1. There are occasions when you may want to discuss vaccine adverse events either because you are experiencing one and you want more information or because someone you know may have one and you would like to alert them. In both cases, the most important part of any discussion is to recognize that there may be differing opinions and to be open to them. Also recognize that there will be some who, captured by the ‘safe and effective’ narrative, and totally deny any adverse events. On the other side, there will be some that consider any and all events following vaccination to be an adverse reaction. These two extremes are probably not open to discussion as much as agreeable monologue.

In an open discussion, visually, the beginning may fall into one of four categories, known as a Johari Window.

I know and you know.

I know and you don’t know.

You know and I don’t know

I don’t know and you don’t know.

The goal of the discussion is to have both people know (upper left box) based on the best available information. One of the best sources of available information is other people’s experiences. When it comes to vaccine injury or adverse events, the Canadian Adverse Events Reporting System (CAERS) may provide assistance in two ways. First, it makes it easy to submit data from a lengthy list of previously reported events without having to rely on a health professional to do it for you on their time. Second, this system hopes, in the near future, to offer an option for a person to seek professional help if you or someone you know realizes that you have a problem with vaccine injury. This is a unique opportunity. Here is how the Canadian Covid Care Alliance describes it on their website.


Being open to a discussion, but not knowing how to initiate it with another person, is often referred to as the ‘elephant in the room.’ A possible way to initiate discussion about vaccine adverse events is to introduce the other person to CAERS. For example, if they have what you suspect is an injury, (You know, but they don’t know) you might say “I read something about that on CAERS. You might want to check it out.” Alternatively, if someone with a health background has recommended CAERS to you, (They know, but you don’t know) consider this a learning or reporting opportunity so that you can both move into the upper left window sooner.

The ’Adverse Event Reports’ page alone has references to about 95 adverse event topics. Truly, there are a lot of adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines!


You, your family and friends can submit a report from the link on the home page. We encourage you to use it to facilitate open discussions and eliminate the ‘elephant in the room’.


Let’s all move forward with open dialogue about all options and the sharing of experiences. Providing people with the opportunity to discuss their adverse reactions may be empowering once the person feels they are being acknowledged. Eliminating the ‘elephant in the room’ will make for a healthier society physically, mentally and emotionally.

Over the decades, there have been numerous behavioral and psychological experiments to demonstrate ways that people will predictably react when put into certain circumstances. The circumstances of today’s society are predictable given the times and environment that we are experiencing. It is refreshing to know that this programmed behavior can be altered with different inputs. Here are two very well-known experiments in behavioral psychology to demonstrate the point.

The Milgram Social Obedience Experiment

Stanley Milgram’s psychological experiments at Yale in the early 1960’s demonstrated people’s obedience to orders from authority figures. There were three people in each test. The ‘teacher’ (the real test subject) was told by an ‘instructor’ (an actor dressed in a lab coat to insinuate authority) to ask questions to a hidden ‘learner’ (an actor hidden behind a screen). For each wrong answer, the teacher would give the learner an electric shock to prod them. There were increasing screams of pain by the learner as the voltage was increased by the teacher for each wrong answer.

Prior to the experiment, Milgram polled many people as to how much voltage would the teacher administer before saying “I won’t do this!”. The poll showed that people figured that about 3% of the ‘teachers’ (the real test subjects) would go all the way to the full dose (450 volts) despite screams from the learner. In actual fact, 100% gave the 300 volt dose while listening to the screams of the ‘learner’ (an actor pretending to scream) and an astounding 65% gave the full dose. This was shocking! (pardon the pun) Why did they do this?

Milgram concluded that two things must be in place to create such an obedient scenario. First, the person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct the other person’s behavior. In the experiment, it is instructor/teacher. In today’s terms, it is government and public health authorities professing qualifications to direct the public’s behavior. Second, the person being ordered about believes that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens. In the experiment the instructor accepted full responsibility. Today, governments and public health authorities are assuring us of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, the value of masks, isolation and the need for mandates to control activity for everyone’s sake. Main stream and social media are supporting the narrative. However, people are increasingly losing trust in authority as they see more and more vaccinated people getting COVID-19. Who will burst the bubble of authority? Enter, the truckers!

The Asch Conformity, Compliance and Obedience Experiment

In the 1950’s, Solomon Asch conducted an experiment to test people’s desire to conform. For example, he would ask 6 people which of three lines (a, b or c) was the same length as the test line. Only one of the 6 responders was the test subject. The other 5 were actors who would deliberately choose the wrong line.

Asch found that 76% of the test subjects conformed to choose the wrong line at least once. When he had one of the 5 actors in the group give the right answer, the conformity of the test subject fell to near zero! People tend not to conform, but trust themselves, when they perceive they are not alone.

Canadians are realizing that the government and public health have had an agenda of control albeit apparently for the good of the population at large. Journalists have been complicit in this movement as well with biased reporting. They are represented by the 5 actors in Asch’s first experiment. Who will come forth to give the right answer and let the test subjects, the public, make up their own mind? Enter, the truckers!

We are experiencing a valuable lesson in social conformity and obedience. The Canadian trucker’s Freedom Convoy has been a resounding success, even if governments don’t make any changes in the near term. The totalitarian tide is turning, thanks to the men and women who deliver just about everything that we eat, wear and use.


We appreciate that inquiring minds would like to see that there are people with real expertise behind the information on CCCA’s website. However–


We regret that the state of affairs, censorship of free speech, and rampant tyranny and coercion is such now in Canada that CCCA must protect the identity of its scientific, MD, academic and other health care professional (HCP) members. This serves to shield them from career-impacting reactions by their universities, professional colleges and healthcare system employers. Sadly, some of our MDs have had their medical licenses to practice suspended or restricted because they are not on board with the mainstream narrative. Likewise, some of our university professors have had their contracts terminated. These are dark times, and while we appreciate that some people want to know identities, frankly it would be hazardous to the careers of many of our members for us to reveal them.

While there are only 3 publicly identified directors of CCCA, it should be apparent from the quantity and quality of the work published on our website that our scientists, HCPs, ethicists, lawyers and other professionals in CCCA have broad and deep scientific, medical, and professional expertise. A representative listing of a number of these credentials of our more than 500 scientists, medical doctors and health care and other professional members are listed on our website. If people are willing to think critically, they will appreciate the quality of our work; if they are not, no amount of personal disclosures will convince them in this cancel culture era.


Health Canada gave interim approval (aka Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S.) to Pfizer’s antiviral drug, Paxlovid (PF-07321332), in early January, 2022 for the treatment of COVID-19. This oral antiviral regimen is really two drugs taken together, nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, twice a day. The purpose is to prevent SARS CoV-2 replication in the cell by inhibiting the enzyme protease, which is necessary for the virus’ production. It is classified as a protease inhibitor.

While this drug may be touted by media and others as an effective oral drug to treat the SARS CoV-2 virus, it has huge limitations. You may want start your research on Health Canada’s website describing Paxlovid. First a caution and then the link—

On the Government of Canada vaccine information page, there is a warning not to take Paxlovid if you are taking any of the medications included for the treatment of nearly two dozen other medical issues. There are a number of additional medications that may interact with Paxlovid, many of which are for common conditions such as asthma, seasonal allergies, high cholesterol, depression, seizures and infections. Be sure you have your medication list available for your health care provider to review before considering using this medication.

