan Legal struggles and the tragic death of their son, Ezekiel 13 Barry Neufeld SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) program in British Columbia schools & legal issues 14 Paul Jaffe His role as legal counsel in significant cases related to freedom of speech, defamation & COVID-19 measures 15 James Kitchen Erosion of rights during the COVID-19 event, judicial notices and other issues concerning the judicial process 16 Irvin Studin School closures during the COVID-19 event, "policy crime” and ongoing issues for children 17 Helen Ward Parental involvement in safeguarding children's well-being 18 Pierre Barns Sexualization and abuse of children by the SOGI program 19 Kellie-Lynn Pirie Her experience as a transitional / de-transitioner Full transcripts of each witness‘s testimony are included in Volume Three of this Report. Vancouver, British Columbia, Day Three, October 19, 2024 Name of Witness Subject 20 Dr. Jessica Rose Research into vaccine safety, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines 21 Priya Sall Alleged adverse effects following the COVID-19 vaccines 22 Dr. Michelle Perro Dangers of industrialized food products 23 Kathy Stack Son’s health deteriorated following his DPT vaccine 24 Chris Elston Medical interventions & children gender identity 25 Dr. Robert Dickson Dangers of water fluoridation 26 Dr. Christopher Shaw Research on environmental toxins & neurological disorders 27 Hila Russ-Woodland Influence of school boards & authorities over children’s ability to make medical decisions without parental consent 28 Vicki Lightfoot Mask mandates & homeschooling 29 Dr. Stephen Malthouse Vaccine schedule side effects & child informed consent 30 Tamara Main Daughter mental condition treated by transitionioning 31 Emily Duggan SOGI 123 (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) resource guide 32 Carmell Pelly Childhood sexual abuse, trafficking, and how those events shaped her life Full transcripts of each witness’s testimony are included in Volume Three of this Report.Exhibit Archive The following is a list of the Witness Exhibits presented to the Commission during the NCI Vancouver Hearings. This list is current as of April 30, 2025. It should be noted that the list may be updated on the website from time to time, and the reader is encouraged to visit the website at https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/exhibits2024/#1740359244765-0fd81d7a-724d to review the latest list of Witness Exhibits. These exhibits serve as a critical record of the testimonies and evidence presented during the NCI Vancouver Hearings, providing valuable insights into the experiences and perspectives of individuals affected by the issues under investigation. Vancouver, British Columbia, October, 17, 18, 19, 2024 V2001 – Leigh Dundas – CV V2002 – Leigh Dundas – Bio V2045 – Dr. Julie Ponesse – Powerpoint Presentation V2055 – Kelsey Green – CV V2037 – Vincent Gircys – Warning Letter from OPP to Vincent Gircys, dated Jan 1, 2021 V2038 – Vincent Gircys – A Report from Defense Research & Development Canada, “A Preliminary dive into Canada’s past & future crime landscape” August, 2022 V2025 – Paul Dirks – Powerpoint Presentation V2041 – Paul Dirks – Criminal Code Sections on Conversion Therapy V2056 – Alisa Horth – Video V2057 – Alisa Horth – Correspondence with school V2058 – Alisa Horth – Inappropriate books in school V2039 – Amrit Birring – Amrit Birring-Jan 27, 2024 letter from Amrit Birring to RCMP Surrey Detachment V2040 – Amrit Birring – RCMP General Occurrence Report #1201 2024-12782, obtained under FOI V2026 – Dr. Paul Thomas – Powerpoint Presentation V2042 – Barry Neufeld – Amended Notice of Civil Claim, Neufeld v. Hansman filed January, 2019 V2043 – Barry Neufeld – Affidavit of B. Neufeld in Bondar, filed Nov 22, 2022 in Bondar libel claim V2003 – Paul Jaffe – Respondent Factum for SCC File 39796 V2004 – Paul Jaffe – Neufeld v. Hansman 2021 BCCA 222 V2005 – Paul Jaffe – October 23, 2017 Facebook post of Barry Neufeld V2006 – Paul Jaffe – October 25, 2017 Press Release of Barry Neufeld V2007 – Paul Jaffe – Comments by Glen Hansman V2008 – Paul Jaffe – Neufeld v. Hansman 2019 BCSC 2028 V2014 – Kellie-Lynn Piree – Demographic & trends in transgender identities & gender confirming surgery V2015 – Kellie-Lynn Piree – Long-term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery Cohort in Sweden V2012 – Dr. Michelle Perro – Powerpoint Presentation V2051 – Dr. Michelle Perro – CV V2047 – David & Collet Stephan – Documents file V2050 – Chris Elston – Powerpoint Presentation V2052 – Dr. Robert Dickson – Dr. Bob’s Top Ten Reasons Not to Fluoridate V2053 – Dr. Robert Dickson – Websites of Importance V2054 – Dr. Robert Dickson – Flouridation Ineffectiveness V2009 – Dr. Chris Shaw – CV V2049 – Dr. Chris Shaw – Powerpoint Presentation V2013 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Video of school presentation V2016 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #1 V2017 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #2 V2018 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #3 & #4 V2019 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #5 & #6 V2020 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #7 & #8 V2021 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Picture #9 V2022 – Hila Russ-Woodland – First email to VSB June 18, 2021 V2023 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Second email to the VSB June 21, 2021 V2024 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Response email from Suzanne Hoffman V2027 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Story Telling With Drag Queens V2028 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Stand For Our Children V2029 – Hila Russ-Woodland – It’s Time For Parents to Act V2030 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Get Involved V2031 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Photo Collage V2035 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Man with Purple Hair V2036 – Hila Russ-Woodland – Naked Torso V2010 – Tamara Main – Journal Page 1 V2011 – Tamara Main – Combined Document Group 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.

4.7.4 Children's Mental and Spiritual Health 4.7.4 Children's Mental and Spiritual Health Reference to the Original NCI Report The original NCI report, “Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada” (November 28, 2023), acknowledged the mental health challenges arising during the COVID-19 event. However, it did not fully explore the unique and profound impacts on children. Testimonies at the Vancouver NCI hearings offered a more detailed and nuanced understanding of the crisis, drawing attention to systemic failures, educational disruptions, and environmental factors that have exacerbated these issues. Introduction The profound and far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 measures on children’s mental and spiritual health emerged as a critical theme during the Vancouver NCI hearings. Witnesses provided in depth testimony on how societal pressures, environmental factors, and public health measures have collectively shaped the emotional and developmental outcomes of Canadian children. These testimonies highlighted a crisis that has been building for years but was exacerbated during the COVID-19 measures. The COVID-19 event acted as a catalyst, magnifying existing challenges while introducing new stressors that disrupted children’s mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Rates of anxiety, depression, and emotional instability surged, as children were isolated from their peers, stripped of their routines, and subjected to unprecedented uncertainty. Witnesses detailed how COVID-19 measures, such as prolonged school closures, excessive reliance on digital learning, and the loss of community connections, left children without the critical social and developmental supports they need to thrive. Beyond the immediate psychological effects, the hearings underscored the spiritual harm inflicted on children. The erosion of meaningful connections, a sense of purpose, and opportunities for identity formation left many children feeling disconnected and adrift. Witnesses emphasized the importance of addressing this often-overlooked dimension of health, arguing that spiritual well-being is integral to resilience and long-term recovery. This section synthesizes the testimonies of expert witnesses, parents, and educators, including Dr. Julie Ponesse, Dr. Michelle Perro, Dr. Byram Bridle, Carmel Pelly, Hila Russ-Woodland, and Helen Ward. Together, their insights reveal a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing children during the COVID-19 event and the systemic failures that exacerbated these issues. By exploring the intersection of mental, emotional, and spiritual health, this section aims to illuminate the urgent need for holistic reforms that prioritize the well-being of children and restore their connections to family, community, and purpose. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Dr. Julie Ponesse Overview of Testimony Dr. Julie Ponesse is a bioethicist with extensive academic and professional experience in ethics, philosophy, and public health. She holds a Master’s degree in Bioethics from the University of Toronto and a PhD in Ethics and Ancient Philosophy from Western University. Her career spans over two decades of teaching at Canadian and American universities, where she has specialized in fostering critical thinking about ethical issues in healthcare and public policy. Dr. Ponesse is currently the Chief of Biomedical Ethics for The Wellness Company, where she focuses on promoting ethical decision-making in health related fields. Key Points of Testimony Dr. Julie Ponesse’s testimony during the NCI Vancouver Hearings provided a thorough exploration of the mental and spiritual challenges faced by children in the wake of COVID-19-related public health measures. She argued that these measures not only overlooked the unique needs of children but also inflicted lasting harm on their emotional and developmental well-being. Mental Health Crisis in Children: Dr. Ponesse described the COVID-19 event as a period of unparalleled psychological upheaval for children. Key points included: Anxiety and Depression : Rates of anxiety and depression among children surged during the COVID-19 event due to isolation, uncertainty, and disrupted routines. Loss of Developmental Milestones : Many children missed critical social and educational experiences, leading to delays in emotional and cognitive growth. Increased Suicidal Ideation : Dr. Ponesse cited evidence suggesting an alarming rise in suicidal thoughts and behaviours among children during the COVID-19 measures. She emphasized that these issues were exacerbated by the lack of proactive mental health support, leaving many children and families to cope alone. • Spiritual and Existential Harm: Beyond the psychological toll, Dr. Ponesse delved into the spiritual harm inflicted on children. She argued that the loss of community, identity, and purpose caused by COVID-19 restrictions left children feeling disconnected and adrift. Key points included: Disruption of Meaningful Connections : Social-distancing measures and school closures severed children’s ties to peers, teachers, and mentors, critical sources of support and guidance. Loss of Identity : Children struggled to define their roles within their communities, especially as routines and social structures dissolved. Erosion of Faith and Optimism : Many children became disillusioned by the fear and uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 event, contributing to a sense of hopelessness. Dr. Ponesse highlighted that these spiritual harms are harder to quantify but equally critical to address, as they affect children’s long-term resilience and well-being. Ethical Oversight Failures: Dr. Ponesse criticized the lack of ethical scrutiny in public health policies affecting children. Key points included: Physical Over Mental Prioritization : Policies were heavily focused on minimizing physical health risks, often at the expense of mental and emotional health. Children’s Voices Overlooked : Decisions were made without considering children’s unique needs and perspectives. Erosion of Parental Trust : The lack of transparency and ethical deliberation alienated parents, undermining their trust in institutions tasked with protecting their children. She called for a balanced, ethically-grounded approach to public health that considers children’s mental and spiritual health as integral to their overall well-being. Dr. Ponesse’s testimony was a powerful reminder of the importance of prioritizing children in public health discussions. Her insights revealed systemic failures and offered actionable solutions to ensure that future policies protect not just the bodies, but also the minds and spirits of the youngest and most vulnerable members of society. Dr. Michelle Perro Overview of Testimony Dr. Michelle Perro is a paediatrician with over four decades of experience in clinical practice and 25 years in integrative medicine. She has directed pediatric emergency departments in New York City and UCSF Benioff Oakland Children’s Hospital. Dr. Perro has published extensively, co-authoring What’s Making Our Children Sick? , and is a co-founder of GMOscience.org. Her work focuses on the intersection of environmental health, nutrition, and holistic pediatric care. At the NCI Vancouver Hearings, Dr. Perro emphasized the links between environmental toxins, dietary factors, and medical interventions, highlighting their profound impact on children’s mental and spiritual health. Key Points of Testimony Gut-Brain-Axis and Mental Health: Dr. Perro discussed the critical role of the gut-brain-axis in regulating children’s emotional and cognitive well-being. She highlighted how environmental toxins, particularly glyphosate, disrupt this axis, leading to neurological and psychological challenges. Glyphosate and Microbiome Disruption: Glyphosate, widely used as a herbicide, depletes beneficial gut bacteria and promotes harmful bacteria such as Clostridia . This imbalance disrupts neurotransmitter production, particularly serotonin, which is crucial for mood regulation. The resulting dysfunction contributes to conditions like anxiety, depression, and behavioural disorders. Emotional Dysregulation and Chronic Stress: Dr. Perro linked microbiome imbalances to emotional instability, irritability, and difficulty coping with stress. These issues are especially significant during childhood, when emotional resilience is still developing. Dr. Perro’s testimony underscored the foundational role of gut health in mental well-being. Her insights highlighted the need for dietary and environmental interventions to address rising rates of mental health challenges in children. Impact of Processed Food on Emotional Health: Dr. Perro pointed to the modern diet’s heavy reliance on processed food as a significant contributor to mental health issues in children. High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Neuroinflammation: Many processed-food contain high-fructose corn syrup and artificial additives, which exacerbate inflammation in the brain and body. Chronic inflammation impairs cognitive function and emotional stability. Nutrient Deficiencies: Processed food lack essential nutrients needed for brain health, including omega-3 fatty acids, magnesium, and B vitamins. Nutritional deficits can exacerbate conditions like ADHD, anxiety, and depression. By emphasizing the link between diet and emotional health, Dr. Perro provided a compelling case for prioritizing nutrient-rich, organic diets to support children’s mental well-being. Spiritual Harm from Environmental and Dietary Disruptions: Dr. Perro highlighted the spiritual dimensions of health, connecting environmental and dietary factors to a broader sense of disconnection and disorientation in children. Loss of Natural Balance: Glyphosate and other chemicals disrupt not only physical systems but also children’s intrinsic connection to nature and their own bodies. She described this as a form of spiritual harm, where children lose their sense of harmony and grounding. ◦ Impact on Identity and Purpose: The pervasive presence of toxins in food, water, and air creates a sense of vulnerability and fear, affecting children’s ability to feel secure and purposeful. Poor diet and exposure to toxins diminish children’s capacity for resilience and emotional growth, further contributing to a sense of disempowerment. Dr. Perro’s perspective broadened the discussion of children’s health to include spiritual well-being, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches that restore balance and connection. Rising Neurological and Behavioural Disorders: Dr. Perro linked the increase in neurological disorders such as autism and ADHD to environmental and dietary factors, noting their impact on children’s mental health and emotional stability. Autism and Behavioural Challenges: Autism spectrum disorders, described as a “spectrum pandemic,” are exacerbated by disruptions in the gut-brain-axis and toxic exposures. Behavioural issues like hyperactivity and aggression are compounded by poor dietary habits and environmental stressors. Emotional Isolation and Spiritual Harm: Children with neurodevelopment disorders often face social isolation, which can lead to a sense of spiritual disconnection. Dr. Perro’s testimony provided a framework for understanding how systemic factors contribute to both neurological and emotional disorders, emphasizing the need for preventive measures and targeted interventions. Dr. Byram Bridle Overview of Testimony Dr. Byram Bridle is an associate professor of virology and immunology at the University of Guelph, with a focus on vaccine development and safety. His academic work includes extensive research into immunological responses, adjuvants, and the bio-distribution of vaccine components. At the Vancouver NCI hearings, Dr. Bridle addressed the broader implications of vaccine components and public health policies on children’s mental and spiritual health. Key Points of Testimony Neuroinflammation and Mental Health: Dr. Bridle focused on the potential neurological effects of vaccine adjuvants, particularly aluminum, linking them to neuroinflammation and subsequent mental health challenges in children. Aluminum Adjuvants: Aluminum, a neurotoxic adjuvant in many traditional vaccines, is designed to enhance immune responses but can also cross the blood-brain barrier. This accumulation in the brain contributes to neuroinflammation, which is associated with cognitive and behavioural disorders, including anxiety, depression, and ADHD. Chronic Inflammatory States: Prolonged neuroinflammation may impair emotional regulation and cognitive function in children, potentially leading to developmental delays and mental health challenges. Dr. Bridle’s testimony highlighted the importance of understanding the long-term impacts of vaccine components on neurological health, providing a link between physical immunological responses and mental well-being. Bio-distribution of COVID-19 Injection Components: Dr. Bridle discussed his research into the bio-distribution of COVID-19 injections components, emphasizing that these substances do not remain localized at the injection site as previously assumed. Systemic Spread of Adjuvants: