Canadian Report Calls for Discontinuing Mass V. for Those Under 60
Discover more from COVEXIT Notes
Canadian Report Calls for Discontinuing Mass V. for Those Under 60
The report, researched by academics and civil servants, active or retired, has as core recommendation to discontinue the injections for those under the age of 60.
An unusual report about vaccination in the Canadian province of Ontario, has been unveiled by Steve Kirsch, from the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.
The report is titled “A Deeper Dive into the Publicly Available Ontario Data on COVID-19 Vaccination.”
The report was produced by a group of professionals, including academics and officials either formerly or currently employed in universities or the federal government.
“The review and analysis have been conducted in collaboration with the following statistical/analytical experts:
• a former Chief and a Chief currently in Statistics Canada
• three Senior Analysts currently in Statistics Canada
• a Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics in a recognized Ontario post-secondary educational institution
• a Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor from the School of Mathematics and Statistics in a recognized Ontario post-secondary educational institution.
In addition, several editors have reviewed this report.”
The contributing authors are not named, and the main author in presented as an “independent researcher.”
The report was prepared for an unnamed member of parliament, from an unspecified party.
Controversially, the report states it was prepared for the Liberal Party of Canada, i.e. the party in power and led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau!
“This report is prepared for the Liberal Party of Canada. However, it is available for distribution to as many levels of government wishing access to it.”
The report “is provided solely for public health policy development going forward in this phase of the pandemic.”
In a sense, this report provides an idea of what would normally be the policy recommendations of the federal bureaucracy to the government, based on the actual data.
As we will see, the report’s findings are largely in contradiction with Canada’s current official positions and measures.
Key Findings & Recommendations
Here are the report’s most important findings, that are actionable in terms of public health policy:
“Given the statistical evidence provided in this report, the public health policy tools such as, mass vaccination campaigns, mandates, passports and travel restrictions need to be reevaluated for relevance in this phase of SARS-CoV-2.”
“The abundance of evidence documented by Public Health Ontario (PHO), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and toptier scientific journals demonstrates that the vaccines do not prevent infection or hospitalization.”
“The Ontario data show that vaccination currently makes little difference in terms of hospitalization and death rates for those below age 60.”
“The empirical evidence investigated in this report from PHO and PHAC does not support continuing mass vaccination programs, mandates, passports and travel bans for all age groups.”
“Rather, it may be prudent to utilize a more targeted and cost-effective approach focused on vaccinating the high-risk group, while factoring in an individual’s potential risk of vaccine-related adverse events.”
Without the author to interview, and with all contributors being anonymous, it’s clearly hard to properly review this report and its implications.
So it’s important to keep all this in mind. But at the same time, the analysis in the report is very serious, and is absolutely worth paying attention to.
The full report can be found at: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/LiberalPartyReport.pdf
Remarks on the Report
Remark 1: The Date. The report is dated June 2022. It analyses data up to the end of May 2022. The report has supposedly been in circulation for some 3 months, but it’s only now that it is getting out. Has the report actually been circulated within the Liberal Party of Canada, the caucus, the office of the prime minister? One would believe it’s the case, but nothing is sure. What seems clear is that, even if it was read by those in the Liberal Party of Canada, government, PM’s office, etc. it does not seem to have had any impact on policy, as on September 12, the Prime Minister called for 80-90% of eligible Canadians to “get up to date” (i.e. boosted).
Remark 2: The report emphasizes a 60 Year Old Threshold. As already suggested, the clearest policy recommendation that can be articulated from the analysis in this report is not to vaccinate any longer systematically anyone below the age of 60, except special situations such as immuno-compromised individuals. This is pretty consistent with the policy recently adopted in Denmark, where the age of 50 has been adopted as such threshold.
Remark 3: Hospitalization peaks in the 2 weeks following the injections! Figure 1 may not be sufficiently analyzed in the report. Indeed, the figure shows something pretty astonishing, i.e. that the peak of hospitalisation for “confirmed post-vaccination cases of COVID-19” occurs in the first two weeks. Something is happening in the first two weeks that is highly abnormal. This is actually consistent with what was also observed in Alberta.
Remark 4: The analysis relies on under-reported adverse events. In Canada, it is well known that the whole medical system has been pressed to report as little of those adverse effects as possible. The medical profession in Canada, in its immense majority, considers the injections to be … you guessed it … “safe and effective.” The report mostly refers to the most commonly reported non-serious adverse events. The most noticeable serious one indicated in the report is pericarditis / myocarditis. There is no word about any deaths associated with the pharmaco-vigilance, while in the US, for a population 9 times, yet less vaccinated than in Canada, over 14,000 deaths have been reported to VAERS in relation to the C19 injections. Yes, there are notes in the report about the shortcomings of the data, but it would really have been important to emphasize more those shortcomings. The risk benefit analysis, which leads to the age 60 threshold, is likely underestimating the actual risks for injecting those over 60.
Remark 5: The report recognizes natural immunity, and “hybrid” immunity. While most of the population has been exposed SARS-CoV2 in Canada and got COVID-19, knowingly or unknowingly, natural immunity is still being vastly denied / ignored by health officials. The report notes: “Currently, there is a plethora of studies examining the potential benefit of vaccination for those with natural immunity” and clearly recognizes its existence.” They note particularly a study saying that “unvaccinated COVID-recovered individuals should be considered to have at least equal protection to their vaccinated COVID-naïve counterparts…” Yet the report also recognizes the much more controversial notion of “hybrid immunity”: “In head-to-head comparisons, immunity acquired from a previous infection plus either one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a greater reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and COVID-19 hospitalisation for up to 9 months than previous infection only, although with small differences in absolute numbers during follow-up.” So the report has the merit to acknowledge natural immunity, yet the consequences of natural immunity are not really discussed in the report, even if it substantially reduces the rationale for vaccination, including for those above age 60.
Remark 6: There is no mention of early treatment in the report. The analysis only offers a vaxxed versus unvaxxed comparison. As widely covered at covexit.com, early treatment protocols do vastly prevent hospitalizations and deaths from Covid in any age group, including those over age 60, where the report notes benefits to vaccination. Early treatment protocols, as developed by Drs. Peter McCullough, George Fareed, Zev Zelenko & others are not associated with serious adverse events either. Early treatment protocols are certainly a key in addressing COVID-19 in Canada, and this should have been mentioned by the authors.
Remark 7: This report is consistent with admissions made in court by Canadian officials. With the severe mandates and travel restrictions imposed by the Canadian authorities, several litigation have been started against the federal government. In this context, it came out, last July, that the top epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that the draconian travel restrictions on the unvaccinated, implemented by the federal government in November 2021 (and now partially relaxed), had not been recommended by the bureaucracy.
Find the brief take on the (not so new) report by Steve Kirsch here, on his substack
Canadian Report Calls for Discontinuing Mass V. for Those Under 60
It's not clear to me why doctors would want to give this type of injection to immunocompomised persons and people over 60. Would they not be at significant risk of adverse events from the jabs? But in any case why not just treat the illness, given we have very effective early treatment protocols?