Also note the warning at the bottom of the page – “Not many people have taken Paxlovid. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. Paxlovid is still being studied, so it is possible that all the side effects are not known at this time.” Essentially, this is an experimental drug. All of its side effects are not yet known.


There have been many articles and videos online to compare Paxlovid to Ivermectin. Paxlovid is around 2000-times more potent than Ivermectin for direct inhibition of the SARS-CoV-2 protease enzyme that is necessary to permit viral replication. However, this appears to be the only known mechanism of action of Paxlovid.  In addition to this, Ivermectin also has other mechanisms of action including preventing entry of the virus into the cell, anti-inflammatory actions, additional methods to prevent viral replication, and actions to prevent the complications of the infection. Paxlovid is estimated to be sold for over CDN $660 per treatment, whereas the purchase cost of Ivermectin, where available, is typically less than CDN $50 per treatment.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34931048/ –The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2-an extensive review

Ivermectin also boasts a longer safety record with over 4 billion doses used worldwide as well as numerous successful trials in its use for COVID-19.

For an interesting and worthwhile video explaining the differences between Paxlovid and Ivermectin, here is a link to Dr. John Campbell’s commentary.


Question: What does the rate of effectiveness of a vaccine really mean? Can you give me an example?  (3 minute read)


Answer: The rate of effectiveness of a vaccine is advertised to the public as the relative rate of effectiveness rather than the absolute rate. 

Here is an example to explain the difference by comparing 100 experimental (vaccinated) people with 100 control (unvaccinated) people.

Absolute value–

In the experimental group (vaccinated), 1 in a 100 gets COVID-19. (1%, 1/100 or 0.01)

In the control group (unvaccinated), 2 in a 100 get COVID-19.  (2%, 2/100 or 0.02)

The absolute value is 0.02 – 0.01 = 0.01 or 1%

This is to say that 1% more people are helped by the vaccine.


Relative value —

In the experimental group, 1 in a 100 gets COVID-19 (0.01 or 1%)

In the control group, 2 in a 100 get COVID-19  (0.02 or 2%)

The relative value is the absolute value (0.01) divided by the number infected in the control group (0.02)     0.01/0.02 x 100 = 50%

This states that the vaccine is 50% effective in reducing infections.


Let’s use a real example. The Ontario Ministry of Health published an information sheet to inform people of benefits and risks prior to vaccination. Here is a quote from page 2-


Ministry of Health COVID-19 Vaccine Information Sheet Version 9.0 – July 19 2021   

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been demonstrated to be highly effective at protecting against COVID-19 for individuals 12 and over. The Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial studied 2,260 youth aged 12 to 15 years old in the United States. In the trial, there were 18 cases of COVID-19 in the group that did not get the vaccine (the “placebo” group) compared to zero cases in the vaccinated group. Based on these results, the vaccine was calculated to be 100% effective in the trial.”


As you can see, the relative rate of effectiveness was calculated by using the formula explained above.

(18-0) divided by 18 multiplied by 100% equals 100%.

How can one argue with these results??


The Absolute Rate of Effectiveness, however, considers the whole test group, not just the ones infected. If we assume that the group of 2,260 was divided equally between vaccinated and unvaccinated, there would be 1,130 in each group. In this example, like the one above, vaccinated people are the experimental group (0 infections) and the unvaccinated are the control group. (18 infections). Absolute Rate of Effectiveness using the formula described above would be –


(18/1130 in the experimental group) minus (0 in the control group), multiplied by 100% = 1.6%


In other words, 1.6% of the vaccinated children in this study were helped by the vaccine. For 98.4% of them, it made no difference whether they were vaccinated or not.


The question is—now that you are better informed, would you rush to have your 12-15 year old child vaccinated when, if they are in the 1.6% that become infected, data shows that they will not experience significant symptoms but will achieve a robust natural immunity probably for life?  


It is also worth considering how well powered was the clinical trial to show safety concerns. For example, in the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial mentioned earlier, any safety issues that did not occur in 1/1000 people probably would not have been detected.


For a complete explanation of relative and absolute effectiveness ratings for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, visit https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/


This is a very timely question with the growing pressure from governments around the world to get the next jab. How will you feel if you are a doubly vaccinated person who is about to join the unvaccinated category and lose your government mandated freedom of attendance and movement unless you get their third booster shot? How about the next booster shot? Will you get it for health reasons or government mandated freedoms? How many times are you prepared to repeat this cycle?

The simple recommendation of another booster shot is evidence that the first two shots are not proving as effective to protect one’s health as predicted. See our FAQ answer to “Are Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and J&J injectables COVID-19 vaccines or drugs?” Understandably, one should be very cautious about proceeding for health reasons. Mandates that may have previously sounded reasonable when they did not affect you directly may not seem so reasonable if you have doubts about the impact of the injections on your health.

An important question is about informed consent. One should plan for the best and prepare for the worst. Planning for the best involves understanding the adverse events that have been reported to date. They are many and they are significant. These include over 19,500 deaths as of early December, 2021 reported to VAERS with the majority within 2 days after being innoculated. Read our FAQ on “How do I get vaccine adverse event reports?” Preparing for the worst involves knowing what to do if things go wrong. See our FAQ on “Should I report and adverse event following my vaccination and how do I do it?”

But how can I protect myself without the booster shot? See our FAQ on “What can I do to minimize my chances of getting COVID-19?” You will be surprised at how many things you can do to get off the booster train. Mind you, the government may still mandate that your life must be severely restricted if you don’t comply with their orders. Whether the booster is worth it or not should be up to you.

In mid-October, it was widely published by mainstream media that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine was 90.7% effective in children.


While it sounds impressive, what does it really mean? This is a relative effectiveness rating that compares only those children who become infected as opposed to an absolute effectiveness rating that compares all the children in the trial. So what is the difference?

The reported study included 2,268 children ages 5-12 years. It states that over two thirds in the study were vaccinated, so we can calculate that about 1,518 were vaccinated (experimental group) and 750 were non-vaccinated (control group). It also states that 16 children in the non-vaccinated group tested positive for SARS -CoV-2, while only 3 in the vaccinated group tested positive. If the groups were even in numbers, there may have been twice as many (32) infected in the non-vaccinated group.

The relative effectiveness rating is calculated by subtracting the number infected in the experimental group (3) from the number infected in the control group (32) which is 29. (32 – 3=29). This number is then divided by the total number infected (32) in the control group and expressed as a percent. (29/32 X 100 = 90.7%) This certainly sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

BUT, what is the absolute effectiveness rating when we consider all the children in the group. We know that 32 out of 1500 became infected in the control group, which is about 2.1%. There were 3 out of 1518 in the experimental group who became infected, which is about 0.2%. The absolute effectiveness rating subtracts the percentage infected in the experimental group from the percentage infected in the control group. (2.1% – 0.2% = 1.9%)

This means that only 1.9% of children would be assisted in gaining some immunity by the experimental vaccine with its inherent risks to children now and in the future. This number doesn’t sound nearly as impressive, especially considering the minimal risk to children who get a natural infection!