Vaccine components, including adjuvants, travel to various organs, including the brain, potentially disrupting neurological and emotional systems. Persistent bio-distribution may interfere with the normal development of a child’s brain and nervous system. Emotional Dysregulation: Disruptions caused by the bio-distribution of toxic components may contribute to emotional instability and difficulty managing stress, which are critical during formative years. This research provides a basis for exploring how physiological disruptions from vaccines might manifest as emotional and psychological challenges, further linking physical exposures to mental health outcomes. Impact on Spiritual Development: Dr. Bridle extended his analysis to the spiritual implications of public health measures and medical interventions, arguing that systemic failures contribute to a broader sense of disconnection and disempowerment in children. Loss of Autonomy and Trust: When children experience adverse effects from medical interventions, it can undermine their trust in authority figures and societal systems. This loss of trust extends to their sense of safety and connection, key components of spiritual health. Erosion of Faith in Institutions: Public health measures that prioritize efficiency over compassion and transparency may leave children feeling alienated and unsupported. This disconnect can diminish their sense of purpose and community, critical aspects of spiritual growth. Dr. Bridle’s testimony illuminated the broader implications of systemic failures on children’s spiritual well-being, emphasizing the need for policies that rebuild trust and foster a sense of security and belonging. Call for Ethical Oversight and Transparency: Dr. Bridle emphasized the ethical failures of current public health policies, particularly the lack of transparency around vaccine safety and the potential long-term effects of adjuvants. Inadequate Safety Testing: He criticized the use of non-inert placebos in clinical trials, which obscures the true safety profile of vaccines. The lack of independent, studies into the cumulative effects of vaccine components on mental health was a significant concern. Public Distrust and Spiritual Harm: The lack of transparency erodes public trust, creating a cultural environment where children and families feel disconnected from the institutions designed to protect them. This spiritual disconnection can lead to feelings of isolation and disempowerment, further exacerbating mental health challenges. Dr. Bridle’s ethical critique underscored the systemic need for transparency and accountability in public health, linking these principles to the preservation of mental and spiritual well-being. Hila Russ-Woodland Overview of Testimony Hila Russ-Woodland is an educator with over 25 years of experience in teaching and child development. Her testimony at the Vancouver NCI hearings highlighted the significant mental and spiritual challenges faced by children during the COVID-19 measures. Drawing from her extensive professional background, Russ-Woodland provided critical insights into the psychological and emotional toll of public health measures on children, particularly within the education system. Key Points of Testimony Psychological Impact of Digital Learning: Russ-Woodland focused on the adverse effects of remote learning and increased screen-time on children’s mental health. Isolation and Emotional Disconnection: Remote learning created a sense of isolation, depriving children of the peer interaction essential for emotional development. Many children struggled to form meaningful connections with teachers and classmates, leading to feelings of loneliness and alienation. Increased Anxiety and Depression: The lack of in-person support systems during remote learning exacerbated anxiety and depression, especially for children already vulnerable to mental health challenges. Cognitive Fatigue: Prolonged screen-time led to cognitive fatigue and reduced attention spans, further straining children’s ability to engage meaningfully with their education. Russ-Woodland’s testimony emphasized that digital learning systems failed to address children’s fundamental need for social and emotional connection, contributing to a widespread mental health crisis. Disruption of Routine and Stability: The sudden and prolonged changes to children’s daily routines were a central concern in Russ-Woodland’s testimony. Loss of Structure: School closures disrupted the routines that provide children with a sense of security and predictability. This loss of structure was particularly damaging to children with special needs, who rely heavily on routine for emotional stability. Emotional Instability: Without consistent routines, many children experienced heightened emotional instability, including increased irritability, fear, and difficulty managing stress. The loss of routine not only disrupted children’s learning but also eroded their sense of safety and stability, critical components of mental and spiritual health. Erosion of Spiritual Well-being: Russ-Woodland discussed how the COVID-19 measures disrupted the spiritual growth of children by severing connections to their communities, mentors, and sources of purpose. Loss of Community and Belonging: The absence of in-person schooling and extracurricular activities deprived children of opportunities to feel part of a larger community. This lack of belonging contributed to a sense of disconnection and purposelessness. ◦ Impact on Identity Formation: The COVID-19 event interrupted the social and developmental milestones that help children form their identities. Many children struggled with self-esteem and a sense of worth as they navigated these disruptions. Russ-Woodland’s testimony highlighted the spiritual harm caused by prolonged isolation and the loss of communal and educational structures, which are essential for fostering a sense of connection and meaning in children. Long-term Emotional and Behavioural Effects: Russ-Woodland raised concerns about the long-term implications of the COVID-19 measures on children’s emotional and behavioural development. Persistent Emotional Challenges: Many children who experienced anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 event continue to struggle with emotional regulation. These unresolved issues may contribute to long-term behavioural challenges, such as withdrawal or aggression. Increased Reliance on Technology: The overuse of digital platforms during remote learning has created a dependency on technology, reducing children’s ability to engage in face-to-face interactions and build meaningful relationships. The long-term effects of these disruptions underscore the need for systemic reforms that prioritize emotional and spiritual recovery for children. Hila Russ-Woodland’s testimony illuminated the profound psychological and spiritual toll of COVID-19 measures on children. By highlighting the failures of digital learning, the disruption of routines, and the erosion of community and identity, she provided a comprehensive critique of the systemic shortcomings that contributed to this crisis. Her recommendations emphasized the urgent need to restore connection, stability, and meaning in children’s lives to support their mental and spiritual recovery. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by Witnesses The Vancouver NCI hearings revealed systemic failures and challenges impacting children’s mental and spiritual health, with witnesses identifying critical gaps in public health measures, educational policies, and environmental factors. The testimonies underscored the interconnected nature of these issues and provided a foundation for understanding the broader implications of the COVID-19 event on Canadian children. Systemic Failures in Public Health Measures Witnesses repeatedly criticized public health policies for prioritizing physical health over mental and spiritual well-being. The strict implementation of COVID-19 restrictions, such as social-distancing, school closures, and prolonged isolation, left children without essential support systems. These measures exacerbated pre-existing mental health challenges, leading to widespread increases in anxiety, depression, and emotional instability. Mental Health Neglect: Witnesses such as Dr. Julie Ponesse highlighted the lack of proactive mental health support during the COVID-19 measures, which left children and families to navigate crisis alone. This absence of institutional support contributed to emotional disconnection and prolonged psychological harm. Over-reliance on Technology: As Hila Russ-Woodland noted, the transition to digital learning not only failed to meet children’s developmental needs but also created barriers to meaningful social interaction. The overuse of screens contributed to cognitive fatigue and emotional withdrawal, further isolating children from their communities. Disruption of Educational and Social Structures The sudden closure of schools and extracurricular programs disrupted children’s routines, removing vital sources of stability and belonging. Witnesses emphasized that these changes had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable children, including those with special needs or pre-existing mental health conditions. Loss of Routine and Security: Hila Russ-Woodland detailed how the loss of predictable daily routines eroded children’s sense of safety, leading to heightened emotional instability and difficulty managing stress. Missed Milestones: Dr. Ponesse highlighted the long-term developmental consequences of these disruptions, with many children experiencing delays in emotional, cognitive, and social growth due to the lack of in-person interactions and learning opportunities. Environmental and Nutritional Factors The NCI Vancouver hearings also drew attention to the broader environmental and dietary influences on children’s mental and spiritual health. Gut-brain-axis Disruption: Dr. Michelle Perro’s testimony linked the prevalence of environmental toxins, such as glyphosate, to disruptions in the gut-brain-axis, which is critical for emotional regulation. These imbalances were identified as contributors to anxiety, depression, and behavioural disorders. Processed Food and Nutritional Deficiencies: Dr. Perro also highlighted the role of processed food in exacerbating mental health issues, noting that diets high in artificial additives and low in essential nutrients hinder cognitive and emotional development. Spiritual Harm and Identity Formation Beyond psychological impacts, witnesses explored the spiritual harm caused by the COVID-19 measures, emphasizing the loss of community, purpose, and connection. Erosion of Belonging: Hila Russ-Woodland emphasized how the absence of in-person schooling, social activities, and community engagement severed children’s ties to their peers and mentors. This disconnection led to feelings of purposelessness and alienation, undermining spiritual well-being. Identity Challenges: Witnesses noted that the COVID-19 event disrupted key identity forming experiences, leaving many children struggling to define their roles within their communities and navigate their sense of self. Long-term Implications and Systemic Reforms The testimonies underscored the lasting effects of these disruptions on children’s emotional and spiritual resilience. Without targeted interventions, many children may face ongoing challenges in forming relationships, managing stress, and regaining a sense of purpose. Ethical Oversight and Transparency: Witnesses like Dr. Ponesse and Dr. Byram Bridle emphasized the need for ethical scrutiny in public health decision-making to ensure that policies address the holistic needs of children. Transparent communication and the inclusion of parental voices were identified as essential for rebuilding trust and fostering resilience. Restoration of Connection and Stability: Witnesses called for systemic reforms that prioritize the restoration of social structures, routines, and meaningful connections. These measures are crucial for supporting children’s recovery and ensuring their long-term well-being. Conclusion In summary, the testimonies presented at the NCI Vancouver Hearings revealed a comprehensive picture of the mental and spiritual health crisis facing Canadian children. By addressing systemic failures, environmental and nutritional factors, and the loss of community and identity, witnesses provided a roadmap for meaningful reforms to support children’s holistic recovery and resilience. Recommendations Key Recommendations : Incorporate Ethical Oversight and Transparency in Public Health Policies: Mandate independent ethical reviews of public health policies affecting children to prevent harm. Require comprehensive disclosure of vaccine safety and risk data to support informed consent. Engage parents, educators, and child development experts in creating child-centred policies. 2. Prioritize Holistic Mental Health Support: Expand access to counselling, peer support programs, and training for educators to identify and address emotional and behavioural challenges in children. Develop trauma-informed mental health interventions to rebuild emotional resilience and promote long-term recovery. Provide tailored resources for families navigating vaccine injuries or other medical challenges. 3. Strengthen Family and Parental Involvement: Ensure parents are actively involved in critical medical, educational, and policy decisions affecting their children. Empower parents with resources to nurture their children’s mental and spiritual well-being. Implement family centred policies that prioritize the parent-child bond as a protective factor for mental health. 4. Restore Community Connections and Support Systems: Rebuild in-person schooling, extracurricular activities, and community programs to restore children’s sense of belonging and connection. Promote community-based initiatives that foster social interaction, mentorship, and spiritual growth. Develop programs to help children reconnect with peers, teachers, and community members to mitigate feelings of isolation and purposelessness. 5. Reform Educational Practices: Reduce reliance on digital learning tools and promote in-person educational experiences to support social and emotional development. Introduce structured, predictable routines in schools to provide children with a sense of security and stability. Reintroduce programs that encourage self-expression, creativity, and identity formation. 6. Address Environmental and Dietary Factors: Eliminate harmful toxins, such as glyphosate, from food production and children’s environments. Promote nutrient dense, organic diets to support emotional and neurological health. Educate families about reducing processed food consumption and encourage breastfeeding over contaminated infant formulas. 7. Foster Spiritual Growth and Resilience: Create programs that help children reconnect with nature, community, and their sense of identity and purpose. Encourage activities that promote spiritual well-being, such as mentorship programs, arts, and outdoor initiatives. Promote values of trust, compassion, and community within institutions to rebuild children’s sense of optimism and faith. 8. Conduct Research on Long-term Effects: Invest in independent studies to assess the long-term impacts of environmental toxins, vaccine adjuvants, and COVID-19-related disruptions on children’s mental and spiritual health. Develop strategies to mitigate the cumulative effects of systemic failures on children’s emotional and developmental outcomes. By implementing these recommendations, Canada can address the critical mental and spiritual health challenges identified in the Vancouver NCI hearings. This comprehensive approach emphasizes family involvement, community support, holistic health interventions, and systemic reforms to foster resilience, connection, and well-being for 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.

7.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 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.

5.7.4 Toxic Environment 5.7.4 Toxic Environment Recommendations Based on Dr. Perro’s testimony, the following measures are recommended to address the concerns raised: Systemic Reforms: Ban glyphosate and other harmful chemicals from food production Including aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. Increase transparency and data collection on environmental and dietary toxins. Ensure that every baby formula contains NO glyphosate and harmful chemicals like aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. Ensure that every vaccines contains NO glyphosate and harmful chemicals like aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. 2. Dietary Interventions: Promote organic, whole food diets and reduce reliance on processed food. Advocate for breastfeeding and the reduction of the use of infant formula. 3. Public Education: Launch campaigns to educate parents about environmental and dietary toxins. Encourage traditional, nutrient rich diets and sustainable farming practices. Nutrition and agriculture should be in schools curriculum for children to learn how to grow and cook their own food to be healthy. 4. Regulatory Improvements: Strengthen oversight of pesticides, vaccines, and chemical additives. Mandate rigorous evaluations of chemical safety in food and water. 5. Research and Monitoring: Support independent studies on the health impacts of chemical exposures. Monitor long-term outcomes of environmental and dietary interventions. By implementing these measures, Canada can mitigate the toxic assault on its children and create a safer, healthier environment for future generations. Based on Dr. Dickson’s testimony, the following measures are recommended to address the concerns raised: 6. Suspension of Fluoridation Programs: Stop water fluoridation as the risks to health are higher than the benefits. Ban fluoride use in water, toothpaste and other products. Fluoride should be banned in every products as the risks outweighs a lot the benefits that are almost inexistent. It is a toxic waste. 7. Enhance Public Awareness: Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about the potential risks associated with fluoride exposure. 8. Implement Regular Monitoring: Establish stringent guidelines for monitoring fluoride levels in water supplies and mandate public reporting. 9. Promote Alternative Measures: Encourage non-invasive approaches to dental health, such as community wide oral hygiene education and increased access to dental care. 10. Review Regulatory Frameworks: Conduct a thorough review of regulatory policies governing water fluoridation to ensure they align with current scientific understanding. These recommendations underscore the urgent need to protect children from harmful environmental exposures by reforming food, water, and healthcare policies. Grounded in expert testimony, they call for the elimination of toxic substances such as glyphosate and fluoride, the promotion of nutrient-rich, organic diets, and greater public education on environmental health. Through stronger regulation, informed awareness, and holistic prevention strategies, Canada can foster a healthier future for its 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.

5.6 Political, Governmental and Judicial Systems Intentionally Left Blank 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.

7.5.6 Natural Immunity and Early Treatments Rebuffed to Favour Generalized Vaccination 7.5.6 Natural Immunity and Early Treatments Rebuffed to Favour Generalized Vaccination Introduction One of the most disturbing aspects of the vaccination strategy debacle was the orchestrated propaganda launched early in the pandemic to undermine the well-established foundation of natural immunity and to denigrate early treatments. Generalized vaccination was sponsored as the unique and ultimate solution for the pandemic. This propaganda was propelled by layers of lies. We were asked to believe that we were facing a new and exceptionally dangerous virus for which natural immunity would fail to protect us, that no viable treatments existed, and that only new wonder vaccines, developed at “warp speed,“ could save us. The first issue with this deceptive narrative is that the analysis of all-cause mortality across the world led to the conclusion that a not particularly virulent pathogen was in circulation. The pandemic was declared as a red flag signal for danger with fairly tenuous infection morbidity and fatality case numbers. When one considered the real prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it had been grossly underestimated, as was typically the case in early days of any pandemic declaration. This was mainly attributable to a vast underestimation of the true infection rate, understandable when infections were often asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic (presenting few symptoms). There was no need to contain this new virus by any extraordinary health measures. Normal personal hygiene and well-established public heath protocols targeting the protection of the most vulnerable in an adequately protected environment were sufficient. Whether the population had much higher preexisting immunity to this new coronavirus than reported or the virus was not as lethal as initially broadcast, conclusions from many studies, even early on, indicated a fatality rate in the same range as severe flu seasons, for which no overall excess deaths are discernible except for the elderly population. But clearly, public health authorities couldn‘t claim, on the one hand, that there was a serious pandemic of global concern and, on the other hand, say, “Don‘t worry. It‘s going to be business as usual. Be prudent, self-isolate when you are sick, and do not panic. Stress is bad for your immune system, which is the best line of defence against any potential infection, or cancer.“ Rather, public health authorities had to be perceived as saviours, in full control of what needed to be done in circumstances they declared as dire, and they did it in unison with the same pre-formatted messages in their fear campaign. Even if, hypothetically, there was a strong case for vaccination to control a putative deadly virus, we should have acknowledged that for this type of virus in the family of coronaviruses, we have never been able to develop an effective vaccine, either for humans or animals. Typically, the genetic variability of coronaviruses based on RNA genomes confers only partial immunization. We have experienced this firsthand, suffering with recurring colds from the four endemic coronaviruses in the human population. Many expert virologists and vaccinologists knew that, but their voices were either silenced or dismissed. We were also asked to believe that our scientific and technology progress enabled us to quickly develop a new generation of vaccines based on gene therapy technology that would be safe, effective, and readily produced on a commercial scale. In reality, the support for these false hopes was on very shaky scientific and technological foundations. Nothing in the proposed gene-based vaccines was going to meaningfully address the shortcomings of natural immunity—for example, the recurrent infections, although of less severity, with variants in the coronavirus family. To make matters worse, the selection of the spike protein as the preferred viral antigen disregarded the known biological toxicity of this protein. Its uncontrolled production throughout the human body led to countless vaccine adverse reactions that became the object of intensive investigations. Another problem is the known facilitating epitopes in the spike protein. These epitopes were known to likely trigger the production of antibodies that would make the infection worse. Also, the epitopes that were shared with human proteins ended up generating countless autoimmune diseases. As for the rapid production of the gene therapy vaccines, the process for the adenovirus-based vaccines was fairly well-established by decades of research and clinical trials in gene therapy. However, early on, the adenovirus-based vaccines displayed significant toxicities, leading to their withdrawal in many countries. By contrast, the mRNA lipid nanoparticle (LNP) vaccines had never been scaled-up, posing a significant challenge for their mass production, which continued to be plagued by many manufacturing issues. We were also misled to believe that there were no possible treatments, a sine qua non condition to pave the way to the emergency-use authorization (EUA) of vaccines and unproven, patented, poorly tested antivirals, such as remdesivir, that ended up doing more harm than good. We already knew the SARS-CoV-2 virus shared extensive homology with other coronaviruses. Therefore, partial cross-immunity stemming from previous infections with other coronaviruses was likely. Also, early studies based on generic molecules to treat the closely related SARS-CoV-1 had already established their potential treatment—HCQ, for example—to be effective against SARS-CoV-1 infection. Notably, all countries that made wide use of these generic drugs displayed a much better performance in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. This COVID-19 Virus is Novel, Very Dangerous, and Not Treatable The message hammered home in the media was that there was no preexisting immunity in the population, that everybody was equally susceptible to serious illness and death following infection, and that we should, at all costs, prevent infection and transmission until a vaccine was available to confer protection. All of the NPIs were therefore deployed to control the spread of the virus until we could all get adequately protected by the COVID-19 vaccine. Consequently, a surreal “COVID-zero“ policy was aggressively promoted in many “democratic“ countries—in the footsteps of the authoritarian CCP policies in China. The policy was promoted by the baseless allegation that this new public health policy would be successful if only we implemented it hard enough. This fantasy was based on glaring ignorance or, at best, serious confusion of the functioning of the immune system, as well as the poorly understood theory of respiratory virus transmission. The immune system has evolved to respond to an almost infinite number of pathogens and is exquisitely adapted to respond effectively, in the vast majority of the cases, with every first encounter with any pathogen from the moment we are born. The first line of defence for a respiratory virus is the mucosal innate immunity. That eventually builds up a stronger adaptive response once mucosal IgAs (immunoglobulin A) targeting the pathogen help neutralize it. As for suppressing the transmission of respiratory viruses, nothing short of the strict confinement in a BSL-4 (bio safety lab) laboratory works. That level of confinement, however, is impossible to implement in real-world settings. Most of the NPIs are, at best, delusional. Furthermore, serological data proved the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as early as the end of summer of 2019 without any clear indication of massive infection, morbidity, and mortality. The virus was running in the population at least nine months before the declaration of the pandemic, and as a result, a significant proportion of the population had already been naturally immunized without significant signs of the COVID-19 disease. Throughout the pandemic saga, we were deceived countless times by a “scientific consensus“ that was created by silencing dissenting voices questioning the hegemonic narrative. In the absence of healthy debates, a so-called consensus was only an indisputable dogma, and therefore unscientific. There is, however, a scientific consensus to the effect that for the hundreds of putative pathogens we are exposed to, the immune system, innate and acquired, protect the vast majority of individuals rather well and for a long time. One notable and exceedingly rare exception was HIV infection, which could destroy our immune defences. But this was clearly not the case with SARS-CoV-2 or the other natural coronaviruses. Doubting this scientific consensus was like doubting the law of gravitational force. Good health is dependent on a strong and resilient natural immune system, referred to as the terrain. It included a healthy microbiota, which plays a crucial role in educating the immune system. The optimal functioning of the natural immune system is empowered by a host of good habits like real food consumption with fibres essential for a healthy microbiota, vitamins and other supplements, sufficient sleep, nourishing social bonds, regular exercise, and stress-reduction practices. It is nothing new for populations that have shown remarkable longevity over the centuries. Strangely, many of these healthy lifestyle habits were either suppressed or compromised by fiat. Instead, public health focused obsessively on avoiding COVID-19 by controlling transmission of the virus, ignoring the crucial importance of the terrain. This obsessive focus restricted the goal of public health to the avoidance of only one putative pathogen. The epidemiological data spoke volumes. Heathy individuals were only mildly affected by the SARS-CoV-2 infection, and most infections were asymptomatic. Given the futility and harmfulness of most NPIs, letting the virus run in the general population of low-risk individuals while protecting the most fragile should have been the preferred approach to build the so-called herd immunity, which was one of the best ramparts for the most vulnerable. That approach was taken in Sweden and many other countries that did not mandate NPIs. Besides, a host of treatments and vitamins were available for those whose bodies were not strong enough to combat the infection. Sadly, these treatments were disqualified as “useless“ by health authorities in many Western countries, like Canada. Fortunately, they were available for the most vulnerable during the course of the pandemic and were successfully deployed in many poor countries and in a limited number of hubs in Western countries. New Gene Therapy Vaccines: Better Than Traditional Vaccines? Knowing that traditional vaccines had failed at providing protection against coronaviruses, hype was generated around a new platform of mRNA genetic vaccines never shown to be successful for any infectious diseases. The promise of these genetic vaccines was, among other things, that they could be manufactured much faster and could therefore be more readily adapted to the ever-evolving variants of SARS-CoV-2 that could escape vaccine-induced immunity. There are several misconceptions with that premise. Importantly, the promise of the wonder vaccines to end the pandemic was based on three interrelated lies. The first lie was that those so-called vaccines were sterilizing, preventing infection and transmission. This was impossible to begin with, but a well-funded propaganda campaign got the population to believe it. The mantras were incessant: “Nobody is safe until everybody is safe.“ “To be safe, you must be vaccinated to protect yourself and others.“ “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.“ Nothing was further from the truth. The selective pressure imposed by these non-sterilizing subunit vaccines was, fostering a selective milieu favourable for the selection of new variants escaping the suboptimal vaccine immunity—constantly promoting the emergence of new variants of concern. From the perspective of the pandemic dynamic, it is more accurate to describe it as a pandemic of the vaccinated. The second lie was, we were promised that with the prowess of gene therapy technology and fuelled by very large financial resources, we could make available successful vaccine candidates in record time, at “warp speed,“ without compromising the quality and safety of the products. We were told that we should focus primarily on vaccination. Natural immunity was fraudulently portrayed as much less protective. A third essential lie was the misnaming of gene therapy-based products as vaccines. From a marketing point of view, the most important reasons to mislabel the mRNA gene therapy products as vaccines were (1) to facilitate public acceptance of the products (as traditional vaccines generally benefited from a positive reputation), and (2) to expedite regulatory approval by skipping the tedious and long-term studies of genotoxicity, tumorigenicity and autoimmunogenicity, which are mandatory for gene therapy products. Thirdly, the mRNA vaccine platform offered the prospect of rapid vaccine production to catch up with the ever-mutating coronavirus variants that escaped immune protection, which had made it so challenging in the past to produce an effective vaccine. In theory, it looked like a good idea, but in practice, it had several flaws. One was the assumption that mRNA manufacturing was so much faster than the manufacturing of traditional vaccines: new mRNA vaccines for the variant du jour could be made available more readily. However, this would have been a reasonable assumption only if robust current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) were in place for mRNA vaccines, better than for the other vaccine platforms. This was not the case, as was evident by the numerous quality issues with truncated spike mRNA sequences, plasmid DNA contamination, and sourcing of low-toxicity cGMP-grade (good manufacturing practice) lipids for the formulation of the LNPs (lipid nanoparticles). Many unresolved quality issues were tolerated by regulatory agencies under the pretext of the alleged emergency. The result was batch variations that were far above the acceptable threshold of injectable products. The magnitude of the issues was difficult to formally assess as it had not been opened to systematic, transparent, and independent analysis. This rapid scheme of vaccine production also required that the relevant “optimal sequence“ for the next vaccine could be identified in a timely fashion. This was, at best, a big gamble with our current knowledge of coronavirus biology and epidemiology. By the time the sequence was selected for mass production and deployed, it was entirely possible that a new dominant variant would be so different that matching the vaccine to the variant in circulation would be suboptimal. It was a futile exercise of chasing a moving target. Furthermore, this idealized scheme assumed, without documentation, that the new sequence would not affect the overall manufacturing process and safety profile of the new product. This was a leap of faith that was not compliant with a rigorous approval process, at least in the modus operandi of the legacy regulatory agency. Another crucial issue with the mRNA platform was that neither the dose nor the bio-distribution of the viral antigen ultimately produced in people could be controlled. This was in contrast to traditional vaccines based on inactivated pathogens, as well as current recombinant protein-based vaccines like the COVID-19 NovoVax for sub-unit vaccines. That mattered a lot because we knew that overdose and/or inappropriate site of expression of the viral antigen could lead to many adverse events not observed with traditional vaccines. It was well acknowledged that ectopic expression of the spike protein in the heart was responsible for a large number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with high morbidity and mortality outcomes, much higher than traditional vaccines. Furthermore, long-term side effects, most likely of autoimmune etiology, were manifested in countless neuropathies like Bell’s palsy, and menstrual dysregulation, as well as countless other side effects are constantly growing. Also, preliminary epidemiological data point to an alarming increase of cancers reappearing after remission, new types of cancers, and fulgurant cancers (or “turbo-cancers“). Even if the causal link with the mRNA vaccines needs to be more formally established, many possible mechanisms have been postulated to support the hypothesis of cancer induction. These genetic injections also perturb the usual immune response and could therefore hamper the ability of the immune system to combat other infections—especially with latent viruses—or keep cancers under control. The perturbation of the immune system is observable both in the increased COVID-19 infection rate in the weeks following the injections and the propensity for increased infections with an increasing number of doses. Several features of the mRNA platform potentially contribute to the innate immune system suppression brought about by the reduction of interferon production, which plays a central role in the control of viral infections and further stimulation of the adaptive immune response. For example, the codon optimization done for improved protein production resulted in the generation of secondary structures of mRNA called G-quadruplexes. Also, a massive concentration of pseudouridine was incorporated to extend the half-life of the mRNA and to prolong its expression over weeks or months. This pseudouridine contributed to higher spike production, several orders of magnitude higher than natural infection. Together, these features of the synthetic mRNA contribute to reduced interferon production and suppress the innate immune response, at least temporarily, with a host of unknown consequences. Even if it‘s been observed that repeated doses of injection increased the titer of antibodies (IgGs) binding the spike protein, the direct demonstration that more IgGs resulted in better protection was lacking. Clearly, it was not only a matter of the amount of IgG but also of binding quality or type of IgG, not to mention the essential contribution of cellular immunity, which was often overlooked. Alarming concentrations of IgG4 have been measured in people after the third and fourth dose of injection. IgG4 has been associated with making the immune system tolerant to a given antigen, in this case the spike, as we see in protocols designed designed to reduce allergic reaction by repeated injection of an allergen. This could partly explain why people became more susceptible to COVID-19 infection following repeated injections of mRNA LNPs. Also troubling is the observation that the class switch from IgG1 and IgG3 to IgG4 is associated with higher incidence of aggressive cancers. Given the well-known role of IgG4 in cancer progression by immune tolerance, these observations warrant serious further investigation. Finally, the entire concept of subunit vaccines depended on selecting the proper target antigen with the right balance of optimal immune induction that causes minimal toxicity. No significant study had been done to support the contention that the spike protein was the ideal target. Given the known toxicity of the spike protein, the rationale of this choice is questionable. Avoiding most of the short- and long-term side effects would have been possible with the use of traditional vaccines. When evidence was lacking for selecting an optimal target antigen for a subunit vaccine and the safety and efficacy and cGMP production of an unproven vaccine platform were uncertain, it was much wiser to rely on an established technology like inactivated viruses produced in a well-established, large-scale cell culture platform. This was done by the Chinese company SinoVac. Their vaccine was ready at about the same time and was deployed in China as well as many other countries. Whether it was ultimately better than the mRNA vaccines remains to be studied more thoroughly. In any case, it demonstrated that the speed of development and production rivalled the mRNA platform, with much less uncertainty about the safety profile because it was based on a technology with a long track record. Mass Vaccination to Reach Herd Immunity? Some scientists and doctors claimed that mass vaccination, whether with traditional or subunit genetic vaccines, would restrict the chance of variants emerging by reducing the viral load sufficiently that the population of viruses would be so small that the probability of variants emerging would be practically nil. This hypothesis suffered from several serious conceptual shortcomings. It‘s rather the opposite that was likely happening. We saw vaccine-immune escape variants flourishing in highly vaccinated countries, extending the infection waves long past the time the infection was mostly over in low-vaccinated countries, such as in Africa. Several experienced vaccinologists argued that it was unwise to mass vaccinate during a pandemic, especially with a non-sterilizing subunit vaccine, but their advice fell on deaf ears. Hypothetically, even if the vaccines prevented transmission and even if we vaccinated 100 per cent of the human population, many animal reservoirs could serve as hosts to incubate the evolution of new variants. For example, new variants emerged from mink farms in Denmark and France and led to waves of localized outbreaks. Pursuing the fantasy of global vaccination to control the pandemic was scientifically baseless and absurd. Any vaccine strategy is based on the concept that our immune system, after a primary infection, develops an effective response against re-exposure to a pathogen, thus preventing us from becoming ill again. For serious infectious diseases, a good vaccine would protect against infection and transmission (sterilizing) and against serious illness, thus preventing severe symptoms and deaths. It would therefore be prophylactic, as it could prevent us from getting sick following the first exposure to the pathogen. Several but not all vaccines in our arsenal exhibit this profile. Those for influenza have fairly low relative efficacy that varies with seasonal strains. Either way, the best we could hope for from a vaccine is to rival the protection of natural immunity without the drawbacks associated with natural infection. This is really the level to reach, and there was no evidence that we had managed to do better. For respiratory viruses, natural infection effectively protects against reinfection by stimulating local mucosal immunity. Without this robust mucosal immunity, featuring IgAs as one important component, neither infection nor transmission can be prevented. Those who doubted that the most widely deployed COVID-19 subunit genetic vaccines did not protect against infection or transmission needed only to look at the data on infections around the world. The most vaccinated places were also the places where the highest incidence rates of COVID-19 were observed. Conversely, it was particularly striking to observe what was happening in Africa, which had much lower incidence rates despite the lowest vaccination rate (7%), ten times less than the continents more vaccinated. Undoubtedly, many factors contributed to Africa‘s good performance in managing COVID-19, but vaccination was not one of them. One couldn‘t block the replication of a respiratory virus, such as SARS-CoV-2, unless one induced local mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract, which couldn‘t be done by injecting a vaccine into the muscle of the patient‘s shoulder. It was for this reason that among the approximately 143 COVID-19 genetic vaccines in clinical trials, several were being evaluated for nasal administration. One of these vaccines, developed by the Chinese company CanSino Biologics, had been approved for nasal administration and was planned to be deployed in China. In any case, if the name of the game, for whatever reasons, was to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection to avoid the most deleterious effects from the infection, all of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in use were unable to do that. Therefore, in addition to the unavoidable risk of vaccine-induced adverse effects, they mostly failed to protect from the pathologies associated with the course of an untreated infection, assuming that the individual had generated an adequate immune response to begin with. Indeed, there had been reports of obese individuals who became fairly sick from COVID-19 in spite of having a fairly high level of neutralizing antibodies against the vaccine spike protein. Presumably, factors such as the optimal diversity of gut microbiota and robust cellular immunity were not at play in those individuals. As we have seen from the data in clinical trials, no attempt was made to test the reduction of transmission, so this contention was not based on the highest criteria of scientific evidence, RCTs. The only conclusion presented from the Pfizer RCT was that these genetic vaccines reduced the occurrence of symptomatic infections, not transmission or severe forms of COVID-19. Symptomatic infections were at an absolute risk reduction of about 1 per cent. This anemic absolute risk reduction was due to the fairly low number of infection cases registered during the course of the clinical trial. The absolute risk reduction, which should have been reported, but was glossed over in the marketing materials, was much less impressive than the widely reported relative reduction of 95 per cent and, at the very least, should have raised questions about the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 infection cases in