For more information on effectiveness ratings, the CCCA can help you. See the FAQ on Relative vs Absolute Risk Reduction.

Decisions relative to vaccination of any kind are made using a risk/benefit analysis, which is a fundamental aspect of a process called “informed consent”. Many parents and most children do not do this analysis prior to being injected with a medicine that can’t be removed later if they learn new information about the medicine.

Traditionally, vaccines have been designed and tested over many years to be sure they are safe and effective at preventing a viral or bacterial infection. Prevention of disease is their main feature. Vaccines developed in record short intervals against the SARS-CoV-2 virus do not have long term safety studies. The children’s version had only 3 months of data for children ages 5-12, and these trials were performed with only a few thousand participants. Furthermore, they do not prevent infection. Instead, the main feature is to reduce more severe symptoms and limit spread. Both of these are virtually insignificant with young children.

The short answer to the question is that there appears to be few, if any, benefits to vaccination of young children. The small number who experience more severe symptoms usually have significant comorbidities unrelated to Covid. This is described as ‘sick with Covid’ rather than ‘sick because of Covid’. An excellent study to demonstrate this is the Swedish school study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a superb study because Sweden never did shut down schools and they take excellent records. Note, there was not one recorded death (no severe symptoms) due to Covid in the study and teachers did not get Covid any more often than other types of workers their age. (Children aren’t spreaders)


Now let us consider the evidence of risk. Since vaccination of very young children has not started yet, we can only measure risk of other ages and apply it to the 5-12 year olds. Needless to say that younger children have the same potential risks as older children and adults, if not more. Many of these are life-altering, including myocarditis, especially in boys.


Why are children less likely to develop more significant symptoms of COVID-19? Children have very active innate immune systems looking to be stimulated and develop more specific adaptive responses to pathogens, such as the development of antibodies. With respect to SARS-CoV-2, however, the spike protein needs to bind to specific receptors on the surface of the cell before the virus can enter. Children have much lower levels of the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) protein, which permits the entry of the virus. This step is necessary for viral replication, so it is severely slowed down in children, and this provides more time for the robust innate immune defence in children to defeat the virus before it causes severe disease. Enough does enter to allow the child’s body to develop an antibody response and a natural immunity that will be with them for life. The key is that children do not develop high viral loads to facilitate spread.

The bottom line is that there are significant risks with few to no benefits from vaccinating children from ages 5-12. It may even rob them of an opportunity for lifelong natural immunity, and present health risks such as inflammation and possibly autoimmune diseases.

Should I vaccinate my children?   (1 minute read)

In Canada, only the Pfizer mRNA vaccine has been granted ‘Interim Order’ for children 12 and up. In the United States, the term is ‘Emergency Use Authorization’. The other three vaccines are only available for ages 18 and up.

Every decision has to balance the benefits against the risk of vaccination against SarsCoV-2. Unlike other medical procedures, the SarsCoV-2 vaccination does not require parental approval. It is most important, therefore, to have a discussion with your children before they are subjected to coercion and peer pressure to get vaccinated.

There is no better resource than the article written by Dr. Byram Bridle of the University of Guelph on child vaccinations. The index will guide you to the areas of most concern for you and your children.


The other aspect that you need to know is the absolute vs. relative effectiveness ratings of vaccines in children. Refer to the FAQ on Effectiveness Ratings. You may be surprised to learn that, based on data from the Ontario Ministry of Health, over 98% of children show no benefit of a SarsCoV-2 vaccination!

The bottom line – there a few benefits from vaccinating children against the SarsCoV-2 virus while there are substantial risks. Please note, this warning does not include other vaccinations which have proven safe and effective over years of use.

The United Kingdom (UK) has decided to wait and see for 12-18 year olds. The exceptions are those with complicating health factors. Read about it here –



No. Canadians have the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment including invasive medical procedures like vaccination. Except in very rare circumstances, voluntary informed consent must be obtained prior to administering any medical treatment. The law and ethical policies are very clear that no medical treatment (including vaccination) can be forced upon a person. Medical treatments that proceed without the patient’s consent or that proceed with consent that was obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, duress, coercion or pressure of any kind may constitute an assault. Whether or not an intervention is justified is not a matter of how much good it will do the patient or others; it is justified and lawful only if the patient consents to it. Our courts have repeatedly affirmed that the good intentions of health care providers cannot be substituted for the will of the patient.
However, there is a difference between “forced vaccination,” which means forcibly injecting a person with a vaccine against their will, and “mandatory vaccination,” which is a legal requirement to be vaccinated, and to provide proof of vaccination.
COVID-19 shots may be mandated for certain activities, such as living in university residence, visiting restaurants, holding certain kinds of employment, or receiving certain government benefits. This means that failing to abide by the mandate could come with consequences and anyone who wishes to challenge the mandate will need to seek legal representation to do so.
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) are clear that obtaining voluntary informed consent before carrying out any medical treatment (including invasive treatments such as vaccination) is medically and ethically required, and carries with it a strict legal standard of disclosure for physicians. Canadians not only have the right to accept or refuse any medical procedure, but the right to be given complete and relevant information on which to base those decisions. This is called “informed consent.” Procedures to which a person does not consent are unethical and unlawful. Importantly, consent obtained under duress, coercion or any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others (including governmental authorities) will not be considered to be voluntary.
In light of your right to provide informed consent prior to any medical procedure, the CMA obligates medical professionals to disclose risks (such as vaccine adverse effects, including but not limited to antibody-dependent enhancement [ADE]): “even though a certain risk may be a mere possibility and usually need not be disclosed, if it carries with it serious consequences it requires disclosure.” Furthermore, the medical professional must contextualize those risks for a person’s particular medical history, and to discuss alternative, safer options (e.g. early outpatient and preventative pharmaceuticals) in language that the patient understands. The standard for information disclosure is what the reasonable person would want to know. 
Two landmark Supreme Court decisions — Hopp v. Lepp and Reibl v. Hughes — affirm the requirement of informed consent. Informed consent is grounded in the ethical principles of autonomy, dignity and respect for persons and is supported by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and, at the provincial level, documents like Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act.

You have the right to refuse any medical treatment or intervention for any reason and are not under a legal obligation to consent. It is recognized that vaccine mandates, including in the employment context, may result in individuals giving consent under duress or coercion. In light of such potentially illegal mandates, you may wish to retain a lawyer to review your rights and obligations in your particular situation.

If you are a member of a union and you face a demand to disclose your vaccination status or provide proof of vaccination in order to retain your job, you should contact your union representative and ask that person what steps the union is taking under the collective agreement to protect your constitutional and legal rights to not to disclose confidential medical information or to be forced to undergo a medical procedure without your fully informed consent.

You can ask which part of the collective agreement allows the employer to legally make these demands. You can provide your union with evidence found on the CCCA website that not only the unvaccinated but also the vaccinated can and do contract and transmit the virus, In addition, you can point out that the requested vaccination is against a viral strain that is no longer in circulation, and that a safe and effective vaccine for the currently circulating strain is not available and has not been tested.  All of this renders the mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable and possibly illegal. You should demand that your union file a grievance on your behalf.