the midst of an alleged grave pandemic. The evidence collected following the deployment of genetic vaccines in the general population also did not support the prevention of transmission, unless the data were manipulated in their collection, attribution, or representation. As for the more severe forms of COVID-19, the evidence for their reduction by genetic vaccines was rather weak to non-existent, particularly since the start of the Omicron wave. We must also emphasize that the vaccine response decreased significantly over time. The same phenomenon was observed in many states, including Vermont, the most vaccinated American state, which reported higher infection rates than in the past, and Gibraltar, which had one of the most vaccinated populations. Even with the third dose, Gibraltar experienced a strong surge of positive cases but with a relatively lower morbidity and mortality. As for the real-world data that provided the initial impression that infection and transmission were reduced following vaccination, many confounding factors could have distorted the picture. One important factor was statistical biases. We know that the false impression of reduction in transmission was mostly statistical illusions. It was created by the arbitrary attribution of COVID-19 infections of the injected individuals labelled as unvaccinated for the first 14–21 days post injection, depending on the states. A simple delay in tabulation of COVID-19 cases of 14–21 days could create the statistical illusion. Interestingly, the Pfizer files obtained by court order revealed that a third of the adverse reactions after vaccination were COVID-19 infection. The high occurrence of COVID-19 infection in the first 14 days post injection was corroborated by data from health agencies in Alberta and Ontario. That the COVID-19 genetic vaccines didn‘t prevent infection and transmission was no longer disputed in the Omicron phase because the high rate of infection made it impossible to claim any reduction of transmission. But it was also already apparent with the countless so-called “breakthrough infections“ during the Delta wave in the summer of 2021. We learned, through a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the NIH (National Institutes of Health), and probably the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) were aware of these breakthrough infections as early as January 2021, most likely from the Pfizer real-world data. Examining the data from the Canadian government‘s website, the confusion about the effectiveness of genetic vaccines was understandable. Indeed, several official government data sites reported the figures in a way that left the impression that vaccination had prevented COVID cases (and therefore the transmission) or, at the very least, the more serious symptoms leading to hospitalization or death. Even if we accepted the dubious attribution of exaggerated cases by overcycled RT-PCR tests or that hospitalizations or deaths with COVID-19 were really caused by COVID-19, a more appropriate representation of official data cast doubt on the merits of the intensive promotion of vaccination. Several tables from the government‘s site conveyed the illusion of vaccine efficacy but reported and interpreted data in a misleading way. The tables failed to consider that (1) the vaccination deployment began at different times, starting from December 2020, and that (2) a valid comparison could not be made by aggregating the unvaccinated and vaccinated populations at the beginning when everyone was unvaccinated. A valid comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations required matching time periods (during which the same variants circulate) and accounting for vaccination status (as multiple doses of genetic vaccines were administered). When we re-plotted the cases by counting from the start of the declaration of cases with additional doses—for example, from June 5, 2022, instead of the start of the vaccination campaign (December 14, 2020)—we observed that people with three and four doses had more COVID-19 cases (and deaths) than unvaccinated people and people with only two doses. Again, the biased PHAC (Public Health Agency of Canada) report suggested the opposite: that more doses conferred greater protection. It got worse over time as the rate of people recovering from a previous infection constantly increased. The fact that natural immunity was superior to vaccine-induced immunity was a major confounding factor that made the assessment of potential vaccine efficacy futile unless people were tested systematically for previous infections. Given the evidence, the authorities‘ relentless promotion of comprehensive vaccination for everyone was difficult to understand. Rationale for Vaccination and Challenges to Prove a Positive Vaccine Risk–Benefit From the get-go, any risk–benefit analysis of lockdowns or COVID-19 vaccines was fatally flawed because it was based on the false premise of an uncontrolled spread of a deadly virus. When the risk of dying from COVID was so low to begin with, how could any measure, whether lockdowns or vaccines, actually protect the general population? The potential benefits barely existed, so the harms were likely excessive. The first principle of ethical medicine, “First, do no harm,“ was flouted. Focused protection, as advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration and as was done in the past, should have been the way to protect the most vulnerable. Strangely, the most appropriate and well-established personal and public health measures were brushed aside, and this cost countless lives. Focused protection would have advocated for targeted vaccination for the population most at risk from COVID-19 complications, assuming that a safe and effective vaccine had been available. Any medical intervention has an intrinsic harm–benefit profile. For vaccines, the safety profile must be paramount because they are administered to healthy individuals. Vaccine-induced adverse effects had been documented for decades prior to COVID and were deemed to be rare. The potential risks of an unknown vaccine platform and its long-term adverse effects could not be evaluated properly without years of pharmacosurveillance data. That means gambling on a potential positive risk–benefit ratio could only have been advocated to prevent severe diseases and deaths, a concern primarily for the most vulnerable and not for the general population. But vaccination had been pushed with the promise of preventing transmission and reaching the elusive herd immunity that would have put an end to the pandemic more quickly. Measuring potential benefits and risks of vaccination at the individual level is equally challenging on both accounts—of safety and efficacy. Without a proper harm–benefit analysis, Informed Consent cannot be given. Health authorities lacked the knowledge to conduct a meaningful risk–benefit analysis for vaccination that would consider the profile of each individual. At the very least, people should have been tested for previous infection before vaccinating them. Logistically, this test should not have been more challenging than the pre-vaccine campaign of massive COVID-19 tests and the routine mandatory tests for people refusing the vaccines. However, such a health measure would have been at odds with the propaganda claiming the inferiority of natural immunity compared to vaccines. Vaccine efficacy had not even been established by formal epidemiological studies. Efficacy had been assessed using an unsubstantiated biomarker proxy of efficacy—monitoring antibody titers. From a public health perspective, the buildup of natural immunity would have likely outpaced the vaccine deployment to confer protection against severe diseases because most people infected by SARS-CoV-2 were not seriously sick and were even often asymptomatic. That perspective, of course, assumed the vaccines would have conferred protection, a contention which had not been demonstrated. Importantly, for vaccination to be effective, an individual‘s immune system ought to be functioning properly. The conundrum of higher vulnerability to COVID-19, which was going to be remedied by vaccination, is that what makes people more susceptible to the disease is precisely their anemic immune response. That could be based on genetics, with immunodeficiency syndrome, for example, or epigenetic, as a result of poor diet and lack of sleep and exercise, which perturbs the equilibrium of gut microbiota, essential for proper immune homeostasis. In other words, what makes the terrain weak and renders an individual more susceptible to severe disease is not going to be fixed by a vaccine whose mechanism of action requires a good immune terrain to be responsive. The phenomenon of vaccine non-responders has been widely documented for protein-based vaccines such as the hepatitis B vaccine. Up to 15 per cent are non-responders. It‘s noteworthy that healthcare worker mandates for hepatitis B vaccines acknowledge natural immunity, and those who have recovered from hepatitis B are exempted from vaccination if they provide proof of immunity. In an obvious contradiction of immunology science, such exemptions were systematically denied for COVID-19. It is also well established that immune senescence of the elderly is a major issue for the effectiveness of flu vaccines. Large-scale epidemiological studies would be required to properly ascertain the likely extent to which this problem affected the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. In the absence of such studies, the recommendations of health agencies for general vaccination are, at best, faith-based, not science-based. The Challenge of Assessing Vaccine Efficacy and Safety The ultimate test for assessing vaccine efficacy and safety is whether the vaccine protects against deliberate controlled exposure to the disease agent. The test is routinely performed on animals but is considered unethical to perform on humans. Vaccine effectiveness is easier to assess in animals because we can control the infection process by using an inoculum that has been ascertained to make the animals sick 50 per cent of the time. Also, it‘s possible to minimize variability of outcomes due to genetic and epigenetic factors by selecting animals with a similar genetic background and putting them in a similar environmental conditions. That avoids the problem of confounding factors. Even under these ideal conditions, no safe and effective animal coronavirus vaccine has been granted approval for wide distribution, which suggests that the development of safe and effective vaccines for coronaviruses is even more challenging than for other pathogens. Nevertheless, we were asked to believe that the unproven mRNA platform would somehow overcome that biological hurdle. To minimize the undue influence of confounding factors, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to assess vaccine efficacy and safety and to establish the risk–benefit profile. Many issues have been raised about the efficacy and safety of all genetic vaccines, but we focused on the analysis of the mRNA platform as it was the most widely deployed. What the Randomized Controlled Trials Proved and Didn‘t Prove Many issues were highlighted with respect to the quality attributes of the vaccine product, the design of the clinical trials with their selected endpoints, the low level of absolute risk reduction, the irregularities in the execution of the clinical trials, and the underestimation of the vaccine-induced adverse effects. After the systematic suppression of any potential treatments paved the way for the EUA of the genetic vaccines, vaccination was promoted as the only way out the pandemic. It was sold as the way to prevent people from getting infected and seriously sick from COVID-19. It had to be expedited at an unprecedented pace, at warp speed, and against all odds. Vaccination was going to allegedly protect both individuals and the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. To fulfil these hopes, the RCTs should have been designed with endpoints showing prevention of transmission and severe diseases and death. They were not. Instead, the only endpoint was reduction of RT-PCR confirmed cases with mild symptoms. Surprisingly, 162 RT-PCR positive cases were reported in the placebo group versus eight in the injected group. Although this represented an impressive relative risk reduction (RRR) of 95 per cent, it corresponded to an overall absolute risk reduction (ARR) of less than one per cent. These figures meant that we needed to vaccinate 123 people in order to avoid one infection (defined as RT-PCR positive cases with mild symptoms). As the occurrence of severe symptoms leading to death was up to 100 to 1000 times lower, depending on the target population, we would have needed to vaccinate up to 123,000 people to avoid one case of severe disease. The RCT, with only about 40,000 participants, was not powered to make that assessment. It‘s noteworthy that 170 total cases represented a COVID-19 positivity rate of only 0.004 per cent in six months of follow-up. With this anemic incidence rate, one would have to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic wave was rather feeble during the RCT or that the testing was not thorough enough. At least, the testing was not as systematic as that which had been deployed to document the worrisome successive COVID-19 waves. Notwithstanding, it‘s striking that this low incidence rate yielded a very weak overall ARR. Telling people who are afraid of getting sick with COVID-19 that (1) the mRNA vaccine would reduce their chance to be infected by less than one per cent, (2) it would not stop them from transmitting the virus, and (3) it was not tested for reducing severe disease or death conveyed a very different message than telling them that the mRNA vaccine was 95 per cent effective. By FDA rules, reporting both RRR and ARR was mandatory, but it was conveniently obfuscated. Informed consent was irremediably compromised with their misleading statements. In addition, the validity of vaccine mandates was shown to be baseless. To make matters worse, mild symptoms like fever, sore throat, and sniffles overlapped with a host of respiratory infections from multiple different viruses or bacteria, which introduced sampling and attribution biases. Those could have been avoided by regularly testing everyone enrolled in the RCT. Instead, the method used to assess the endpoint was fairly limited in detecting COVID-19 cases, and that cast doubt on the soundness of RRR reported in the RCT. This contention was bolstered by the surprising number of cases that were rejected from the report because of the lack of participant follow-up and the more than 10-fold number of suspected but unconfirmed cases. Indeed, 1594 in the inoculated arm were rejected versus 1816 in the placebo arm, a difference of 222. Also, there was a strikingly disproportionate number of participants excluded from efficacy evaluation for protocol deviations, with 311 in the vaccine arm versus 60 in the placebo arms, a 5-fold difference, or a 251 difference, in the number of participants. This must be put in perspective when you consider the difference in the calculation of RRR versus the calculation of ARR. In a thought experiment, if one adds all of the confirmed and suspected cases, the RRR was only 19 per cent, much lower than the threshold of 50 per cent set by the FDA for the approval of the vaccine under EUA. Failure to systematically test all participants without subjective attribution of who needed to be tested or not, raised suspicion about the validity of the reported efficacy. The massive RT-PCR testing on the population generated the waves of positive cases, most of which were asymptomatic, and created the illusion of asymptomatic transmission. This was the real-world proof that this kind of testing could have been deployed during the RCT to avoid attribution biases. Using a different methodologies to monitor vaccine efficacy and epidemic waves was a clear demonstration of a double standard, insofar as testing of asymptomatic people was mandatory in many settings—for travellers; unvaccinated healthcare workers, even those working remotely; and children in schools, where a few positive cases had been detected. Furthermore, although not reported in the publication describing the result of the RCT, a different way of monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection was also measured during the RCT, but it was only revealed by documents obtained by a court order. This other method was to test for antibodies binding to at least one of the viral proteins, such as the nucleocapsid protein N, as irrefutable proof of infection. If the RRR is calculated based on seropositivity to the N protein, the RRR in vaccine efficacy was 55 per cent instead of 95 per cent. But even that assessment was overestimated. A large-scale clinical trial on more than 4000 people established that the seropositivity focusing on only the N protein underestimated the true infection rate (as measured by antibodies against all of the other viral proteins) by a factor of about two. That meant that during the Pfizer RCT, the real RRR was probably in the range of about 25 per cent—again, much lower than the threshold of 50 per cent set by the FDA for the approval of the vaccine under EUA. Pfizer was aware of that , or should have been, before the deployment of their vaccine in the population, but they concealed the information. Lastly, another systematic bias in the assessment of vaccine efficacy was the time frame selected to monitor its efficacy. Given that COVID-19 infection rates had been demonstrated to be higher for the first few days after the injection, if “protection“ was only monitored seven days after the second dose and the window of negative efficacy was not considered, the true picture of vaccine efficacy would be distorted. As shown in the Pfizer documents obtained by a court order, while Pfizer and the FDA had hoped to keep the information confidential for 75 years, the third most frequent adverse effect observed in the first weeks following the injection was COVID-19 infection. Therefore, Pfizer was aware of this increased sensitivity to infection, a window of negative vaccine efficacy, in the first months of vaccine deployment. Also, if after the peak in neutralizing antibodies, a constant decline occurred until the protection vanished and this was not properly monitored, a distorted report of vaccine efficacy would result. The waning protection would have called for repeated boosters, and this had been obfuscated. Assuming, without evidence, that neutralizing antibodies to the vaccine spike would be a valid proxy of protection, monitoring the antibody response on a relatively short time frame could have led to a misrepresentation of the perceived vaccine benefit. Incidentally, there has been a strange paucity of testing of neutralizing antibodies in the course of the RCT. They were monitored two months after the second dose and again at six months. The absence of systematic measures of antibody titers during the two-to-six-month interval precluded a proper assessment of the rate of antibody reduction as a proxy for waning vaccine protection—important information that could have contextualized the real efficacy of the vaccines over time. For most people, vaccines are expected to last for several years, not a few months. Even more worrisome is that according to independent experts in clinical trial standard operating protocols (which are strictly regulated by ICH (The International Council for Harmonization) guidelines, followed by industry, and overseen by regulatory agencies), several irregularities had been communicated to authorities by whistleblowers and were ignored. The first notable one about irregularities, denounced by Brook Jackson, from the contract research organization Ventavia, was commented on in the British Medical Journal . Not only were the issues raised by Jackson completely ignored by Ventavia, Pfizer, and the FDA, but she was also fired for raising troubling questions. At the time of this report, her allegations were being disputed in court. There is also the widely publicized case of the vaccine-injured Maddie de Garay in the RCT, whose gravity of injury was not properly acknowledged—a clear breach of clinical practice protocol. A similar situation happened in Argentina at the unique, large clinical trial site managed by the military. Out of the 5700 enrolled participants, one participant, Augusto Roux, developed severe myocarditis and almost died during the RCT, yet this event was not reported. He was suing for fraud. Collectively, all of these five clinical trial sites (three for Ventavia) enrolled over 7000 participants whose data integrity should be evaluated by proper audits that have not yet taken place. Some commentators dismissed those problems by suggesting that even if we removed these sites from the trial report, which had not yet been done by Pfizer, the data would still support a highly positive RRR number. This is questionable. Removing more than 7000 participants from an RCT of about 42,000 in which 3410 participants had already been discounted would bring the number down to about 32,000 participants. That may or may not challenge the statistical significance of the results or the overall result of the RRR assessment. Nevertheless, in spite of the speculative nature of these suspicions, there was enough of a smoking gun to justify a formal audit to ascertain whether or not these allegations of clinical trial malpractice were founded. A confirmation by an independent audit would compromise the validity of the whole RCT. How plausible was it that Pfizer had not been honest? Since 1995, Pfizer had been fined in 40 court cases for 6.5 billion dollars of compensation—for scientific fraud, wild RCTs, corruption of decision- makers, and diffusion of false information. The pattern was well-established. Current Good Manufacturing Process (cGMP), Chief Manufacturing Issues Another troubling issue was the quality of the vaccine product. It had been questioned by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) when a number of quality attributes did not conform to expected norms. Notably, there was a significant discrepancy in the integrity of the mRNA as well as the degree of DNA contamination between the batches used in the RCT and the commercial batches for worldwide distribution. Even after Pfizer had been notified to fix these issues, they were unable to comply. Because of the alleged emergency, the EMA turned a blind eye. Obviously, the significant discrepancy between the RCT batches and the commercial batches was proof that the manufacturing processes were different, which was acknowledged by Pfizer. This was a clear deviation of both normal clinical trials standard operating procedures and cGMP processes, and it raised major concerns about the batch quality and consistency. Indeed, in a normal RCT protocol, although tolerated, it‘s highly recommended to avoid changing the manufacturing process in the path of moving from preclinical to the various phases of the clinical trials. At the very least, the process must remain the same from phase 3 to commercial manufacturing. Otherwise, a bridging study is needed to validate that the product will behave as it did in the phase 3 trial. This consistency is even more important for a complex drug product such as these genetic vaccines. Unlike small molecule drugs, which are amenable to full physicochemical characterization, complex biologics such the mRNA genetic vaccines cannot be fully characterized. For such products, the “product is the process.“ Changing the process in the course of product development almost guarantees that the product quality will vary unless the new manufacturing process is well mastered, which was far from being the case for the mRNA-LNP products. Pfizer acknowledged that their process 1, which was hastily developed for the product used in the clinical trials, could not be scaled up to the level required for commercial manufacturing (process 2). They therefore did a small bridging study during the RCT on 250 participants who received the products manufactured using process 2. That meant that almost 90 per cent of the RCT was done with a different product than the one that was used on the general population. Does anyone besides the regulatory agencies think that testing this product in a RCT with only 250 participants would yield reliable, statistically significant data? The regulatory agencies advertise on their website that they audited the manufacturing batches; however, the reports of such audits are not made public. It‘s therefore unclear to what extent the batch quality issues are limited or widespread. Independent analyses by several experts have revealed that the issues of RNA integrity and DNA contamination have persisted in many batches. Most notably, functional plasmid DNA harbouring antibiotic-resistant genes as well as the SV40 strong promoter sequence have been detected at more than10-fold the level of the acceptable norm. Both the short- and long-term consequences of the poor batch quality have not yet been fully examined. One big concern is that, unlike mRNA, DNA can integrate in the cell genome without the step of reverse transcription, so this event could occur at a higher frequency. Also, the SV40 strong promoter sequence, once integrated, could activate distant genes and perturb normal gene expression in unknown ways. Only rigorous genotoxicity and tumorigenicity analyses could determine the long-term consequences of such events. Such studies have been waived, so we are left to just hope for the best. The complacency of the health authorities does not augur well for redressing the pitfalls of the cGMP issues that they have been so far reluctant to require to get resolved. This was further exacerbated by the silent approval of new bivalent mRNA vaccines that use the same suboptimal manufacturing process. There was no acknowledgement that changing the RNA sequence was not a minor modification with untold and unexamined consequences. How can we conclude that changing the RNA sequence is a minor modification without assessing it with RCTs (which have been deemed unnecessary)? Despite what has been claimed by governments and echoed in the mainstream media, corners have been cut, and the trend has been worsening. How can any health regulatory agency endorse the alleged safety and efficacy label of a product with questionable quality and consistency and in blatant contraventions of quality standards established in the industry for decades? Perhaps that is part of the new normal—regulatory bodies no longer enforcing the high-quality standards essential for public safety and endorsing an accelerated process development and approval cycle. If it is justified by an emergency, what is the emergency? Underestimation of Vaccine-Induced Harms Underestimating the occurrence and hazards of vaccine adverse reactions has been the modus operandi of the Pharma industry in concert with public health authorities for decades. This was done under the guise of the greater good to suppress vaccine hesitancy at all costs and to promote vaccination as widely as possible as an indisputably beneficial health measure. And, to that noble end, anything in the play book is acceptable. This includes attacking dissenting voices with derogatory terms among which the label “anti-vax” sits at the pinnacle. Nothing can be more unscientific than resorting to ad hominem attacks to silence legitimate debate. Sadly, character assassination is not the only tactic. People who dared to question the orthodoxy that controls the granting system, along with the other institutions, have found their scientific careers ruined. The quasi-religious faith in the virtues of vaccination undermines any decent assessment of its risk–benefit ratio. As vaccines are presumed to be safe and effective without rigorous testing, vaccine safety research is impeded by the lack of granting support, unlike the well-funded field of vaccine development, hence the paucity of vaccine safety studies. An honest risk–benefit assessment of the mRNA genetic vaccine was plagued by bias measures that tended to amplify merits while downplaying adverse effects. Any positive risk–benefit analysis was so questionable that thousands of doctors and scientists across the world joined their voices to call for an immediate suspension of COVID-19 genetic vaccines until a proper risk–benefit assessment was conducted. In the absence of solid evidence from RCTs, the opinion of health authorities relied on real-world data whose completeness and accuracies were questionable. It was more a matter of expert opinion than hard scientific evidence. High-profile medical and scientific experts without conflicts of interest examined the data and concluded that these mRNA-LNP genetic vaccines are neither safe nor effective. The same data was examined by medical authorities and government officials in Canada and across the world who trusted the “safety and efficacy“ narrative without reliable data from the Pharma companies. Who were more credible? At the time of writing this report, some COVID-19 genetic vaccines had been restricted in a limited number of states for unfavourable risk–benefit profiles in some segments of the population, mostly younger people. Citizens were calling for a more complete ban on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, whereas the adenovirus-based vaccines were no longer on offer in many countries, including Canada. It was an uphill battle. Meanwhile, the FDA was examining which sequence of Omicron variant to offer for the fall booster as the original Wuhan and bivalent vaccines were no longer promoted. In Canada, the National Advisory Committee for Immunization (NACI), whose members were as plagued by conflicts of interest as the FDA panel members, were following along the same lines as the FDA. Their implicit message was that the only problem with the mRNA-LNP products was matching the sequence of RNA with the variant du jour. In spite of all the attempts to minimize the extent of the mRNA genetic vaccine adverse reactions, the acknowledgment of severe symptoms and the unprecedented death rate was growing. Were the high number and diversity of vaccine adverse events (VAEs) a big surprise? Not really, insofar as most of the potential adverse events to be monitored were listed on the FDA website in October 2020, and they were what we observed after the vaccine deployment: myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, autoimmune diseases, and a host of invalidating neurological conditions. These were also spelled out in the record of the Pfizer documents, obtained by court order. Pfizer‘s post-marketing pharmacovigilance study showed an impressive number of serious adverse reactions in the first months of vaccination, including more than 1200 deaths. Contrast that with the flu vaccination campaign of 1976, which was suspended after fewer than 100 deaths. The precautionary principle was still in effect at that time. In retrospect, there were some glimpses of severe adverse effects from the Pfizer RCT, even though the formal assessment of long-term adverse reactions was abruptly interrupted during the course of the RCT. An astonishing decision to offer the vaccine to the placebo arms interfered with one of the trial‘s important objective of assessing long-term safety. Vaccinating the placebo arms after six months in the course of the RCT effectively eliminated most of the placebo arm control that would have allowed us to compare the occurrence of adverse effects for the two-year duration initially planned. However, all of the data at the six-month interval pointed to significantly higher illness, which the vaccine was supposed to reduce. What good was a vaccine that reduced the infection cases without any indication of reducing the illness? Although not statistically significant, it‘s noteworthy that there were more deaths in the vaccine arms than the placebo arm, 20 versus 14. Interestingly, cardiovascular events were the cause of nine of those deaths in the vaccine arm and five in the placebo arm. Given the context that myocarditis and pericarditis were among the first vaccine severe adverse effects (VAEs) acknowledged by health authorities, this confirmed the importance of such cardiovascular events. In any case, even if the analysis was deemed not statistically significant, with such data, any claim of vaccination reducing illness and death was unsubstantiated by the RCT. More telling was what was not reported or even examined. Given that clear symptoms were the endpoints of the pathological process, it was routine medical practice to assess the early signs of pathologies using validated biomarkers. It was mind-boggling that standard biomarkers had not been deployed to monitor the myriad of expected potential side effects listed by the FDA. For example, D-dimer provides evidence of enhanced coagulation/clotting, C-reactive protein for evidence of enhanced inflammation, and troponins for evidence of cardiac damage. If biomarkers of early signs of disease are not tracked, then biosafety monitoring is of poor quality. Consequently, the assessment of vaccine safety is far from exhaustive. From Anecdotal to Large Statistics of All-Cause Disability and Mortality Besides the astonishing lack of acknowledgment of vaccine-injured people, the cruelest aspect was the gaslighting. How can one listen to the horror stories of people whose lives have been destroyed by vaccine injuries without being moved and shocked by the wall of indifference, or even hostility, that they had to face while desperately attempting to be heard by medical authorities? Even more frightening was the apparent incapacity to properly diagnose the myriad of symptoms, many of which were rare or never seen before. This attitude provided little hope that treatments would be proposed for injuries that were not properly acknowledged. Many came to share their stories with candour and despair. Although the total number and extent of vaccine-induced disabilities were challenged by the authorities, given that many had taken the injections for the cause or were coerced by social pressure or government mandates, the least that a compassionate society must do is acknowledge them, treat them, and properly compensate them—not leave them to their misery. People were mourning the death of close relatives following the injections with unresolved sentiments of guilt, helplessness, rage, and sorrow of not being recognized by the authorities. Vaccine-injury denial was part of the propaganda of denigrating people with the anti-vax label in the effort to combat vaccine hesitancy—purportedly dangerous for public health. Vaccine-injury denial has been around for a long time, at least since 1984, but it was on steroids during the COVID-19 health crisis. Vaccine-injured people are more than just a number in a table of vaccine-correlated symptoms. Beyond the cold statistics, there are humans who suffered twice—first, from their vaccine injuries, and then, from the denial of the authorities and the population to recognize their miserable state. This denial is being challenged in courts all over the world, and with time, silence will be broken and justice will prevail. Otherwise, we will face another health crisis debacle when the next pandemic is declared. While the state was diligent in procuring excess stocks of vaccines, which were subsequently destroyed when they expired, or generously given to Africa before they expired, what resources were devoted to dealing with the deleterious consequences of vaccine injuries, in terms of care and compensation disability? The population had already payed for these free vaccines with their taxes, and they were set up to continue paying on a personal and collective level because the manufacturers had signed contracts exonerating them from prosecution. If, despite the urgency of the authorization, these vaccines were well designed and manufactured to be safe and effective, why did the manufacturers have to protect themselves from legal prosecutions by passing the bill on to the public, who still has to pay and be further impoverished by the indebtedness of the state? In the context of strained resources for healthcare, which monopolizes a substantial part of state budgets, one cannot ignore the significant direct and indirect costs of the unjustified massive vaccination campaign. Hasn‘t this vaccination campaign resulted in a vast wealth transfer to the pharmaceutical industry? Not only is there no benefit to public health, but we will be paying for the increasingly heavy toll of damages for decades to come. Due to a toxic combination of willful blindness and collective guilt of the medical establishment that took part in the vaccination campaign and fiercely fought vaccine hesitancy, calling it irresponsible and harmful for public heath, the lack of acknowledgment and the gaslighting of the vaccine injured has been a major obstacle to their therapeutic care. From the analysis of the VAEs in the RCTs to the endless lists of injuries reported in the various pharmacosurveillance systems, the alarming number and diversity of disabilities induced by the COVID-19 genetic vaccines are unquestionable. An independent reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna RCTs done by Fraiman and collaborators revealed that SAEs (severe adverse events) occurring at a rate of one in 556 is categorized as “uncommon,“ according the accepted classification, not “rare,“ as was displayed on the various government websites. Since this rate is 18-fold higher than was used in the past for withdrawing other vaccines, why were the COVID-19 genetic vaccines not withdrawn? Experts monitoring all of the governmental pharmacosurveillance systems worldwide—for example, VAERS in the USA, Yellow Card in UK, EudraVigilance and the WHO VigiBase system—have recorded numbers of injuries, disabilities, and deaths that are more than 20 times higher than for traditional vaccines. There were enough safety signals in VAERS in January 2021—almost 700 deaths—to stop the rollout of the Pfizer vaccines. Based on that, the Moderna vaccines should not have been rolled out. However, all of the historical safety signals for suspending vaccines were ignored. As a result, countless VAEs piled up for more than two years before the CDC was forced to release the data from their V-safe system. It revealed more than 700 safety signals from over 10 million self-reported VAEs, of which 7.7 per cent were deemed severe adverse events. It‘s noteworthy that both the number and the diversity of VAEs were much higher. The types of VAEs linked to COVID-19 mRNA-LNP were up to 15,042, which is greater than 10 times more diverse than for all other traditional vaccines. This diversity in adverse events was probably liver related. As it turned out, the mRNA-LNP vaccine was very stable and had an ill-defined pharmacodistribution profile. Accumulation of spike proteins in the ovaries was a concern, but the liver was the second site of greatest accumulation after the injection site. Accumulation in the ovaries was likely the reason for the menstrual dysregulation and partly explained the significant reduction in fertility rates in many highly vaccinated countries. It also correlated with increased stillbirth rates. This increase in stillbirths was documented in a study co-authored by Dr. McCullough in which it was reported that COVID-19 genetic vaccines had a greater than two-fold, or 100 percent increase, in VAEs as compared to traditional flu vaccines. This represented a clear safety signal requiring further investigation, according to the CDC. Furthermore, a major increase in stillbirth rates were observed in many states, correlating with higher vaccination rates of pregnant women. While the result of the RCT conducted by Pfizer on pregnant women was not disclosed even many months after the trial has been terminated, it‘s unfathomable that the vaccines were promoted to pregnant women without any safety or efficacy data. That was in blatant disregard of the precautionary principle. Also unfathomable was the willful blindness of the medical establishment who endorsed it without scientific evidence. Their faith in the Pharma industry and the regulatory agencies was misguided. It was shown that spike mRNA was persistent in the liver, and liver accumulation is likely the main reason for the diverse pathophysiological symptoms. Among the main physiological systems in the liver, we found a number of proteins involved in the regulation of the ACE2 renin-angiotensin system (RAS), a key system that was most likely disrupted by the spike protein by virtue of its binding to the ACE2 receptor. Also, the liver was the production centre of many proteins involved in the coagulation cascade; its dysregulation could lead to all kinds of clotting issues. Numerous VAEs had common etiology involving aberrant coagulation and wound healing. Further research is required to decipher the specific mechanisms involved. Interestingly, the perturbation triggered by spike-induced liver inflammation which affected normal liver coagulation homeostasis, combined with the propensity of the spike protein for aberrant folding, could provide some fertile research hypotheses to explore the underlying mechanisms of the unusual clot formations that has been observed by embalmers. Ectopic over-expression of the spike protein in other tissues, such as the endothelium of veins and arteries, is likely involved in many coagulation pathologies. Similarly, ectopic over-expression of the spike protein in the brain could be at the root of a host of neurological diseases. Again, this will only be unravelled by much-needed additional research. Even in the absence of the precise pathophysiological mechanisms of injuries that need to be further investigated for the myriad of VAEs, a significant number of autopsies documented the plausible causal link of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines in many cases of suspicious sudden deaths. The COVID-19 genetic vaccines were also a plausible explanation for the abnormal surge of non-COVID excess deaths in 2022 in most of the highly vaccinated countries, especially noticeable in the younger population. From the more than 4,300 peer-reviewed papers examining vaccine injuries, a study co-authored by Dr. McCullough found that in the 44 papers describing autopsy reports, 74 per cent of the 325 autopsies were adjudicated to be mostly caused by COVID-19 vaccination. The deaths occurred within a mean average of 14 days of the last injection, with the majority occurring within a week. The close temporal association made the adjudication more plausible. For all of these cases, 53 per cent of the time, cardiac issues were the main cause of death, followed by hematological issues (17 per cent). The magnitude of death and injuries can be realized from the May 5, 2023, VAERS. It counted more than 1.5 million VAEs, including 35,324 deaths in the U.S. With a conservative under—reporting factor of 20, this represented 706,480 deaths in the U.S. alone, a staggeringly high death toll if proven correct. In the absence of data transparency—governments refusing to report the vaccination status of people dying of all-causes—it was very difficult to appreciate if vaccinated people were dying proportionally more than unvaccinated people. It was therefore difficult to assess the magnitude of health damages generated by the broad vaccination campaigns. However, this information was obtained from the analysis of insurance companies and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS), as testified to by Edward Dowd. Indeed, the careful investigation of the tables led to the disturbing conclusion that in 2021, 2022, and continuing in 2023, it was detrimental to your health to be employed in the United States. Financial analysts referred to it as a black swan event. Given that the working population in the U.S. was likely to be the healthiest, finding that they were dying at a higher rate than the unemployed was astonishing. For example, in the third quarter of 2021 (Q3), there was 40 per cent excess mortality in the population aged 25 to 64. To put this in context, a 10 per cent increase in excess mortality was a 1-in-200-year event, hence very rare; a 40 per cent increase was off the charts. And these off-the-chart excess mortality rates happened immediately after the vaccine mandates, which were systematically implemented for every federal government employee and for private companies of more than 100 employees. The best explanation for such a coincidence is that the vaccine-hesitant millennials were coerced to take the jab or lose their job, and the rapid vaccine uptake resulted in the increase of all-cause mortality in the subsequent quarters. No other event could meaningfully account for that. Furthermore, the staggering amount of lost work-time data from the BLS showed a huge increase in lost workdays in 2021 and 2022 (due to approximately 26 million vaccine-injured people, when we considered a 30–40 underreporting factor in VAERS): it was another black swan event. This significant disability of almost 10 per cent of the workforce was going to result in major loss of productivity for the U.S. economy in years to come. No one meaningfully challenged the quality of this financial analysis, yet no authority was willing to acknowledge the consequences of this dire situation and propose a remedy. Finally, because of unavoidable attribution biases, a clear correlation of COVID-19 genetic vaccines and deaths could ultimately be best established by a statistical analysis of all-cause mortality worldwide, as testified by Dr. Denis Rancourt. From his careful and detailed analysis of the statistics on all-cause mortality over a century, by age and discrete temporal categories, he concluded, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the worldwide vaccination campaigns were responsible for a massive amount of deaths (and still counting). The first insight about vaccination as the main culprit of an increase in all-cause deaths came from a study in India in which a huge peak of excess deaths (3.7 million) was linked to the vaccine rollout that targeted mainly elderly and frail people in the first wave of vaccination, called the “Vaccine Festival.“ As it turned out, the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR), as calculated using a large body of data, was much higher in older people. The vDFR increases exponentially with age, ranging up to 3 per cent for the most vulnerable elderly, with a doubling time of five years. In the Indian vaccination campaign, the vDFR was, on average, one per cent because of the target population. The statistics for Australia went from zero excess deaths to a huge excess in deaths immediately following the vaccine rollout. The trend continued and was very visible after the third dose. In Mississippi, the “Vaccine Equity Campaign“—again, for the most vulnerable in the population aged 24 to 65—also yielded a huge excess in deaths immediately following the vaccine rollout. Similar profiles were also easily discernible in Alabama and Michigan. In Canada, the excess mortality seen in 2020, did not decrease in 2021–22 following vaccination. In fact, in 2022, there was significantly higher mortality than in 2020 or 2021. As soon as the vaccination was rolled out, we saw an extra peak of mortality. The rollout of the third dose gave the highest peak of mortality, suggesting that the toxicity was dose dependent. The data from many Western countries allowed Dr. Rancourt to calculate a vDRR between 0.05–0.1 per cent and 1 per cent (and up to 3 per cent for the most vulnerable). Excess deaths were 13 million worldwide—3.7 million in India, 330,000 in the USA, and around 28,000 to 31,0000 in Canada—for a vDFR of 0.03 per cent or 1 death per 3000 doses. Again, the astonishing numbers of COVID-19 genetic vaccine deaths were not meaningfully challenged. In most countries, excess mortality was dropping and returning to normal, but there were a few countries like Canada where excess mortality was higher in 2022, and the reason behind this phenomenon was being explored. Poor Modelling Says Millions Saved by Mass Vaccination As the data on vaccine serious adverse effects piled up, the heath authorities reluctantly started to acknowledge their existence. With the growing evidence on causality, they tried to evade responsibility. Their justification went something like this: “Of course, no vaccine is perfectly safe, but causality has not yet been demonstrated in the majority of the cases, and overall, they save many more lives, even if the vaccines, potentially, are causing some deaths.“ The incentive to make such baseless claims was also motivated by the systematic suppression of life-saving treatments, which potentially cost millions of lives. The suppression was a necessary condition to get COVID-19 genetic vaccine approval under EUA. It would have been possible to conduct rigorous statistical analysis to prove that a reduction in COVID-19 or all-cause mortality following vaccine rollout in 2021 was strongly correlated with the vaccine rollout. The fact that no such study was published by any government in the world was a clear indication that prevention of COVID-19 mortality by vaccination was not observed in the real world. Ignoring the data, health authorities resorted to “garbage in, garbage out“ modelling, like the one published by Neil Ferguson at the beginning of the pandemic that predicted COVID-19 mortality. Due to incorrect assumptions, his model exaggerated deaths by a factor of 10 to 20. The same playbook was used in the infamous Lancet paper that claimed that the COVID-19 genetic vaccines would save up to 14.4 million lives in 2021. This modelling was based on false assumptions about the infection fatality rate (IFR) and vaccine efficacy that resulted in at least a 200-fold overestimation of vaccine‘s putative benefit on death reduction. These absurd modelling results were widely publicized in the mainstream media. Similarly, a paper co-authored by Theresa Tam, falsely claimed that Canada’s drastic health measures, in terms of NPIs and vaccination, had a combined benefit of preventing 1.1 million COVID-19 deaths. The figure was produced by massively overestimating IFR and putative effectiveness of both NPIs and vaccines. The claim that those drastic measures brought down the excess-death statistics to exactly the expected historical level was simply absurd, as testified to by Dr. Denis Rancourt. The fact that such a poor-quality paper was published in the peer-reviewed literature was mind-boggling. Conclusions There was malpractice by public health and individual healthcare practitioners. Relentless vaccination and denial of early outpatient treatment for COVID-19 were rivalled only by bureaucratic stubbornness. Given the limited evidence-based justification for widespread vaccination and concerns regarding the experimental mRNA-LNP gene therapy injections, we concluded that: These injections did not undergo the standard approval process for gene therapy products. Manufacturing issues led to quality concerns that deviated from historical regulatory standards for protecting human health. The unprecedented level of reported morbidity and mortality, particularly among vulnerable populations, surpassed what was observed with traditional vaccines or COVID-19 infections. Rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) failed to demonstrate their efficacy in stopping transmission or reducing severe illness, hospitalization, or death. Instead, the vaccines were associated with more harm than benefit. The injections were administered without obtaining free and Informed Consent, contravening the principles of the Nuremberg code. During the early days of the pandemic, politicians said that one death from COVID-19 was one too many, implying an all-out war on COVID, regardless of collateral damages. Although they claimed that drastic measures were necessary to prevent COVID-19 deaths, the vaccine-caused deaths were ignored—a double standard at play. Those deaths were tolerated for the “greater good.