If your union refuses to do so, identify your rights under the collective agreement. Ask your union representative if there is any accommodation available such as regular antigen testing, working from home and/or in a socially distant manner. Ask the union representative if the union will confirm in writing that it and/or your employer will maintain your income and benefits for the entire time that you are off work (or permanently if your injuries render you unable to work) in the event that you suffer an adverse reaction to the vaccine and pay damages for any pain and suffering incurred, along with all out-of-pocket medical expenses. Demand your union take all available actions allowed by the collective agreement to protect your right to work. Seek the opinion of a lawyer familiar with the collective agreement and labour law if you’re not satisfied with the actions of the union.


There are precedent setting rules being set for some university/college residences and campus attendance. Some administrations are outwardly trying to take responsibility for students’ health by requiring them to be fully vaccinated to qualify for admittance to residences. The same applies to many staff and faculty as well, but this answer focuses on students.  Whether this directive proves to be good or bad, the saying “Never let classes interfere with your education” may be more important today than ever. Here’s why.

In class, vaccinated students will get their traditional education similar to historical norms. Those who are non-vaccinated will be forced to learn online or to get their education in the real world. It should be noted that some/many vaccinated students will join the cause of supporting free choice, since they  believe that they got vaccinated not because they freely chose to, but rather because they were coerced into it. Welcome to the real world motivated by fear and government proclamations of what is right and what is not.

The ‘vaccine mandate’, as it is often called, has clear objectives. The unwavering belief that only vaccinations will solve the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is the driving force; society cannot achieve herd immunity and return to “normal” without virtually everyone being fully vaccinated. It is quite easy to understand the motivations and coercive techniques being applied, since mainstream media is eager to report on it. Many people may agree, but is this evangelical zeal science based or political? If it is the former, stay in class. If it is the latter, you are about to learn more about your emerging world outside class than in a classroom. Buckle up, let’s start with some questions and observations.

Can someone who is fully vaccinated in a university residence infect others? Yes, it is common knowledge that the Delta variant can be spread equally by vaccinated and non-vaccinated people.


One major difference is that those who are not vaccinated will probably know they have symptoms and take steps to self-isolate to prevent spread. Those who are vaccinated may not recognize symptoms and proceed to spread the virus unknowingly. This could make university residences a potential breeding ground for the Delta variant and others to follow.

Should non-vaccinated students be subjected to regular rapid tests? Home SARS-CoV-2 tests, like pregnancy tests, would be ideal. It would not be viewed as coercive and it would allow all students, vaccinated or not, to be able to test and take appropriate steps. Some campuses do offer regular PCR-based tests to determine is a person may be actively infected with the virus. However, serological tests that monitor the levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies or T-cells provide the best evaluation of whether a student has immunity acquired either passively by infection with the virus or following vaccination.  No one wants to be a carrier. Here is some information on testing.



Would early diagnosis make a difference? Treatment of every disease known to mankind benefits from early diagnosis and treatment. COVID-19 is no different. Rapid tests empower a person to take action and self-isolate if necessary. Nasal sprays can be used as a barrier protection for prevention. Early treatment protocols with drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine can be very effective at reducing the viral load and minimizing inflammation. These steps would go a long way towards achieving herd immunity. Sadly, they have been neglected for over a year. These two links will provide you with information on a nasal spray, ivermectin and fluvoxamine.



Does segregation based on a government/administration vaccine mandate encourage team work or promote prejudice? Team work would involve everyone doing their part to achieve herd immunity either through vaccination, optimizing early diagnosis and treatment options plus recognizing those who are identified as naturally immune. Prejudice breeds where there is a viewpoint of one group qualifies but another group must be excluded. Who ever thought that our Canadian universities/colleges would be an incubator for those values by excluding some healthy students from residences?

Where will we be next year? Who knows? Most of the temporary vaccine passports will expire until one gets up-dated with a booster shot. Hopefully, we will be focused more on achieving herd immunity and our university/college residences will no longer be promoting a compulsory vaccine agenda. Vaccines will deserve some credit, but so will early diagnosis and treatment plus the recognition of natural immunity.

One way or another, this social and medical experiment will provide an educational year, especially for the young who are at little risk from COVID-19, but high risk for career disruption. Welcome to your new world. Don’t ask ‘how did this happen’. Ask ‘what can I do about it’?  For those interested in the legal process, see our FAQ on “Options for non-vaccinated students.”



We are sorry that you or a loved one is experiencing an injury following vaccination. Many people have contacted the CCCA with similar concerns.

As soon as you’re able to, please report the symptoms to a trusted doctor or healthcare professional.  This is the form they will need to fill out to report the reaction:


(For further information on this topic, please see our FAQ entry called “Should I report an adverse event following my vaccination and how do I do it?”)

To date, while there are a growing number of studies showing us what COVID-19 vaccines can do in our bodies, there are no official medical guidelines for how to treat symptoms that arise from them.  Nonetheless, many concerned healthcare providers do recommend protocols to help patients recover from the symptoms they are experiencing.  The treatment might involve pharmaceutical agents, natural health products (e.g. vitamins, supplements, etc.), or both.  These therapeutics may work to address the suspected root cause of the vaccine injury, relieve symptoms, or both.  Many clinicians report improvement or resolution of vaccine injury symptoms with appropriate treatment – so remember, there is hope of getting better!

Some physicians are using the FrontLine Covid Critical Care Doctor’s iRECOVER protocol to manage symptoms that occur following vaccination. While this protocol was developed to treat those with Long COVID, you may wish to explore this with your own practitioner. Here is the link for your information and to share with your physician.


Another excellent option is from the World Council for Health’s Detox program.


Please speak to your trusted doctor or healthcare professional about therapeutic options if you are suffering from a vaccine injury.  If they are unsure how to help you, please ask them to contact the CCCA so they can be put in touch with one of our doctors to discuss treatment options.

More information on reporting can be found on our adverse events tracking page.



The terms “safe” and “effective” come to the top of the list. While there have been many vaccines developed over decades and used globally, there have been relatively few risks and major benefits. On the whole, our experience with vaccines has been that they are relatively safe and relatively effective. Relative means a tolerable number of adverse events relative to a control group over a long period of time.

Due to the attention given to SARS CoV-2 inoculations, namely Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and J&J in Canada, we should use them as a comparator. The first thing to note is that there have been more serious adverse events reported to VAERS for three of these vaccines (AstraZeneca product is not approved in the US) in 10 months than the total of all vaccines given over 30 years! To make sure that we compare the same adverse event for all vaccines, we will use ‘deaths’ as a common characteristic of major impact. (See FAQ on ‘Vaccine adverse events reports’) WARNING – KNOWING THIS DATA COULD BE DISTURBING.


In late November, 2021 there were over 8,000 deaths reported to VAERS due to SARS CoV-2 inoculations. The vast majority occurred within the first 2-3 days after getting the jab which makes it more predictable that the inoculation is related to the cause of death! To put this into perspective, the US lost about 3,000 soldiers over 20 years in Afghanistan! Basically, they cannot be considered safe.

Are they effective? If they were effective, we would not need booster shots. Nor would we harbour viruses to the point of infecting other people and creating new variants. It would be fair to say that these inoculations have not been as effective as the manufacturers, government and public health had originally hoped for.