“ Certainly, no effort was made to avoid vaccine deaths at all costs. In theory, reporting of VAEs was compulsory, but many doctors didn‘t report adverse events because the process was cumbersome and because they couldn‘t or wouldn‘t believe that VAEs were linked to vaccines. However, it was not up to doctors to make the call to skip the reporting process. The net result of the authorities‘ use of inappropriate criteria was a substantial underreporting of side effects. Because the time frame of occurrence was established on the false premise that these genetic vaccines were like traditional vaccines, any side effect reported after a few weeks was arbitrarily deemed unrelated. The estimate was between a 10- to 100-fold underreporting of VAEs. The decision to suspend a vaccine depended on the danger signals analyzed from VAE statistics. Every VAE had to be analyzed to formally incriminate the vaccine as a causal agent, but the process was long and tedious. Normally, the likelihood of suspending vaccines increased with greater numbers of injuries. During the COVID crisis, however, even though the threshold of danger signals was well above traditional vaccines, the formal process of their removal was not activated, except for some limited restrictions in some states. Outrageously, the precautionary principle was flouted for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Without any clinical trial safety data, these vaccines were promoted after unsubstantiated data alleged pregnant and breastfeeding women were more at risk from COVID-19 than the general population. The reckless decision to recommend the vaccine to pregnant and breastfeeding women resulted in a notable increase in miscarriages, stillbirths, and serious health problems for babies. The contention that the COVID-19 genetic vaccines had shown any positive risk–benefit in any segment of the population was refuted by the bulk of the evidence provided by independent expert witnesses. Their overall conclusion was that these genetic vaccines did more harm than good. They remarked on the limited efficacy and imminent danger of these vaccines, and they called for an immediate withdrawal from the market until rigorous studies proved the vaccines were safe and effective. The onus of proof was seen to be on the vaccine manufacturers. The regulatory agencies were admonished by expert witnesses to get back to the best practices of protecting the public from the harms of a product hastily developed, tested, and manufactured. Working at “the speed of science“ was denounced by expert witnesses. People would be justifiably reluctant to fly in a plane under construction that had not been fully tested for safety. People were similarly justified in their vaccine hesitancy. At best, these mRNA vaccines were poorly tested experimental prototypes that should have been sent back to the drawing board. This was unlikely to happen unless the perverse incentives for these products were eliminated. Unfortunately, suspending the vaccines would have required government officials to admit their initial reckless mistake. The further they persisted without acknowledging their error, the more they doubled down and pushed the approval of new mRNA formulations without proper RCTs. We saw this with the approval of vaccines for children and the approval of the bivalent Omicron vaccines. They wanted us to believe that because the initial concoction had been declared safe and effective, the new mRNA sequences in the same LNP platform would also be safe. They were saying, without proof, that new mRNA coding sequences didn‘t make any difference. This approach violated the spirit of the historical drug approval process that had been practised for decades (although with some gaps) to protect public safety. A new drug was presumed unsafe and ineffective until proven otherwise, and changing anything in the content of the product made it new. Recommendations We recommend the suspension of any further vaccination for COVID-19 until (1) the issues of cGMP production are resolved; (2) the genotoxicity, auto-immunogenicity, and tumorigenicity assays are conducted to the appropriate level for gene therapy products; and (3) rigorous RCTs demonstrate the reduction of morbidity and mortality in a representative population, including the most vulnerable. Given that there was no efficacy study in the RCT with the mRNA-LNP produced in the commercial manufacturing process and that there were irregularities in the clinical trial process, we recommend that Health Canada require an independent audit of the RCT. Victims have to be compensated more readily. We also recommend that the government set up a special centre to take care of the vaccine-injured. Regulatory agencies must revisit the warp-speed-development mindset of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines and rebut the allegation that the mRNA-LNP products have been proven safe and effective and that they can therefore be further used as a vaccine platform for other diseases without proper safety testing. A Pandora‘s box has been opened, and promoting any future products based on that mRNA-LNP platform technology for expedited marketing, within one year, without the proper efficacy and safety assessment will only perpetuate bad health outcomes of similar magnitude. In alignment with the views of numerous medical doctors and scientists worldwide, the following recommendations are made: A. Immediately halt the use of experimental mRNA-LNP gene therapy injections for COVID-19 prevention. B. Approve any future applications of these injections through the standard gene therapy product approval process. C. Ensure that the regulatory approval process and recommendations by vaccine immunization committees are reviewed by independent medical and scientific advisory committees without conflicts of interest. D. Establish clear safety signal thresholds that would necessitate the automatic removal of any vaccine or therapeutic product from the market, with legal accountability for officials failing to adhere to these pre-established norms. E. Acknowledge, treat, and adequately compensate individuals who have experienced vaccine-related injuries. 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.

4.4 Digital Safety and Exposure 4.4 Digital Safety and Exposure Introduction In the modern digital landscape, children are increasingly immersed in online spaces through social media platforms, educational tools, and entertainment media. While these digital platforms provide unparalleled opportunities for learning, creativity, and social connection, they also pose significant risks to children’s safety and well-being. Witnesses at the Vancouver NCI hearings highlighted critical issues related to digital safety, including exposure to inappropriate or harmful content, online grooming, cyberbullying, privacy breaches, and the lack of adequate safeguards to protect minors. A recurring theme throughout the testimonies was the developmental vulnerability of children in navigating digital environments. Children often lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to critically assess the content they encounter online. Witnesses emphasized that without sufficient parental oversight, regulatory protections, or digital literacy education, children remain highly susceptible to manipulation, exploitation, and psychological harm. The hearings also revealed systemic failures on the part of digital platforms, schools, and policymakers in addressing these risks. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, frequently expose children to inappropriate content or ideologically biased material. Similarly, educational systems often fail to equip children with the necessary skills to navigate digital spaces safely or to recognize the potential dangers of sharing personal information online. Through testimony from experts, parents, and advocates, key areas of concern emerged, including the normalization of explicit or age-inappropriate content, the influence of social media on shaping perceptions, and the role of inadequate policies in exacerbating children’s exposure to online harm. Witnesses stressed the urgency of implementing comprehensive measures to safeguard children in digital environments, including stronger content moderation, improved parental controls, and widespread digital literacy education. This section synthesizes the testimonies of witnesses, including Chris Elston (Billboard Chris), Emily Duggan, Pierre Barnes, Helen Ward, and Amrit Birring, who provided firsthand accounts and evidence of the risks posed by children’s online exposure. Their testimonies shed light on the complex interplay of societal, technological, and policy-related factors that leave children vulnerable in the digital age. By addressing these concerns through systemic reforms and greater accountability, society can create a safer and more supportive digital environment for young people. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Chris Elston (Billboard Chris) Overview of Testimony Chris Elston, widely known as "Billboard Chris," is an advocate who focuses on raising awareness about issues related to gender ideology and children's safety. Elston quit his career as a financial advisor to dedicate his time to traveling, speaking, and engaging with communities worldwide about the impact of gender ideology on children. He has spoken at international forums, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, and campaigns actively against the sexualization of children, often drawing attention to digital exposure and social media's role in influencing young minds. Key Points of Testimony Digital Safety and Exposure Impact of Social Media on Children: Elston highlighted the significant role social media platforms like TikTok, Tumblr, and Reddit play in shaping children's perceptions of gender and identity. He explained that many children become engrossed in online communities, where they are exposed to ideologies promoting gender transitions. These platforms often serve as echo chambers that normalize the idea of being "born in the wrong body," pushing vulnerable children toward irreversible medical interventions • Normalization of Harmful Content: Elston expressed concerns about how digital platforms and associated NGOs propagate harmful narratives. He described this as a "perfect storm" where children, instead of living their own lives, are drawn into curated online lives of others, leading to confusion and indoctrination. Digital Exposure to Explicit Material: Elston criticized how easy access to inappropriate or overly mature content on social media can desensitize children and normalize harmful behaviours. He argued that digital platforms must be held accountable for failing to protect children from exposure to such material. Concerns Over Lack of Parental Oversight: Elston called attention to the diminished role of parents due to the increasing reliance on digital platforms for social interaction and education. He urged parents to closely monitor their children's online activity to mitigate the influence of harmful content. Call for Policy and Societal Action: Elston emphasized the need for stronger regulations to protect children in the digital sphere. He advocated for public awareness campaigns and legislative measures to curb the influence of harmful ideologies and explicit content accessible to minors through digital channels. Chris Elston’s testimony underscored the urgent need to address the digital exposure of children and the broader societal implications of unchecked content on online platforms. He called for collective action to safeguard children from exploitation and the normalization of harmful ideologies. Emily Duggan Overview of Testimony Emily Duggan is a parental rights advocate from Creston, British Columbia, and a mother of two children. Her testimony during the NCI Vancouver Hearings focused on raising awareness about the risks associated with digital safety and exposure, particularly regarding programs like SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) 123. Duggan has dedicated her efforts to informing the public about the implications of such programs on children and advocating for increased transparency and parental involvement in educational content. Key Points of Testimony Risks of Digital Exposure in SOGI 123: Duggan explained that SOGI 123 is a resource guide used in British Columbia’s public education system to address gender ideology and sexual preferences. She criticized how this program introduces sensitive topics, such as sexual orientation and gender identity, to children at a young age without adequately considering their developmental readiness. Normalization of Inappropriate Content: Duggan highlighted examples of how digital resources, including those tied to SOGI 123, normalize mature and explicit themes. She expressed concerns that children exposed to such content might adopt distorted perceptions of relationships and self-identity. Unqualified Educators Handling Sensitive Issues: Duggan revealed that many teachers and support staff in schools are not certified to use SOGI 123 resources or to engage children in discussions about complex topics like gender identity. She criticized this lack of proper training, stating that it places children at risk of receiving misguided or harmful advice. Undermining Parental Oversight: Duggan emphasized that programs like SOGI 123 often bypass parental involvement, leaving parents unaware of the content their children are exposed to. She argued that this lack of transparency erodes trust between parents and educational institutions. • Link Between Early Exposure and Abuse Risks: Duggan warned that early exposure to explicit material removes natural red flags that could indicate abuse. By normalizing discussions of sexual acts, children may fail to recognize inappropriate behaviour by adults, potentially making them more vulnerable to exploitation. Call for Change in Policy and Oversight: Duggan advocated for a reassessment of educational resources like SOGI 123 and greater parental involvement in their development. She called for independent audits of such programs to ensure they are age-appropriate and align with parental values and children’s best interests. Emily Duggan’s testimony underscored the importance of addressing the risks associated with digital exposure and ensuring that educational programs prioritize children’s safety and development. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by the Witnesses Exposure to Inappropriate Content Chris Elston emphasized the risks of children encountering explicit or ideologically biased content on social media platforms and in educational materials. Elston highlighted how social media algorithms expose young users to content they may not be prepared to process, such as topics on adult relationships, gender ideologies, and graphic materials. Exposure to such materials at an early age can affect children’s mental health, leading to confusion, stress, and desensitization to adult topics. Witnesses called for stricter content regulations on digital platforms and more robust reviews of educational resources. Parental oversight and comprehensive digital literacy programs in schools are crucial to help children navigate online content responsibly and understand what is age-appropriate. Cyberbullying and Psychological Impact Emily Duggan highlighted the psychological toll of cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content. Duggan recounted cases where children faced severe emotional distress, including anxiety and depression, as a result of online harassment. Normalizing inappropriate content in schools can lead children to experiment in ways that remove critical boundaries and increase vulnerability to exploitation. Addressing cyberbullying and its broader psychological effects requires collaboration among parents, educators, and digital platforms. Schools should offer resources for identifying and managing cyberbullying, while platforms must strengthen their reporting systems to mitigate online harassment. Online Grooming and Predatory Behaviour Online grooming was a recurring concern highlighted by witnesses. Predators exploit unsupervised online interactions on gaming and social media platforms, using anonymity and weak age verification measures to target minors. Witnesses criticized policies that prevent teachers from informing parents about children’s changes in gender identity or pronoun use, which he argued aligns with grooming behaviours by fostering secrecy. Tackling this issue requires digital platforms to implement stronger safeguards, including more effective age verification and restrictions on private messaging for minors. Parents and educators must teach children about online safety, helping them recognize and report suspicious behaviour. Privacy Invasion and Data Security Concerns Witnesses discussed the pervasive issue of data collection on minors by digital platforms, often without their understanding of privacy risks. Amrit Birring raised concerns about children inadvertently sharing personal information, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Apps and websites with complex privacy policies often fail to protect minors, emphasizing the need for clearer disclosures and stronger regulatory frameworks. Enhanced privacy protections, including mandatory simplified privacy policies and restrictions on data collection from minors, are essential. Parents and schools should prioritize teaching children about managing their online presence and the risks of oversharing. Lack of Digital Literacy and Parental Control Tools Witnesses such as Emily Duggan stressed the importance of integrating digital literacy into school curricula to empower children to navigate online spaces safely. She emphasized the need for students and parents to develop skills for recognizing harmful content, managing cyberbullying, and understanding digital privacy. Duggan also noted the lack of effective parental control tools, which limits parents’ ability to supervise their children’s online activities. Improved digital literacy programs and intuitive parental control tools are vital. These measures would provide children and families with the resources to navigate the internet safely while maintaining oversight of potentially harmful online interactions. Conclusion The testimonies at the Vancouver NCI hearings highlighted the urgent need for enhanced digital safety measures to protect children from risks such as inappropriate content, cyberbullying, online grooming, and privacy invasions. Witnesses described how the rapid expansion of digital media has outpaced regulatory efforts and educational responses, leaving children vulnerable to online dangers. A comprehensive approach involving stricter content regulations, improved digital literacy education, and accessible parental control mechanisms is essential. By addressing these concerns, society can ensure children are safeguarded while engaging responsibly with digital media. Recommendations To address the critical issues raised during the Vancouver NCI hearings regarding children’s digital safety and exposure, the following recommendations are proposed. These measures aim to create a safer online environment, foster digital literacy, and strengthen parental and societal protections for children in digital spaces. Implement Age-Appropriate Content Restrictions: Enhance Content Moderation Standards: Require digital platforms to enforce stricter guidelines for content targeting minors, ensuring that inappropriate material, such as explicit sexual content, graphic violence, or gender ideology is effectively filtered and removed. Age Verification Systems: Mandate the use of advanced age verification technologies across social media platforms, gaming networks, and streaming services to prevent children from accessing content unsuitable for their developmental stage. Clear Labelling of Content: Introduce a standardized labeling system for online content, helping parents and educators identify age-appropriate material more easily. 2. Promote Comprehensive Digital Literacy Education: Integrate Digital Literacy into School Curricula: Develop comprehensive educational programs that teach students about online safety, recognizing harmful content, managing their digital footprint, and understanding privacy risks. Parental Digital Literacy Training: Provide accessible workshops and resources for parents to equip them with tools and knowledge to monitor their children’s online activities effectively. Collaboration with Experts: Engage child development specialists and digital safety experts in the design of educational content to ensure programs are evidence-based and age-appropriate. 3. Develop Robust Parental Control Tools: Enhanced Parental Control Features: Advocate for technology companies to create intuitive, customizable tools that allow parents to set time limits, block harmful content, and monitor their children’s online interactions in real time. Universal Adoption of Family-Friendly Filters: Encourage mandatory inclusion of family friendly filters as default settings on devices and platforms commonly used by children. Education on Parental Controls: Provide detailed instructions and support for parents on how to implement and use parental control tools effectively. 4. Strengthen Privacy Protections for Minors: Limit Data Collection from Minors: Introduce stringent regulations to prohibit digital platforms from collecting personal data from users under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent. Simplify Privacy Policies: Require platforms to present privacy policies in child friendly language and ensure transparency about how minors’ data is stored and used. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Impose significant penalties on companies that fail to comply with privacy standards, ensuring accountability in protecting children’s online identities. 5. Increase Awareness and Resources for Recognizing Cyberbullying: Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch national campaigns to educate children, parents, and educators about recognizing, preventing, and addressing cyberbullying. School-Based Support Systems: Implement peer support groups and access to counsellors to help children manage the psychological effects of cyberbullying. Reporting and Redress Mechanisms: Ensure that schools and digital platforms have clear and accessible processes for reporting cyberbullying incidents, with timely responses and support for victims. 6. Enhance Safety Measures for Online Gaming and Social Media: Restrict Private Messaging for Minors: Require platforms to implement restrictions on direct messaging features for minors, ensuring these tools are only used in safe, monitored contexts. Prohibit Anonymity in Child-Targeted Platforms: Eliminate anonymous user accounts in platforms catering to children, minimizing the risk of exploitation by predators. Regular Audits of Gaming and Social Networks: Conduct routine safety audits of popular platforms to identify and address risks related to grooming, exploitation, or exposure to inappropriate content. 7. Review and Audit Educational Materials: Independent Reviews of School Resources: Mandate regular audits of digital and educational materials available in schools to ensure they are age-appropriate and legally compliant. Parental Involvement in Curriculum Development: Require that parents and community stakeholders have opportunities to review and provide input on educational content related to digital safety and gender issues. Compliance with Canadian Law: Ensure that all school resources meet the standards set by Canadian law, particularly regarding the prohibition of exposing minors to sexually explicit materials. In-School Access to Online Materials: Parental consent must be obtained before schools grant students access to online materials. Schools should actively monitor students’ online activities during school hours, and parents must be kept informed of their child’s internet usage and any content accessed. 8. Foster Parental Involvement in Policy Decisions: Establish Parent Councils: Create formal advisory councils at the school district and provincial levels to represent parents’ concerns and perspectives in decisions related to digital safety policies. Transparent Decision-Making Processes: Ensure that public consultations are held before implementing policies that affect children’s online exposure, providing clear communication to parents about the rationale and evidence behind these decisions. Empower Parents Through Advocacy Resources: Develop online platforms and toolkits that empower parents to advocate for their children’s safety in digital and educational spaces. By implementing these comprehensive recommendations, Canada can establish a safer and more supportive digital environment for children. These measures will empower parents, strengthen regulations, and equip children with the tools they need to navigate online spaces responsibly, ensuring their safety and well-being in an increasingly digital world. 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.

Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME THREE 194 Table Contents 195 Introduction 196 Opening Statements 197 Witness Testimony 198 About the Transcripts 199 Page numbers have been included in the original transcripts to facilitate ease of reference and navigation for readers. Table of Contents Witness Transcripts 1 Day 1 1 Day 2 169 Day 3 348 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.

8.1 Introduction 8. Transcripts 8.1 Introduction The inclusion of full transcripts of each of the witnesses as part of the official record is an essential component of the Commission‘s work. These transcripts serve to preserve the firsthand accounts, opinions, experiences, and perspectives of those directly impacted by or involved in the issues under investigation. Process of Transcription: The transcription process involved the detailed recording of all verbal testimony given by the witnesses during the hearings. A team of volunteer transcribers, utilized both manual (human) and automated (AI-based) methods, as well as multi-levels of manual reviews to ensure accuracy and efficiency. Every word is documented in the transcript, preserving the tone and context of the testimony. Quality Assurance: Transcripts are carefully reviewed for accuracy. This may involve listening to the recorded testimony multiple times and correcting any errors in the transcriptions. In some cases, unclear or disputed sections may be annotated within the transcript. Importance of Transcripts: The transcripts serve multiple purposes. They provide a permanent, verifiable record of the hearings. This is important for ensuring the transparency and accountability of the Commission‘s work. It also allows those who were not present at the hearings to access the information presented. Furthermore, transcripts can serve as a valuable resource for future research, policy development, and historical record. They ensure that the experiences and voices of the witnesses are preserved for posterity, contributing to our collective understanding of the issues investigated by the commission. In this way, the transcription process provides a meticulous, enduring account of the testimonies provided by the witnesses. It plays a vital role in preserving the evidence, upholding the integrity of the Commission‘s proceedings, and informing future generations. 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.

5.7.5 Children's Mental and Spiritual Health 5.7.5 Children's Mental and Spiritual Health Recommendations Key Recommendations : Incorporate Ethical Oversight and Transparency in Public Health Policies: Mandate independent ethical reviews of public health policies affecting children to prevent harm. Require comprehensive disclosure of vaccine safety and risk data to support informed consent. Engage parents, educators, and child development experts in creating child-centred policies. 2. Prioritize Holistic Mental Health Support: Expand access to counselling, peer support programs, and training for educators to identify and address emotional and behavioural challenges in children. Develop trauma-informed mental health interventions to rebuild emotional resilience and promote long-term recovery. Provide tailored resources for families navigating vaccine injuries or other medical challenges. 3. Strengthen Family and Parental Involvement: Ensure parents are actively involved in critical medical, educational, and policy decisions affecting their children. Empower parents with resources to nurture their children’s mental and spiritual well-being. Implement family centred policies that prioritize the parent-child bond as a protective factor for mental health. 4. Restore Community Connections and Support Systems: Rebuild in-person schooling, extracurricular activities, and community programs to restore children’s sense of belonging and connection. Promote community-based initiatives that foster social interaction, mentorship, and spiritual growth. Develop programs to help children reconnect with peers, teachers, and community members to mitigate feelings of isolation and purposelessness. 5. Reform Educational Practices: Reduce reliance on digital learning tools and promote in-person educational experiences to support social and emotional development. Introduce structured, predictable routines in schools to provide children with a sense of security and stability. Reintroduce programs that encourage self-expression, creativity, and identity formation. 6. Address Environmental and Dietary Factors: Eliminate harmful toxins, such as glyphosate, from food production and children’s environments. Promote nutrient dense, organic diets to support emotional and neurological health. Educate families about reducing processed food consumption and encourage breastfeeding over contaminated infant formulas. 7. Foster Spiritual Growth and Resilience: Create programs that help children reconnect with nature, community, and their sense of identity and purpose. Encourage activities that promote spiritual well-being, such as mentorship programs, arts, and outdoor initiatives. Promote values of trust, compassion, and community within institutions to rebuild children’s sense of optimism and faith. 8. Conduct Research on Long-term Effects: Invest in independent studies to assess the long-term impacts of environmental toxins, vaccine adjuvants, and COVID-19-related disruptions on children’s mental and spiritual health. Develop strategies to mitigate the cumulative effects of systemic failures on children’s emotional and developmental outcomes. By implementing these recommendations, Canada can address the critical mental and spiritual health challenges identified in the Vancouver NCI hearings. This comprehensive approach emphasizes family involvement, community support, holistic health interventions, and systemic reforms to foster resilience, connection, and well-being for 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.

5.3 Economics 5.3 Economic / Social Impacts Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a series of unprecedented public health measures worldwide which were aimed at mitigating the spread of the virus. In Canada, these measures included vaccination mandates and the requirement for individuals to report their private health status. Many of the health measures proved to be ineffective and, in some cases, harmful. Additionally, the policies had significant and damaging economic ramifications, especially for individuals who chose not to comply with these mandates. A considerable number of Canadians faced job losses for refusing to adhere to vaccination mandates or disclose their health status. This section delves into the economic impacts of COVID-19 measures on affected individuals, exploring the broader implications on employment, financial stability, and privacy rights. The introduction of vaccination mandates, as well as the requirement for disclosure of vaccination status, created a complex landscape for workers across various sectors. Employees in all industries across Canada found themselves at a crossroads—balancing their personal beliefs and privacy concerns against government regulations and employer policies. Those who refused to comply with these mandates often faced termination, suspension, or reallocation of duties at reduced pay, leading to significant economic hardships. This analysis examines the financial consequences experienced by individuals who lost their jobs due to non-compliance with mandated policies. It explores the immediate impacts such as loss of income and benefits and the long-term effects on career progression and employability. Additionally, this section addresses the psychological and social ramifications of job loss, including increased stress, anxiety, and the stigma associated with being unvaccinated or refusing to disclose health information. Furthermore, the economic impacts extend beyond the individual to affect families and communities. Job losses can lead to reduced household income, increased reliance on social assistance programs, and decreased consumer spending that in turn affects local economies. This section will analyze these cascading effects, drawing on data from various sources to provide a comprehensive picture of the economic fallout. Witness Testimony Amie Harbor Amie Harbor is a community support worker and education assistant. In January 2020, she was working for a private company in British Columbia. At the time of the pandemic she had worked for that same company for ten years. By 2021, she had anticipated that her employer would issue vaccine mandates, so she quit her full-time position for a part-time position and also took on a casual job with the local school division. By August of 2021, in anticipation of vaccine mandates, she revised her part-time job to a casual position and took on a full-time position with the school division. Mandates were implemented in November of 2021; she was required to be vaccinated and to disclose her vaccine status. However, because her medical information was private, she refused to disclose. She approached her union to request an exemption due to political beliefs but was rejected. And on December 3, 2021, she was placed on unpaid leave. In December 2022, she initiated a grievance against the company for constructive dismissal without cause and discrimination for political beliefs. The union rejected her grievance. She then appealed the decision to the grievance appeal committee, and in 2024 they heard her case; they upheld the union’s rejection of her grievance. She appealed the union’s appeal committee decision to the provincial appeal committee, under the BC Human Rights Code, and was turned down. She has now filed a Human Rights complaint, which has not yet been heard. She also filed complaints with the provincial ombudsman and with the provincial labour board. She has taken a significant pay cut due to the imposition of the mandates and the loss of her job. Finally, Ms. Harbor stated that at the time of her testimony the province of British Columbia still had a vaccine mandate in place. Mark Varga In 2018, Mark Varga, a specialist with 25 years of experience in health, safety, and risk management, took on a position at the London, Ontario Health Sciences Centre as a clinical educator in workplace violence. In the spring of 2021, he and his family contracted and recovered from COVID-19. Based on his experience at previous hospitals, he had his blood tested to prove he had acquired natural immunity to COVID-19. He submitted the test results to his employer, stating that he was naturally immune and would not be taking the vaccine. Mr. Varga’s refusal to take the vaccine was based on his own research and previous experience with the yellow fever vaccine. The hospital shortly thereafter issued a new policy which stated that natural immunity was no longer accepted and all employees had to be vaccinated. He testified that the hospital was issuing statements concerning the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, and they were further releasing statistics concerning COVID-19 infections in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. In reviewing the statistics he noted that the numbers were actually indicating a problem with the vaccinated. As he was involved with safety and health, hospital employees were talking to him about how they felt forced to take the vaccine and that they were dealing with vaccine side effects. In August 2021, the hospital policy stated that the unvaccinated employees had to test three times a week to prove they were not infected, and if they were not vaccinated by October 2021, they would be terminated. In October 2021, Mr. Varga was terminated for refusing to take the vaccine. Mr. Varga stated that although he had not been vaccinated he was immunized against the virus as confirmed by laboratory testing. He applied for an exemption under the human rights code, which was denied. He applied for employment insurance (EI) but was turned down. Mr. Varga was unemployed for one year and could not get another job due to his vaccine status, so he started his own business and is now self-employed. Mr. Varga believes that the vaccine mandates remain in place in Ontario hospitals. He testified that he observed no overload in the hospital, and much of the hospital was empty or shut down. He felt there was “number switching“ to support the narrative. He testified that the hospital reported they terminated only 84 employees for non-compliance with their mandates, but this did not appear to reflect the actual numbers. Based on the statistics reported by the hospital there should have been somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 employees who did not get vaccinated. On the basis of his experience as an employment health and safety manger, he confirmed that if an employer is mandating a PPE or device, that the employer is liable for the safety and efficacy of that equipment or device. He felt bullied and coerced by the hospital to take the vaccine, and these actions were contrary to the bullying policy. Lex Acker Mr. Acker is a chartered financial analyst, since 2017. He has over ten years of experience reviewing Federal Communications Commission filings of publicly listed companies. He has worked for hedge funds as a research analyst and as a compliance officer for an investment firm. He is also a certified financial fraud examiner. Mr. Acker presented a review of the Canada EI program and his opinion as to why the EI program denied coverage to employees who were terminated for refusing the vaccine. After his wife, a nurse, was terminated from her employment and then subsequently denied EI coverage, he filed an Access to Information request for his wife’s EI file. Within the file he received from Employment Insurance he discovered a reference to Memo BE 2021-10, titled “EI Ineligibility and Refusal to Comply with a Mandatory Vaccine Policy.“ The EI agents were directed to follow the memo when adjudicating applications for EI. The memo that they were to follow was not in compliance with EI legislation, and the memo in fact states as much. The BE memo replaced the normal adjudication process with an alternate process, which is not in compliance with the legislation. Mr. Acker presented a transcript of a telephone conversation he had with EI agents. Mr. Acker compared the BE Memo and compared it to the normal EI adjudication process. Mr. Acker theorized that the Government of Canada recognized that the vaccine mandates would result in significant employee terminations and therefore significant claims for Employment Insurance. In his opinion, the government made a decision to override the legislated adjudication process by issuing the BE memo in order to avoid the significant costs associated with unvaccinated employee EI claims. Canada could not afford to pay the EI claims that would result from their vaccine mandates, therefore, they issued the BE memo which caused EI agents to deny what would have normally been considered legitimate claims for EI coverage. Roxanne Cote Roxanne Cote, a crisis management fundraiser with a non-profit agency, shared her deeply personal experience with the COVID-19 policies that led to the loss of her job after 13 1/2 years of dedicated service. Before the pandemic, Roxanne enjoyed a strong relationship with her employer and colleagues, but the implementation of COVID-19 measures drastically altered her life. In March 2020, all staff and volunteers were instructed to work from home, a situation that continued for 18 months. Although she occasionally went into the office once or twice a week, most of her work was done remotely. In September 2021, a vaccination policy was introduced, and by October 2021 it became official, requiring all employees to be vaccinated by December 2021. The policy mentioned the possibility of exemptions based on provincial legislation. Roxanne applied for a religious exemption, but her request was denied. She appealed the decision, but the appeal was also rejected. Despite having successfully worked from home, her employer insisted that she could not continue her role without being vaccinated. On December 15, 2021, Roxanne was terminated from her employment. Following her termination, Roxanne faced significant challenges. Her application for EI was denied, and she struggled to find new work due to the pervasive vaccine mandates. The combination of losing her job and being unable to secure new employment led her into a deep depression. As the sole breadwinner in her family she found herself in a desperate situation—even contemplating suicide. The stigma surrounding her refusal to be vaccinated further isolated her. To survive, Roxanne sold her home and returned to her hometown in Saskatchewan. She described feeling ashamed and disgraced by the entire process, and she is still working on her emotional recovery. Roxanne hopes that by sharing her story she can offer support and encouragement to others who find themselves in similar circumstances. Glenn Aalderink Glenn is a surgical nurse, with specialized training in the use and specifications of PPE, who worked on a COVID-19 ward in British Columbia. He provided a detailed account of the situation in his hospital, highlighting the illogical mask and PPE policies. He noted that, contrary to media reports, the hospital was not overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, and there was a troubling unwillingness among management to discuss these policies or consider the ethical implications for nursing staff. Glenn described the atmosphere of fear that permeated the hospital following the pandemic’s announcement in March 2020. Volunteering to work on the COVID-19 floor, he observed, that despite the heightened state of alert, sections of the hospital were shut down; at one point, the COVID-19 ward had only a single patient. Throughout the pandemic the hospital operated at approximately 65 per cent capacity. He testified that the use of surgical masks to prevent COVID-19 infections was fundamentally flawed. He explained that prior to the pandemic surgical masks were considered ineffective against smoke particles, which are significantly larger than COVID-19 particles. Despite this, hospital policy mandated the use of a single surgical mask for an entire day, a practice he described as “ridiculous.