An ideal vaccine would be able to prevent infection by a virus. This is known as a ‘sterilizing’ vaccine rather than a ‘leaky’ one. It would also prevent transmission so that the virus could not be spread. By acting as a sterilizing vaccine, it would minimize the chances of the virus developing mutations. Traditional vaccines for other diseases fulfill these characteristics.

Safety could be enhanced by producing the antigen (spike protein) so that it is already in the vaccine at a defined concentration. Presently, all four inoculations instruct the body to become a manufacturing plant for the spike protein antigen. The supply of the resultant immunogen is not defined  in time nor amount.

All vaccines to date have tried to mimic an infection to the immune system. This is done by provoking it into developing antibodies and a memory of previous infections to better arm it against future attacks. However, continually provoking the system may lead to some undesirable consequences such as stimulating autoimmune diseases. (See the FAQ on Antibody Dependent Enhancement.) A truly ideal vaccine would be able to target the precise regions in the spike and elicit antibodies and memory without inducing undesirable pathological reactions.

Can an ideal vaccine be created for SARS CoV-2? Around 200 are in various stages are in various development. Several of these promising vaccines are in late stage clinical trials and may soon be available to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infections.


Novavax has some distinct differences in how it works.

The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna deliver genetic instructions into the body to permit production of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by the body’s own cells. The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccines deliver spike protein DNA into the cells, which in turn produce mRNA copies to guide spike protein production. The mRNA and adenovirus vaccines all end up with the spike protein presented on the surface of the body’s own cells, and an inflammatory response is needed to ultimately end up with the stimulation of T-cells and antibody-producing B-cells that are specific for the spike protein. The Novavax system generates a non-infectious spike protein that was produced in moth cells and uses a saponin adjuvant from the soapbark tree. This characteristic, unlike the other vaccines, limits the amount of spike proteins in the body. It also uses a lipid nanoparticle that has typically about 14 spike protein complexes. Neutrophils and other monocytic cells are able to take up the spike protein lipid nanoparticles without evoking an inflammatory response against the body’s own cells. Presentation of the digested fragments of the spike protein by these immune cells can stimulate T- and B-cells in the lymph nodes as occurs with the mRNA and adenovirus. It is also a two-dose system given 21 days apart. It is reported to have fewer adverse events. Studies are continuing and safety data is incomplete at this point. Here is an article to describe the new vaccine.

Novavax   https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-now-best-covid-19-vaccine/619276/

Novavax is scheduled to open a vaccine manufacturing facility in Montreal by December, 2021. The Canadian government has invested $125 million in the state-of-the-art facility.


New Technology

Many people have heard of the Human Genome Project to identify the genetic sequences of our DNA. Few people are actually aware of what is being done with this knowledge. Here is a very brief description of CRISPR and what it might do for us. CRISPR is an acronym for ‘Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats’. (Aren’t you glad you asked?)

You can google ‘CRISPR COVID-19’ for many articles. Below are links to just two examples. The first deals with diagnosis and the second addresses treatment. Here is a very short explanation of why CRISPR therapy is different. All vaccines stimulate the immune system to mount a defense against a virus. This is very efficient, because our immune systems are usually strong. It is, however, not how bacteria cope with viruses, which they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years. Bacteria do not have an immune system so, to survive, they have developed a way to identify the genetic code of the offending virus (diagnosis) and a way to use enzymes to attach to the virus and cut it up in pieces (treatment). With this understanding, you may better appreciate the two articles and the huge potential humans have to combat disease in the future. Why re-invent the wheel when we can now model how bacteria have survived viral attacks since long before humans ever arrived on planet earth.

Our immune system is incredibly complex. It has many components that work together to protect us from pathogens (organisms that cause disease). The immune system has two main parts: innate immunity and adaptive immunity. Innate immunity, our first line of protection, is made of barriers to keep pathogens out of our body and other responses (like fever and inflammation) that stop pathogens from spreading. Adaptive immunity allows our bodies to recognize a pathogen, destroy it, and remember it. The memory allows us to respond more quickly the next time we encounter the pathogen and prevents us from getting sick. When we become infected with a pathogen and overcome it, we develop what is called natural immunity. Our bodies will create antibodies and memory cells in response to a pathogen even if we did not become sick. 


Vaccines expose our immune system to all or parts of an inactivated pathogen. Our body recognizes it as foreign and creates antibodies and memory cells. If we are later exposed to this particular pathogen, we can mount a specific immune response and neutralize or kill it. Traditional vaccines present the inactivated or weakened pathogen to our immune system. The COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available in Canada stimulate our own cells to only produce spike protein component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and present it to the immune system.


The spike protein is only one of 26 distinct proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As vaccine-induced immunity is only to the spike protein, it is narrow spectrum. This is a concern, because should a mutation occur in the spike protein, some of the spike-antibodies may no longer be able to strongly attach making them less effective in mounting an immune response. These are non-neutralizing or non-sterilizing antibodies. This means they will not prevent illness, also known as breakthrough infections, and may put people at risk of more severe disease (see Antibody Disease Enhancement FAQ)


Being exposed to the entire virus allows our body to make antibodies to all its proteins, not just the spike proteins. This means that natural immunity has a broad-spectrum, thus making it more effective against the variants. SARS-CoV-2 is just one of many coronaviruses and they share many equivalent proteins. Knowing this, it should not be surprising that scientists have learned that previous exposure to other coronaviruses, such as common cold viruses, provides immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Even those who were exposed to the original SARS almost 20 years ago showed immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in laboratory studies. In the vast majority of cases, natural infection prevents someone from getting sick from COVID-19 a second time.


One of the other important advantages of natural immunity is that the type of antibody response is more appropriate to the site of entry of SARS-CoV-2 as a respiratory virus. The secreted antibodies that are usually produced in the lung and airways in response to viral and bacterial are of the IgA, IgE and IgM classes. COVID-19 vaccines that involve intramuscular injections evoke the production of primarily IgG class antibodies, which are much less available in lungs and airways to engage the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This might account for why vaccinated people are still able to contract COVID-19 and transmit the virus.


Thus, natural immunity to COVID-19 has been found to be robust, appropriate, long lasting and complete.




Both Canada and the United States have systems to receive reports of adverse events after one has been vaccinated. See our FAQ on “Adverse Event Reporting” to learn more about what are considered adverse events and how to report them. The Canadian system is known as the “Adverse Events Following Immunization” (AEFI). The US system is known as “Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” (VAERS). It is beyond the scope of this answer to judge each system, but both are run by their respective governments and both are not easy to retrieve data for the average person.

Here is a solution to the problem for those community members who are interested


Here is a FAQ copied from OpenVAERS website to identify the people supporting it.

Who is behind OpenVAERS?

OpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or who have children with vaccine injuries. We do not accept donations or solicit fees. There is zero monetization of this site. It is purely created in order to help others browse the VAERS records and to identify the reported signals that may otherwise get missed.

It is important to recognize that OpenVAERS is strictly reporting on the VAERS data in a retrievable format. It is not another data set.

If we take just one parameter, such as deaths following immunization, here is Canada’s report-


  • Up to and including October 22, 2021, a total of 208 reports with an outcome of death were reported following vaccination. Although these deaths occurred after being vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, they are not necessarily related to the vaccine. Based on the medical case review using the WHO-UMC causality assessment categories, it has been determined that:
    • 79 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine
    • 82 deaths could not be assessed due to insufficient information
    • 41 deaths are still under investigation
    • 6 deaths followed a diagnosis of TTS (refer to the TTS bullet above)

Here is the VAERS data as reported by OpenVAERS for the same week-


VAERS has 17,619 reports with an outcome of death up to Oct 22.

Wouldn’t this lead one to presume that the death rate in Canada should be about 10% of the US number since we have about 10% of the population? That number would be 1,762 deaths rather than 208 maybe’s. Are the same vaccines really so much safer in Canada or are the real numbers being hidden from us to make the vaccines appear safer than they really are? Does this make you a little uneasy?

In the spring of 2022, the Canadian Adverse Events Reporting System (CAERS) came online. It is an excellent resource for not only reporting but monitoring adverse events.



Alterations of DNA in the nucleus of the cell by way of mutations is at the root of cancer and some degenerative diseases. Even though all of the existing vaccines, whether they be mRNA or viral vector types, enter cells to produce the spike protein, they are not supposed to enter the nucleus of the cell. Here is the CDC’s 36 page explanation of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.


Here is the quote from page 4 which is pertinent to our discussion.

“mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA”

Now the bad news! New laboratory research is demonstrating that these COVID-19 vaccines may interfere with DNA repair of mutations, since they all produce the spike protein of the virus inside of cells, and this viral protein has now been detected in the nucleus of cells, where it can interact with DNA repair enzymes . Everything in the body has wear and tear damage. The DNA in your chromosomes in the nucleus is no exception. DNA has a double strand structure that may exhibit a break in one or both strands. A double strand break has more risk of not being able to be accurately repaired, which would cause mutations that would continue to be replicated as cells grow and divide. Cancer results from accumulation of mutations in key genes involved in cell reproduction control so this is bad news.

New research from Sweden is now demonstrating that all of the COVID-19 vaccines may inhibit proper DNA repair! Here is the title and link-

SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro


This type of research will increase and further prove the US CDC wrong in their proclamation. The SARS CoV-2 vaccines may indeed have a deleterious effect on the DNA of the cell by handicapping repair processes! Monitoring cancer prevalence in the future will be critical to establish the degree of impact of these vaccines have on the one of the major causes of death in our population.


On February 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) announced an official name for the disease that is cause by the SARS-CoV-2 virus as COVID-19, which was first identified in Wuhan China in late 2019. In COVID-19, “CO” stands for corona, “VI” for virus, and ”D” for disease. Prior, this disease was referred to as “2019 novel coronavirus” or “2019-nCoV.” COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020, but likely first entered into Canada in late 2019.
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that affect humans and a wide range of other animals. In humans, they can cause diseases ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). COVID-19 is a new coronavirus induced disease that is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This virus is closely related to SARS-CoV-1, which caused SARS in 2003. Its genome structure was fully sequenced in January, 2020.
SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus with a genome that features over 30,000 nucleotides, and the change of even a single nucleotide might give rise to a new variant. However, it usually takes several significant mutations to the virus to really be considered as a variant. Variants of concern (VOC) are those that show enhanced disease spread and severity, reduced detection with tests used to track the virus, and resistance to steps to taken to prevent (e.g. vaccinations) or treat (e.g. drugs) infections with the virus. In Canada, the VOC that have been of particular concern have been from the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7 variant), South Africa (B.1.351 variant), Brazil (P.1 variant) and India (B.1.617 variant).
Over 200 different viruses, including coronaviruses have been shown to cause colds. Rhinoviruses account for over 50% of colds. Antibodies against cold coronaviruses may afford some protection against SARS-CoV-2, but this has yet to be definitely established.
Those that are at greatest risk of severe illness and possible death from COVID-19 are older adults (especially over 70 years); of any age with chronic medical conditions (including: lung disease, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, dementia; stroke); of any age who are immunocompromised, including those: with an underlying medical condition, such as cancer and taking medications such as chemotherapy; and those living with obesity, such as having a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher.
Presently, there is no evidence that people can get COVID-19 by eating or handling food. While it may be possible to acquire SARS-CoV-2 by touching a surface or object, such as a food package that has the virus on it and then touching your mouth, nose, or possibly eyes., this is not the main route by which the virus spreads. Follow food safety guidelines when handling and cleaning fresh produce, and avoid washing produce with soap, bleach, sanitizer, alcohol, disinfectant or any other chemical. There is also no current evidence that people can get COVID-19 by drinking water. Conventional water treatment methods that use filtration and disinfection, such as those in most municipal drinking water systems, should remove or kill the virus that causes COVID-19.​

What can I do to minimize my chances of getting COVID-19?  (1 minute read)


This is an important question, because it refers to all people, whether vaccinated or not. There is a better chance of achieving herd immunity if we are aware of preventive protocols.

There is lots of well publicized information from Public Health about mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing and isolation, which change periodically. Governments are singularly focused on vaccinating everyone as though it is a panacea. It is not, which is why booster shots have already been ordered for the next several years.

There is much you can do to improve your terrain or enhance your resistance to SARS-CoV-2. Proper diet, exercise and sleep are obvious steps that everyone should take. Here are some additional suggestions based on protocols used by front line care doctors who are treating COVID-19 every day at different levels of severity. Many nutritionals on the list, such as vitamins C and D, zinc, and melatonin are readily available in every health food store. Ivermectin will require an off-label prescription from your doctor since it is approved in Canada, but not yet for COVID-19. (Refer to the FAQ on Ivermectin)

Here is the link to the preventive (prophylactic) and early treatment protocols of the Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance.


 The use of these nutritional supplements is even more important for those with comorbidities. Early detection through rapid and home tests will substantially improve opportunities for early treatment.

What is the PCR Test for SARS-CoV-2 and how reliable is it? (2 minute read)

The Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction test (RT-PCR) has been used in Canada as the ‘Gold Standard’ test for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It has some limitations and concerns although safety is not one of them, because this test is performed in a lab with precautions.

Briefly, the PCR test takes a portion of the RNA strand (rather than the whole virus), makes a DNA copy, and then duplicates it with each cycle. There is a fluorescent marker attached to each duplicated template. The more virus that is present in the beginning will require fewer duplication cycles to observe the fluorescence. To give one a perspective on the amplification process, consider the math. One amplification cycle produces two copies. The second cycle produces four copies. The approximate number of copies after 24 cycles is 16 million, 33 cycles is 8.5 billion and 40 cycles is one trillion copies.

The link below to the Ontario Public Health article explaining the RT-PCR test identifies the 27th cycle (128 million copies) as the control cycle. This means that they have taken a known positive sample and amplified it 27 times to demonstrate a positive sample. This means that if the original sample of the virus was used to infect isolated human cells in culture plates, this would be evident. Ontario often uses cycle thresholds of 38 to 40. This will include many false positive results as well as results that are so weak (asymptomatic people) that they are of no concern, except if the goal is to demonstrate high numbers of cases to fuel community anxiety. For example, fragments of dead virus in the air and even in waste sewage can yield positive results at high cycle numbers.