“ Glenn also expressed concerns about the broader public health measures, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, which he argued were implemented without Informed Consent. His growing disillusionment with these policies led him to organize rallies against the mandates, alongside other like-minded healthcare workers. However, his activism soon resulted in disciplinary actions, and he was ultimately terminated from his position—forcing him to seek employment in an unrelated field. In September 2021, Glenn organized the “Stop The Mandate“ protest. Following this rally, the BC Nursing College initiated an investigation against him. He was terminated from his employment after refusing to disclose his vaccine status, which he believed violated the fundamental tenets of nursing ethics. On a personal level, Glenn had concerns about taking the COVID-19 vaccines due to his family health history. He attempted to obtain a medical exemption from his doctor, but his request was denied. He appealed his termination through the union, but because the mandates in British Columbia remained unchanged he was effectively barred from working as a nurse in the province. Glenn’s testimony underscores the profound personal and professional challenges he faced as a result of the mandates. He expressed the stark reality that, as long as the mandates are in place he will never be able to work as a nurse in British Columbia again. Amanda Rodriguez Amanda Rodriguez testified about the challenges she faced while dealing with her father’s illness and the treatment both he and the family received in the hospital system due to their vaccination status. She described the lack of compassion, as well as the illogical and inhumane behaviour exhibited by healthcare workers. Additionally, Amanda spoke about her own experiences with job-related COVID-19 mandates. In January 2022, Amanda’s father was diagnosed with cancer. The family cared for him at home until his condition deteriorated to the point where hospitalization was necessary. When the paramedics arrived to take her father to the hospital, the paramedics inquired about the family’s vaccination status. Upon learning that they were unvaccinated, the paramedics and hospital staff treated them poorly. Amanda was not permitted to accompany her father into the hospital, leaving him alone and incapacitated and unable to provide Informed Consent. Her father, who had severe allergies and was undergoing chemotherapy, was left unattended by hospital staff for the next six hours. Despite Amanda’s efforts to contact the patient advocate office, she was unable to reach anyone as it was early in the morning. Even her sister, who was double-vaccinated, was denied entry into the hospital. Eventually the paramedics, who had remained with her father in the hospital, attempted to advocate for her father’s care, but it was only after several hours that a doctor finally attended to him. The doctor handled her father roughly before eventually taking him away. The police were called, and Amanda was instructed to leave the hospital. Tragically, her father passed away the following morning, alone and without any family by his side. In addition to her personal ordeal, Amanda also shared her professional experiences. She worked in a government group home for children and had a medical exemption from the mask requirement, which her employer accommodated in 2020. However, in 2021 when vaccine mandates were imposed on workers, her exemptions for both masks and vaccines were denied. As a result, Amanda went on stress leave and was eventually placed on leave without pay for not being vaccinated. Amanda took her case to the union and won the complaint but ultimately decided to leave her job. Her testimony highlights the emotional and professional toll that the pandemic policies and mandates had on her and her family. Marcos Sobral In 2020, Marcos Sobral was an undergraduate student at the University of Winnipeg. By 2022, he had been accepted into the master’s program and completed his honours year through online study. In June 2023, he secured a thesis advisor and submitted his thesis proposal, which focused on the COVID-19 mandates. However, his proposal was met with ridicule, and he was told that no one was interested in pursuing a paper on this topic. Seeking support, Marcos reached out to other university professors, but he was unable to find assistance. Despite working with various professors to revise his original thesis proposal, he encountered a lack of interest from the faculty, who expressed no desire to engage with a project that challenged the prevailing COVID-19 narrative. Marcos was enrolled in the Criminal Justice department. Over time, Marcos submitted a total of four thesis proposals, but he was ultimately informed that he had run out of time. Consequently, he was expelled from the program, and his master’s degree was withheld. In response, Marcos wrote a letter to the university administration seeking help. This led to an invitation to the registrar’s office, where he was formally expelled from the university. Undeterred, Marcos hired a lawyer from Toronto and successfully fought for reinstatement. However, soon after his reinstatement, he received notice from the university accusing him of being overly critical of his peers. This situation caused significant financial and emotional strain. As a result of these challenges, Marcos was forced out of the thesis stream and into the project stream. His work continued to be undermined by the professors; he appealed one grade, which was ultimately revised from an F to a B+. Eventually, he was appointed a new thesis advisor. However, after submitting his first draft, he was instructed to remove any mention of COVID-19 from his thesis. Despite this, Marcos persisted in addressing COVID-19 in his work, leading the professor to refuse further involvement with the project. Marcos submitted his thesis as originally written, but his work was attacked and ridiculed, leading to the withholding of his master’s degree due to his refusal to omit the COVID-19 content. Marcos speculated that the university’s reluctance to address the COVID-19 issue was likely influenced by concerns related to the institution’s funding. Debra Milcak Her husband was initially hospitalized due to low oxygen levels detected in his blood. After visiting a clinic, where he was prescribed certain medications, they were advised that he should go to the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital, he was tested for COVID-19 and was confirmed to be infected. The hospital recommended intubating her husband, but both she and her husband refused the procedure. Instead, they opted for oxygen therapy through a nasal tube, which seemed to work effectively. They requested that the ICU doctor treat her husband with ivermectin, but the doctors mocked the request, dismissing ivermectin as “horse paste.“ The ICU doctor informed them that he was not permitted to prescribe ivermectin. Throughout their stay, various doctors and social workers repeatedly tried to convince them to agree to intubation. The medical staff also attempted to separate the couple, but her husband insisted that his wife remain with him to advocate on his behalf. Due to their refusal to consent to intubation, the hospital informed them that they could no longer stay in the emergency room. When they decided to leave the hospital, the staff refused to return the medications that had been previously prescribed by the clinic doctor and also denied them access to oxygen. The hospital staff warned them that her husband would die if they left. Once they returned home, they purchased an oxygen supply, independently, and obtained ivermectin from an alternative source. After starting ivermectin, her husband’s condition improved rapidly, and they continue to use it as a prophylactic measure. Jeanette Wightman Jeanette Wightman served as a purchasing manager for a modular housing production facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta, where she had worked for 14 years. She detailed the challenges her company faced due to lockdowns, mRNA vaccine mandates, and how these measures impacted her long tenure with the organization. At the onset of the pandemic, the staff was sent home as operations temporarily halted. When production eventually resumed, the company faced significant difficulties in ordering and receiving materials due to widespread production delays. In August 2021, management informed the staff that all management personnel would need to be vaccinated to comply with travel restrictions. By late October 2021, the company extended this requirement, mandating that all management staff be vaccinated, while production workers were exempt from this requirement. Jeanette chose not to get vaccinated as she believed the vaccines were unsafe. As a result, the company replaced her in her management role. The local general manager offered her a lower-paying position on the production floor, which did not require vaccination. Faced with the inability to receive EI, Jeanette accepted the lower-paying position and remains employed with the company in this reduced role. Richard and Doreen Fehr Richard, a 43-year-old father of two, shared his harrowing experience after developing a severe heart injury that followed his receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. He was accompanied by his mother, Doreen, who provided additional insights into his ordeal. Richard, who worked as a dairy farmer for 17 years at the Rayner Dairy and Teaching Facility operated by the University of Saskatchewan, was mandated by his employer to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite his reluctance, he complied with the mandate out of fear of losing his job. He received his first injection on August 23, 2021 without any noticeable side effects. However, after receiving the second injection on September 23, 2021, Richard began experiencing significant health issues, including extreme fatigue, which caused him to miss three days of work. On December 2, 2021, shortly after returning to work, Richard suffered a massive heart attack. Richard’s recollection of the events following the heart attack was limited, as he was unconscious for much of the time. His account was largely based on what witnesses told him about the events that transpired. He was hospitalized for an extended period and underwent treatment for sepsis, which developed after his large intestine had to be removed due to a lack of blood flow. This life-threatening condition led to septicemia, and he was kept in a sedated state for much of his hospital stay. Doreen recounted that while Richard was in the hospital, medical staff questioned her about his health and family history. She informed them that Richard had been healthy prior to the vaccine and that there was no family history of heart disease. When she mentioned that Richard had been vaccinated, the medical professional abruptly left the room, leaving her with no further information or support. In addition to the heart injury, Richard’s condition was complicated by the infection of his peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC line), which had been left in too long, and by blood clots that formed in his groin. These complications left him unable to walk, requiring him to relearn how to use his legs. He spent a total of 117 days in the hospital, during which time he lost 50 pounds and developed painful bedsores. One of the most devastating aspects of Richard’s ordeal was the impact on his family. For the first 80 days of his hospitalization, his children were not allowed to visit him, causing significant emotional distress for his entire family. His heart now functions at only 45 per cent capacity, and he becomes easily exhausted. Due to his condition, Richard is on long-term disability and will never be able to return to his work at the dairy. Richard is not enrolled in the vaccine injury compensation program, despite the severity of his condition. During his hospital stay, Doreen faced additional hardships, including being forcibly removed from the hospital on more than one occasion due to her vaccination status, even though she was fully tested and wearing PPE. This occurred despite the high risk of Richard’s death, further compounding the family’s trauma. Richard’s testimony highlights the severe and life-altering consequences he has endured following his vaccination, as well as the lack of support and recognition from the medical system and related institutions. Jamie Salé Jamie Salé, an Olympic Gold Medalist in pairs figure skating in 2002, is a well-known Canadian personality and a mother of two children. Her testimony focused on her personal experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the first eight months following the pandemic’s declaration in March 2020, Jamie and her community of friends diligently followed Health Canada’s guidelines, which included masking, lockdowns, and PCR testing. However, by the fall of 2020, she began to sense that the Canadian population was being inundated with fear-driven propaganda. This realization led her to suspect that something was amiss. In January 2021, Jamie started receiving information about the situation in other parts of the world, which indicated that the legacy media in Canada was not reporting the full truth. Motivated by these revelations, she began to research alternative sources of information outside of the mainstream media and to share her findings with her family and friends. However, she soon encountered strong resistance. Many of the people with whom she shared information reacted negatively, and she felt increasingly isolated as those around her began to turn against her. Jamie became increasingly anxious as the rollout of biological injections (vaccines) began. Her son, who was in grade 8 and 14-years-old at the time, struggled with wearing a mask at school, which led to panic attacks. Jamie witnessed firsthand the severe impact that the mandates were having on school children. The situation escalated to the point where her son became suicidal. With no support from her friends or family, Jamie felt helpless and depressed. Her son eventually succumbed to pressure from his peers and school and decided to get the vaccine, without her consent. Two sports doctors assured her son that the vaccines were “safe,“ which led to a significant rift between Jamie and her son that resulted in 14 months of non-communication. Jamie believes that her son developed a form of shingles after receiving the vaccination and now has a compromised immune system. The strain on her relationships extended beyond her son. Many of her friends began to isolate her, and her husband secretly received the vaccine without informing her beforehand. Jamie was also deeply concerned about the potential “shedding phenomenon“ associated with the vaccines. Following the Trucker Convoy, Jamie began to speak out publicly against the mandates and the broader handling of the pandemic. This led to attacks on social media, from her friends and family, and from both local and national media. Notably, none of the media outlets that criticized her attempted to interview her “before” launching their attacks. Her social media accounts were censored and eventually terminated. Despite these challenges, Jamie realized that there were many others who shared her concerns. She has since been working to rebuild her social connections and community, finding support among those who also felt marginalized during the pandemic. Analysis and Discussion of Testimonies The recent testimonies from the NCI hearings in Regina provide a comprehensive view of the economic and psychological impacts experienced by individuals who lost their jobs due to non-compliance with COVID-19 mandates. These testimonies reveal the multifaceted consequences of public health policies on employment, financial stability, and privacy rights, and they underscore the need for a balanced approach to public health measures that consider both health and economic well being. Economic Impacts Key Witness Testimonies: Summary of Economic Issues Amie Harbor: Position and Anticipation : Worked for a private company (CCS) and anticipated vaccine mandates, leading her to shift from full-time to part-time and then to casual jobs. Mandate Impact : Refusing to disclose her vaccine status led to unpaid leave and a significant pay cut. Legal Battles : Having multiple grievances and appeals rejected caused prolonged legal and financial strain. Ongoing Mandate : Financial instability continues due to the ongoing vaccine mandate in British Columbia. Mark Varga: Natural Immunity : Had natural immunity confirmed, but was terminated for refusing the vaccine. Employment Insurance Denial : Applied for exemption under the Human Rights Code and was denied. Denied EI benefits. Self-Employment : Unemployed for a year then started his own business due to inability to find work as an unvaccinated individual. Lex Acker: Employment Insurance Program Review : Filed an Access to Information request revealing a directive memo (DE Memo BE 2021-10) that led to denial of EI benefits for unvaccinated individuals. Government Actions : Highlighted the government’s manipulation of the EI adjudication process to avoid costs associated with vaccine mandate terminations. Roxanne Cote: Termination and EI Denial : Terminated after her religious exemption was denied and was subsequently denied EI coverage. Mental Health Crisis : Experienced severe depression and suicidal thoughts; she sold her home and moved back to her hometown due to lack of employment opportunities. Glenn Aalderink: Professional and Financial Impact : Lost his job as a surgical nurse and was unable to find similar work due to vaccine mandates. Union Appeal : He appealed termination, but mandates in British Columbia prevented his reinstatement. Amanda Rodriguez: Personal and Professional Impact : Faced job loss and stress leave after her exemption requests were denied. Her father’s mistreatment in the hospital due to unvaccinated status added to her distress. Marcos Sobral: Academic and Financial Strain : Expelled from his master’s program for challenging COVID-19 mandates, in his thesis. Experienced significant financial and emotional distress due to academic setbacks. Debra Milcak: Husband’s Health and Financial Strain : Faced medical expenses and stress due to her husband’s severe health complications after being refused alternative treatments in the hospital. Jeanette Wightman: Job Demotion and Financial Loss : Demoted and faced financial loss due to her refusal to get vaccinated, despite her long tenure with the company. Richard and Doreen Fehr: Severe Health and Financial Impact : Richard suffered severe health issues following vaccination, leading to long-term disability and inability to work. Faced additional medical expenses and loss of income. Jamie Salé: Personal and Social Isolation : Faced social and professional isolation due to her opposition to mandates, leading to financial and emotional strain. Her son’s health issues, post-vaccination, added to her distress. Commentary on Financial and Economic Consequences Employment and Income Losses The testimonies from the Regina hearings highlight a common thread of employment and income losses due to non-compliance with COVID-19 mandates. Witnesses like Amie Harbor, Mark Varga, and Roxanne Cote faced termination and significant financial instability. The shift from full-time employment to part-time or casual positions in anticipation of mandates, as seen with Amie Harbor, underscores the precarious nature of employment during the pandemic. Mark Varga’s case illustrates the harsh reality of being denied employment opportunities due to vaccination status, leading to a forced shift to self-employment. Legal and Bureaucratic Hurdles The testimonies reveal a troubling pattern of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that compounded the financial strain on individuals. Lex Acker’s discovery of the DE Memo BE 2021-10 highlights the government’s manipulation of the EI system to avoid financial liabilities. This bureaucratic overreach denied many individuals the financial support they were legally entitled to, exacerbating their economic hardships. Mental Health and Financial Distress The financial consequences of job losses and mandate-related stress had severe mental health repercussions. Witnesses like Roxanne Cote and Amanda Rodriguez experienced profound psychological distress, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The financial strain of job losses and the stigma associated with being unvaccinated further isolated these individuals, leading to a vicious cycle of financial and emotional distress. Health-Related Financial Burdens Several testimonies, such as those from Richard and Doreen Fehr and Debra Milcak, underscored the severe health-related financial burdens resulting from COVID-19 measures. Richard Fehr’s severe health complications post-vaccination led to long-term disability and significant medical expenses. Debra Milcak faced additional stress and financial strain due to her husband’s untreated health issues in the hospital. Professional and Social Isolation Witnesses like Glenn Aalderink and Jamie Salé faced professional and social isolation due to their stance on COVID-19 mandates. Glenn Aalderink’s termination and inability to work as a nurse in British Columbia highlight the professional consequences of opposing mandates. Jamie Salé’s social isolation and her son’s health issues post-vaccination illustrate the broader societal impacts of mandate-related stigmatization. Recommendations The financial and economic consequences of COVID-19 measures, as highlighted by the Regina hearings, reveal a multifaceted crisis affecting employment, mental health, and social stability. To address these issues, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Policy Reform and Transparency: Review and reform EI adjudication processes to ensure fairness and transparency. Eliminate any bureaucratic manipulations that deny rightful benefits to terminated employees. 2. Support for Mental Health: Increase funding for mental health services to support individuals experiencing psychological distress due to employment and financial instability. Provide targeted support for those affected by mandate-related job losses. 3. Protection of Medical Ethics: Reinforce the importance of medical ethics, including Informed Consent and doctor–patient privilege. Protect doctors from disciplinary actions when they provide evidence-based medical opinions. 4. Legal Protections for Employment: Implement legal protections for employees who face termination or discrimination based on vaccination status. Ensure fair treatment in the workplace and provide avenues for recourse. 5. Financial Assistance and Support: Provide financial assistance and support programs for individuals facing long-term disability or severe health complications due to vaccination or COVID-19 measures. 6. Community and Social Support: Foster community support networks to reduce the social isolation and stigma associated with vaccination status. Encourage public engagement and dialogue to rebuild trust and social cohesion. By addressing these recommendations, policymakers can mitigate the financial and economic impacts of COVID-19 measures, thereby creating a more equitable and supportive environment for all affected individuals. 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.