Here is a link to Ontario Public Health’s explanation-


Rapid antigen tests done at home or in the workplace can soon be used to screen for positivity within 15 minutes. This would alert people to the need for isolation measures and early treatment opportunities. Other tests will determine if the person has antibodies or shows natural, long term immunity due to previous exposure. This knowledge would help us all toward a goal of herd immunity without solely being dependent on vaccines of limited range and unknown time of effectiveness.

The Delta variant of the SARS CoV-2 virus is only one of thousands of variants. Variants of concern (VAC) are those strains that have been particularly common and may pose even greater health risks, such a being more infectious. Alpha was first detected in the United Kingdom, as a variant of the original L version from Wuhan, China. The Delta VAC has become the focus of attention for two main reasons. Firstly, it is very contagious so it is easily spread and case counts go up. Secondly, it intersects with the vaccination debate, which dominates much public attention.

The Delta variant originated in the Maharashtra province of India in October of 2020. Since this date was prior to the first vaccinations, it is easy to conclude that the variant started in unvaccinated people and was just one of several options. So why did it become so dominant more recently?  It appears to be ~50% more infectious than the Alpha variant, which in turn is ~50% more infectious than the L strain.

Vaccine effectiveness is a separate topic, but it is now accepted that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not prevent one from getting infected, but may reduce the severity of a future infection. This includes hospitalization and adverse events such as death. The Delta variant, however, can still infect the vaccinated and they can still spread the viral infection. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the U.S., double vaccination provides markedly reduced protection against the Delta strain. However, it is controversial whether the recent documented loss of efficacy in vaccinated individuals is specifically due to the properties of the Delta strain or a waning of the effectiveness of the vaccine-induced immunity.


Let’s say that any one of the variants comes along and meets an immune system that is not vaccinated nor has had previous exposure to a coronavirus. It should be noted that many people have already achieved a natural immunity and tests are being developed to show this resistance. Here is more information – 


These previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals would not immediately react to any variant, but would develop robust immunity in a week or two. The passively acquired, natural immunity is extremely robust, directed against the full virus and not just its spike protein, appropriate to the site of natural infection, and long lasting if not for a lifetime. Without this natural protection, the person would probably show symptoms, but more so if they have some previous health conditions that compromise them. These are known as comorbidities such as cardiovascular or pulmonary problems, obesity, diabetes and mental stress. The immune system would be engaged to resist SARS-CoV-2 infection and establish future immunity to all variants, including Delta.

Alternately, if a variant comes along and meets a vaccinated person, most will be protected from significant infection. A ‘break through’ infection occurs when a variant such as Delta breaks through the defense provided by the vaccine by making alterations that increase the infectivity or virulence of virus. So long as the immune memory is retained, the vaccine will control most variants, but with milder symptoms, the opportunity for spread of the virus also increases. Thus, vaccinated people can be spreaders of the virus without even without knowing it.

Let’s compare this situation to antibiotics. The most significant bacterial infections, sometimes called ‘super bugs’, are not developed in people who have never had antibiotics. They develop in people who have had so many doses so that only those bacteria that have resistance to the antibiotic flourish. These antibiotic resistant bacteria are the ones more able to spread in the general population.  Are we looking at the same situation with viruses? The more vaccines that we have, the more the SARS CoV-2 virus is under pressure to develop new variants that are more infectious, but hopefully more benign.

This vicious infection cycle will continue until a population establishes herd immunity either naturally or with sterilizing vaccines that actually prevent infection rather than limit its severity. Early treatment to reduce viral load and symptom severity is most important to both sides of the vaccine debate.

A SARS-Cov-2 vaccination of any brand has risks that are recognized as adverse events (AE). These are any new or worsening medical symptoms, disease or laboratory findings that occurs after receiving a vaccination. AE’s are monitored in Canada by the Adverse Events Following Immunization system (AEFI), which is run by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Prior to vaccination, everyone is supposed to be presented with a list of all the risks so they can get vaccinated on an ‘informed consent’ basis. This AEFI report should help people recognize any symptoms which may be associated with their injection.

All symptoms following an injection should be reported. Some common adverse events at the vaccination site are pain, swelling, itchiness, redness, numbness and warmth. General events can include headache, fatigue, laboured breathing, chest and joint pain, nausea, vomiting, throat tightness, chills and diarrhea. Other more serious adverse events such as blood clotting with low platelet levels are usually associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, but others can cause it as well. Heart inflammation, both of the heart muscle (myocarditis) and the lining around the heart (pericarditis) are usually associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Guillain-Barre Syndrome is muscle weakness caused by breakdown of the nerves to the muscles. Of course, death is a very serious adverse event! There were 167 deaths reported in Canada as of July 30/2021.

A more complete report can be found at this link: 


If you do experience an adverse event, your symptoms should be documented in a vaccine adverse reaction database. This will help everyone better understand the ramifications of getting vaccinated. Ask your doctor to report to the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting system. 


You may also report to the AEFI database by writing a letter describing your symptoms and sending it to your provincial public health office. 


We also recommend you report to the database Vaxxtracker. Here is the link-


This is a worldwide site that is very user friendly. 80% of it is taken from the U.S. VAERS database. As an example, it reports 12,447 deaths due to SARS CoV-2 vaccination as of the middle of August/2021.

It should be noted that the Canadian government is underwriting injury compensation as the vaccine manufacturer cannot be held liable for adverse events. One of the eligibility requirements for compensation is an AEFI report from your doctor.

As of Spring, 2022, the Canadian Adverse Events Reporting System (CAERS) has emerged as a user friendly system that may soon offer some treatment options for those who want it. See the FAQ on “Discussing Vaccine Injuries”. Here is the link to CAERS.



Theoretically, yes. In all likelihood, no.

Unlike typical drug manufacturing, where the manufacturer is held financially accountable for damages, so-called vaccines are exempt. The pharmaceutical manufacturer cannot be held liable for any injuries that the injection may cause you. It is the federal government that steps up and takes financial responsibility for injuries following inoculation. See our FAQ titled “Should I report an adverse event…”

While this appears comforting to know that the government has you covered, what you see may not be what you get. Read the CTV News link which reveals some details.


It reports that out of 28,825 reported adverse events by Canadians since June, of which 6,581 were considered serious, the government has paid out on 5 of 400 claims that have been filed. In short, you are on your own when it comes to liability. Did the government or Public Health tell you this as part of your informed consent?

You may also want to check out our FAQ on “How do I get adverse events reports?” It will reveal that the numbers of adverse events in Canada cited in the previous paragraph may be drastically under reported. The 5 pay outs noted above are probably accurate.

The short answer is – maybe.

The government outlines the “Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles” on their website.


You would be correct in concluding that you may need an employment lawyer to apply your personal details to the situation. Importantly you want to dismiss allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, you can request to backdate your EI claim if more than 4 weeks have gone by.

To make this more real, let’s introduce a fictitious person as an example. For interest’s sake, let’s say that our example is a male named Justin. 🙂

Here are the main points for part 1 of Justin’s supporting documentation:


Three conditions are required for regular EI benefits [Section 1.1.5]:

  1. Situation is outside Justin’s control: Leave without pay, or loss of income, for noncompliance with the federal vaccination policy is outside Justin’s control because he has no say in his employer’s policies
  2. Currently seeking employment: Justin is seeking short-term or long-term employment opportunities as he continues to engage in his risk-benefit assessment, which unreasonably involves “the ability to maintain one’s livelihood” as a core benefit (He doesn’t want to cut himself off entirely from the federal government, plus he feels that the policy is not going to hold come next spring)
  3. Willing and available for work: He is ready to work for any potential employer, including his current employer



Two conditions for which any allegation of misconduct could be dismissed relevant to noncompliance with a vaccination policy in the workplace  


  1. Regarding insubordination [Section: 7.3.2]: Refusal or disobedience by an employee with regard to carrying out an order, instruction, regulation or any other expression of authority used by an employer.

Not obeying to the federal vaccination policy cannot be considered insubordination since Justin “finds it impossible, in all conscience, to follow [this] policy”, at this time, especially given the limitations of vaccination (e.g., safety concerns, lack of long-term effectiveness, inappropriate approach to put an end to the pandemic), and the availability of “other reasonable alternatives [that] exist which could have remedied the situation.”  [In the discussion section, Justin will be including prevention through nutraceuticals and early treatments as alternative approaches; for example, see protocols at https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ and at https://aapsonline.org/covidpatientguide/ ]

  1. Regarding breach of rules in terms of safety rules [Section:]: There are two possible scenarios for this type of misconduct: 

(1)   violating a safety regulation, or not following safety rules deliberately or when the claimant clearly should have known better, and real danger was present;

–       In terms of the first scenario (from the employer’s perspective) where the safety rule is vaccination, the question is whether Justin, not being vaccinated, would pose a serious health risk to his co-workers

–       Even if Justin were to be vaccinated, he could still get infected, possibly with mild symptoms, and may unknowingly spread the virus to his co-workers, regardless of their vaccination status

–       If Justin were to get infected while being unvaccinated, with noticeable symptoms (e.g., fever, cough), he would more likely know to stay at home until fully recovered with early home treatment, and then he will have acquired natural immunity

–      Justin, now with natural immunity that provides much broader and longer-lasting protection, will actually be contributing to ending viral spread, and he will not have to worry about variants  

(2) objecting to carrying out a job requirement due to safety concerns, capriciously or when other reasonable alternatives were available to comfortably meet that requirement but were not used [this is actually mentioned by way of an example regarding the use of a vehicle or machinery, but through deductive reasoning, the essence of it could be made applicable to Justin’s situation] 

–       In applying the second scenario (from the claimant’s perspective) regarding safety concerns, Justin’s noncompliance with the federal vaccination policy (i.e., the job requirement) stems from real and perceived serious safety concerns about vaccination, “as opposed to capriciousness”.

–      The availability of reasonable alternatives, in the case of a breach of rules, has a different connotation than in the case of insubordination. It is about whether alternative approaches to address safety concerns could have been used to carry out the job requirement but were not followed, thereby constituting a misconduct.

–      However, in Justin’s case, existing alternative approaches were indeed welcomed to address safety concerns about vaccination and carry out the essential job requirement (i.e., ensuring the health and safety of employees in the workplace) but these approaches are not yet being recognized by his employer.


Additional considerations: If Justin has been on leave without pay for more than 4 weeks and did not think he could apply for EI benefits, it is not too late [Section 3.2]: Certain conditions for “antedate” exist

  • Justin could state that he was aware that his employer dismissed/suspended him due to an allegation of misconduct, which disentitles an employee from receiving employment insurance benefits
  • He could also state that he has only recently been made aware that the Employment Insurance Commission makes their own determination regarding any allegation of misconduct after examining all the facts for each individual EI application
  • Alternatively, the benefits from an approved claim can begin from the time the claim was submitted (after submitting this claim, it is possible to include a note stating that supporting documentation is to follow)

The patient-physician relationship is based on a foundation of trust that develops from mutual respect, honesty, the desire to improve the patient’s well-being and alleviate their suffering. Often, this relationship has grown over many years creating a unique level of trust and understanding. As a patient, you are reliant on your health care provider for access to therapies and diagnostic tests which impact your health and well-being. Fortunately, the colleges licensing physician’s feel the same way. Here is a link to the Ontario college as an example.


Physicians do have the right to stop providing medical care for a patient. However, when dismissing a patient from their care, physicians must ensure their reason for dismissal is valid and all opportunities for alternative care arrangements have been sought while understanding that the act of dismissal may be harmful to their patient.

Every province and territory have their own regulatory medical authorities (links below) that have published their own set of guidelines for terminating patient care. For this document we will provide an overview of the general principles, many of which are shared between the different organizations. Readers are encouraged to consult their own medical regulatory body for further information.  

Everyone Deserves Access to Healthcare:

Unvaccinated patients must be given the same access to care as vaccinated patients. Physicians have a professional obligation to care for every patient regardless of their beliefs, values, and attitudes.  In person care can be provided easily and safely by taking appropriate precautions that are outlined in a variety of medical authority guidelines. (refer to CPSO document linked below)

The same holds true for consultations with specialists as it would be unethical to require documentation that a patient has been vaccinated as a prerequisite for attending their office.

Refusal to provide care puts a physician at risk of a complaint to their College, a human rights commission, and/or civil action.

Physicians should make every effort to care for unvaccinated patients.

Patients Have the Right to Refuse Treatment:

Patients or their legal guardians have the right to accept or refuse the COVID-19 vaccine. Physicians must respect the decisions of the competent patient to accept or reject any recommended assessment, treatment, or plan of care. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows all patients to refuse medical treatment regardless of the harm that may come to them.

Physicians must respect patient autonomy and not end the patient-physician relationship solely because the patient does not follow advice, including vaccination.

Invalid Reasons for Dismissing a Patient:

Physicians may not dismiss a patient based on the grounds of discrimination including:

  • gender, marital status, medical condition, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status
  • because a patient makes a poor lifestyle choices
  • because the patient refuses to follow medical advice.

Many patients make health care choices which go against their health care provider’s recommendations (in areas such as smoking, alcohol consumption, healthy eating, physical activity, etc…), yet their physicians continue to care for them. To dismiss a person who chooses to not take the COVID-19 vaccine could be seen as discriminatory because it is inconsistent with their regular practice.

If a Physician Ends a Patient-Care Relationship They Must Ensure:


Physicians must notify the patient of the decision to terminate care and explain the reasons for this decision. Preferably this should be done in person. A written notification with an explanation for the dismissal should be provided. Physicians must have reasonable grounds and provide reasonable notice to the patient. The physician should continue to provide access to necessary and urgent medical care to prevent imminent harm as well as appropriate follow-up care for outstanding investigations and serious medical conditions.  They must allow the patient adequate time to seek care from another physician.


The act of terminating the care of a patient has ethical and legal implications, particularly considering it may result in harm for the patient.  A patient who has been dismissed or refused consultation based on vaccination status would be in their right to make a complaint to their provincial medical regulatory authority concerning patient abandonment or discrimination.

Provincial chapters of the College of Family Physicians of Canada:


Provincial Medical Regulatory (Licensing) Authorities: