Why do some people feel compelled to publicly profess their undying loyalty and blind-faith trust in the COVID-19 directives coming from political officials and Senior Health regulators?
Such deference is especially baffling given the now numerous policy flip-flops providing examples of confusion and fraud, such as two “elite medical journals” publishing articles that declared Hydroxychloriquine unsafe and ineffective as a treatment for COVID-19, despite a safety approval and over-the-counter status in many countries for the past 65 yrs. That was enough to shut down HCQ trials worldwide, however the editors of both the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine were later forced to retract those two bogus and fraudulent papers.
Or with the policy on face masks: first the best science said they were of no benefit; now if we’re caught without them we get slapped with a major fine! The WHO actually had it right the first time, and all the scientific evidence shows that to be true, but then published a bogus study justifying the mandatory mask policy, later admitting under pressure from scientists and researchers that the about-face (literally and metaphorically) change in policy was not motivated by science, but came under pressure from politicians.  
When it comes to providing medical advice and policy direction on COVID-19, our provincial health officials need to seek out and hold up the most defensible science relying on truly relevant facts that provide insight and understanding regarding the most appropriate health care directives. Too much of what is happening is officials (not usually health providers or doctors) ‘cherry-picking” information to support what they want to happen, even when the strongest evidence is against the particular initiative, so it is ignored, downplayed, or otherwise dismissed.
Media have been shamelessly in lockstep with government’s and global health agencies’ (WHO, CDC, Health Canada)  deceptive messaging, feeding us a daily dose of the same narrative focussed almost exclusively on the alarming number of new ‘cases’ (positive PCR tests which do not provide accurate data upon which policy directives should be based).
There is talk of a much worse “second wave,” with some reports now saying we’re already IN a second wave. We’re not. We’re not even close to being in a second wave.   We’d all know that to be true if our public broadcaster and other major media were providing us with information about the thing that used to matter with diseases – how many people are actually getting sick, were hospitalized or have died. 
We’re not hearing information about hospitalizations and deaths on a daily basis from the media. Why not? Because there’s very few people dying in Canada from COVID-19 for weeks and months (from early June) and if people starting talking about that, well, politicians would lose the super powers  they’re getting used to, not to mention the ability  to control things and do pretty much whatever they want without any public input or authentic and transparent, democratic process.
By simply declaring that there is an emergency from a “pandemic” – extraordinary powers magically appear and the courts will side with government every time if Charter Rights and freedoms are violated by government with the declaration of a health emergency, or just a plain “emergency” [Note: Provincial Emergency Acts often grant broader power than the Health Emergency Provisions within Health Acts].
41 deaths – most over 80 yrs old – were attributed to COVID-19 in the week September 13 – 19, 2020, in a population of nearly 37 million people. That does not warrant being bombarded with lead stories every day announcing BREAKING NEWS with announcements from Dr. Tam, Premier Doug Ford, and many others with worried faces talking about “alarming rises” in CASES, followed by promises of even more severe measures if people don’t strictly obey the social distancing, mask-wearing, and other restrictive measures.
Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, issued a special statement on Sunday (September 27, 2020) saying: As we head into another week, we need to be vigilant about rising cases and increasing hospitalizations…”   Why? To not overwhelm the heath care system? To keep “flattening a curve” that doesn’t exist?
Such a claim would be preposterous, given the virtual non-existence of the disease at the level of actual “sickness”. The illusion of a pandemic is being fabricated on a false foundation of positive PCR tests that say almost nothing at all about the prevalence of the disease. 
My interest is in uncovering the “best science” within a verifiable, factual context in the interest of serving the public good. We need to “think for ourselves” and undertake the due diligence that is necessary to establish grounds for trusting officials.  It’s too important not to dig a little deeper to to verify what’s true.
Take for example the CBC story with the exciting news that we can all get a flu shot early this year (at least in some pharmacies) as of this past Friday (September 25, 2020) actually:
Hearing this vaccine story with the decision to roll-out the seasonal influenza vaccination campaign nearly a month early with such a very positive theme “it’s really important so let’s all get out to our friendly neighbourhood pharmacist for the flu shot”  was disheartening.   
About a week ago, I invested a significant amount of time and effort researching and then publishing important health and safety information about the specific vaccinations purchased by the PEI Government and slated to be injected into Islanders. If you haven’t read that article here is a link.
By citing the guidance that  PEI is SUPPOSED to be following, by its own admission as evident with the information in the  training module offered to those administering the vaccination, I expected to see AT A MINIMUM a more honest educational and information campaign enlightening Islanders of some of the limitations, warnings, absence of safety trials and data for target populations, and company guidance on who should NOT RECEIVE the flu vaccine, or should be aware that any potential adverse short-term and long-term adverse events or negative health impacts (especially on fetal development and nursing babies) is unknown because no safety studies have been done, yet approval was nonetheless granted by Health Canada. The very least our provincial government could do is to properly inform Islanders of those facts.
It came as a surprise to me when the CBC Compass story led the evening news informing Islanders that the vaccine program had already started. I pulled the following “messages” from that news story and put them into a list (below).
Together the following messages from the CBC news story give a pretty clear indication of the continued strong, positive push by the PEI government for every Islander to get the flu shot, with NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of any of the health and safety concerns that I raised in the recent article I published; information showing clear political ‘bias’ in the core messaging from the PEI Government regarding the flu vaccine. I find this extremely concerning.
  1. Louise Martin introduces Travis Kingdon’s story by saying how he’s about to inform Islanders why the Chief Public Health Office (CPHO) says “we should get it [flu vaccine] early“;
  2. The province is rolling out the flu vaccine nearly a month early because of COVID-19, wanting to “…take every precaution it can this year.”
  3. Symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are “so similar,” the CBC reporter states that “pharmacists say the more people that get the flu shot this year, the better……That way, if someone does get sick, there’s no confusion about what they have.”
  4. Another benefit from Islanders getting the flu vaccination early is stated as: “more people vaccinated will mean less strain on the health care system” and “frees up the health care system for potential COVID-19 patients.”
  5. Erin Mackenzie with the PEI Pharmacists Association says that pharmacists are “…expecting a big demand for the shot this year” and the province has ordered more “in order to keep up”
  6. Staff at the pharmacy arehappy to see it arrive early saying “the sooner the better right?” The Federal government and the provincial government are all stressing, especially this year, how important it is to get the flu shot,” saying how “grateful” the pharmacy is that it is starting early; and,
  7. Before going for the flu shot call ahead to make sure they have supply.
There are a lot of problems with these messages separately, but especially with the combined impact of those separate issues acting together to form an “uncontested” consensus position essentially amounting to: “It’s got loads of benefits; it’s safe with no risks; it’ urgently needed and available NOW if you hurray. And it’s free.”
Those problems include the following:
(1) There is no mention of who should  NOT get the vaccine;
(2) There is no mention of any potential health and safety concerns with the vaccines;
(3) positive claims are made with extremely weak justifications “should get” “the sooner the better”;
(4) The claim that “..the more people who get the flu shot the better because “…that way, if someone does get sick there’s no confusion about what they have” is just ridiculous. Diagnosis of disease is not made on the basis of whether people got the flu shot (which often offers no immunity if the strain differs slightly from what was expected, or only moderate protection when it gets it right) but on the basis of “lab tests”.
That’s what was in the CBC story.
There was also a lot that should have been in that story so Islanders could make a fully-informed choice about whether to get the flu vaccine this year, after accessing all the potential benefits AND RISKS. 
It is morally irresponsible and legally negligent to present ONLY the potential benefits and ignore the critical information about limitations and safety risks also found in the company’s Monograph. You can be sure that if the company is calling for caution – something that might by itself significantly curtail company sales and profits – then there really must be a good reason to exercise caution. 
I published my previous article ONLY because of a concern that critically-important information, especially pertaining to mothers and babies (both in the womb and breast-feeding babies) were not mentioned in the training module provided to those administering the vaccinations, nor to Islanders in the media messaging announcing the flu is now available, and that Islanders should get it right away.
The following list of issues and concerns with the vaccination – none of which were mentioned in the story by CBC, or were addressed in the vaccination campaign ultra-positive messaging strongly encouraging Islanders to get the flu vaccine now before they might catch COVID-19. As you’ll see if you keep reading, that’s another whole dimension of what I believe is a very deliberate avoidance strategy that may increase the health risks for Islanders.  
I was particularly discouraged that there was NO information concerning the absence of safety studies on many possible risks from the vaccines, especially to pregnant women, to fetal development, and to nursing babies. 
After publishing my first article on the influenza vaccine, I was contacted by a medical doctor (naturopath) saying that a  group of doctors were seeking a meeting with the provincial government to discuss the concerns raised in my article. A number of other people also messaged me to thank me for the research, and to say that they had forwarded my article to Dr. Morrison and the Public Health Office. 
Here is a list of concerns that I took from the much longer article I published last week:
UNKNOWN RISK TO PREGNANT WOMEN AND  FETAL DEVELOPMENT: The drug company’s Monograph states: “Available data with Fluzone Quadrivalent use in pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risk of adverse developmental outcomes.”  The product monograph for the vaccine says this about the vaccine and pregnant women:Flumist Quadrivalent  should  be   given  to  pregnant  women  only   if   clearly   needed.”

The vaccine Monograph states that: ” Data are not available to assess the effects of Fluzone Quadrivalent on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion,” and goes on to say that  the “developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered…”  as well as “any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from Fluzone Quadrivalent .”   How exactly is someone supposed to properly consider those potential adverse effects in the absence of any clinical safety data when they’re not even being informed about those unknown potential risks?  

PEOPLE WITH SEVERE ASTHMA SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE VACCINE:  According to the Drug Monograph, people with severe Asthma are not recommended to receive the vaccine because “…these individuals have not been adequately studied in clinical trials.” 

ABSENCE OF SAFETY STUDIES: Despite the fact that Health Canada unequivocally states in its guidance document for the 2020-21 flu season that the approved vaccines are proven safe, there have actually been no evaluations of the risks of developing cancer or the impact on male fertility. There is a legal requirement for the company to report this information because it is so essential for both consideration on regulatory approval, and also to provide the information necessary for fully-informed consent.

Section 13.1 puts it like this: “Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility: Fluzone Quadrivalent has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of male fertility in animals.”

OTHER INGREDIENTS AND MATERIALS IN VACCINES: When adverse reactions happen with vaccines it is apparently not the antigen that is the culprit, but one or more (or a combination) of the non-antigenic material also present in the injection. This information is provided in the 37 minute video vaccination course; however it is not provided in either the messaging in the roll-out through the media or at the time of vaccination (from my experience over the years getting a flu vaccination) unless requested.  The person doing the injection at the community vaccination clinic didn’t have a clue when I asked, and that information wasn’t in the literature, nor could she find me the drug monograph.

Islanders should have this information to be more fully-informed about the vaccines that have been purchased and are intended to be used this year. Two ingredients, for example, are thimerosal (a form of mercury) and formaldehyde, which some people argue may be unsafe. Health Canada and the CDC claim these ingredients don’t cause any harmful effects; however, as you’ll see, they’re also saying there isn’t any fear of “vaccine interference” from the influenza vaccines that might be expected to increase the likelihood of contracting and experiencing a more severe outcome with COVID-19.


There is a phenomenon referred to as “viral interference” where different strains of the same viruses (e.g.,. Strain “A” or “B” of influenza virus) or between other types of virus (influenza and coronavirus) circulate within a population. It has been observed that some combinations of antibodies within the body can impact the immune system’s ability to ward off certain other infections, or impair the body’s ability to mount a proper immune response to non-influenza respiratory infections.
Because the Federal government has already purchased and stockpiled many millions of doses of particular influenza vaccines, there is clearly a strong commitment made to convince people to take that vaccine. That represents a very problematic potential “conflict of interest” situation, which likely explains why we are not being informed of the true risks of taking the vaccine, with key information being ignored or withheld, creating a situation where the population is told that vaccinations are not mandatory but “by consent,” yet that so-called voluntary consent is seriously curtailed in that people’s decision-making is happening within a framework and context entirely based on misleading, biased, and woefully incomplete information.
I recently read a peer-reviewed paper showing a statistically-significant increase in the number of people who contracted one of four different coronaviruses [SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., Covid-19) was not one of them] indicating a “viral interference” and negative impact: those who got the influenza vaccine were 36% more likely to contract a severe respiratory infection:

Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus” [See: Wolff, Greg G., Science, “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season,” [January10, 2020].

After reading this paper, I immediately went looking for an article I figured Health Canada would have commissioned as a response to Wolff, and found one published in Oxford Medical Journal titled, “Influenza Vaccine Does Not Increase the Risk of Coronavirus or Other Noninfluenza Respiratory Viruses: Retrospective Analysis From Canada, 2010–2011 to 2016–2017,” [Oxford Medical Journal, “Clinical Infectious Diseases,” May 22, 2020].

I  suspected that if the federal government had given any guidance on this issue  [the potential negative impacts and increased risk of contracting COVID-19 as a result of receiving the flu vaccine] it would be that there is no interference between getting the flu vaccine and coronavirus respiratory infection, and that there would be benefits from being doubly-protected against two potentially-deadly viruses.  Not long into the article Wolff’s study came up for discussion:

“Wolff’s findings for seasonal coronaviruses, coincidentally published in January 2020, have triggered concern that influenza vaccination may detrimentally affect COVID-19 risk.”
If the title of Health Canada’s article didn’t make the point strongly enough that there was no risk or detrimental affect on COVID-19 from the influenza vaccine, the Abstract for the article did:

“Abstract:   Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza and noninfluenza respiratory viruses (NIRVs) was assessed by test-negative design using historic datasets of the community-based Canadian Sentinel Practitioner Surveillance Network, spanning 2010–2011 to 2016–2017. Vaccine significantly reduced the risk of influenza illness by >40% with no effect on coronaviruses or other NIRV risk.”

What Other Studies say about Influenza Vaccine and Respiratory Infection

On May 12, 2020. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified on COVID-19 before the Senate and drew attention to the possibility that other vaccines, such as the vaccines for influenza, could worsen COVID-19 infection rates and result in more severe outcomes:
“I must warn that there is a possibility of negative consequences where certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection,” he [Fauci] told lawmakers.
There may not be reams of studies looking at increased risk of severe respiratory illness as a result of interference from the influenza vaccine; however, from those that do exist, it appears there is a consistent outcome showing the same strong correlation between the flu vaccine and higher rates of respiratory illnesses and more severe outcomes, some of which are caused by coronaviruses.
Consider the following conclusions from three papers. The first was written by the same lead author as the Health Canada-funded response to Wolff, Danuta M. Skowronski, in a study titled:
(Study 1)  “Association between the 2008–09 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine and Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2009: Four Observational Studies from Canada.” [PLOS Medicine, April, 2010]
“The first of the case-control studies, which was based on Canada’s vaccine effectiveness monitoring system, showed that, as expected, the 2008–09 TIV provided protection against seasonal influenza. However, estimates from all four studies (which included about 1,200 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,500 controls) showed that prior recipients of the 2008–09 TIV had approximately 1.4–2.5 times increased chances of developing pH1N1 illness that needed medical attention during the spring–summer of 2009 compared to people who had not received the TIV.”
TIV = Trivalent, is one of the vaccines being offered this year.
(Study 2)  “Assessment of temporally-related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination,” [Vaccine Volume 36, Issue 15, 5 April 2018, Pages 1958-1964]
“Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI [Acute Respiratory Infection] caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.”
(Study 3) “Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine” [. 2012 Jun 15; 54(12): 1778–1783]

“We identified a statistically significant increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infection among TIV recipients(Table 3)….receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism.”

There are other studies finding the same statistically-significant negative adverse consequence from the Influenza vaccine; however, all these studies draw very tentative conclusions, suggesting that more studies are required. Undertaking such double-blind studies seems to be of no interest to the vaccine companies and government regulators.

Despite Health Canada claims that there is no associated risk of contracting respiratory infections after getting the influenza vaccine, the lead author on that study had found a strong association with a previous coronavirus as a result of the flu vaccine, and like Health Canada argues as part of it’s case against Wolff’s findings, any previous studies were with strains of coronavirus other than COVID-19, so it is not yet known what will happen exactly with the flu vaccine and this strain of coronavirus.

Snopes, and various other so-called ‘fact-checking’ websites such as, rebuke all claims that there is an association between the flu vaccine and COVID-19, and mention none of the peer-reviewed articles, some of which I’ve cited above, that point to a strong interference with influenza vaccine and coronaviruses.  Nonetheless, the point (in red) is correct:

“The erroneous claim that the study shows a heightened risk for COVID-19 for those vaccinated for the flu hinges on the study’s suggestion that vaccinated individuals appeared more likely to get “coronavirus.” But the study looked at four types of seasonal coronaviruses that cause common colds, not SARS-CoV-2.”

Fair enough. No studies have been done to test this hypothesis with COVID-19 – but COVID-19 is a coronavirus like all the other strains, so the “precautionary principle” should be followed – decisions on whether to get the flu shot should not be based on unfounded claims that there is no correlation possible, and no concern that the vaccine might possibly worsen respiratory infection rates and severe outcomes from other pathogens such as COVID-19, despite the very strong likelihood based on what is already known about this happening.

One research paper looking at possible influenza vaccine interference with COVID-19 titled “Association between Influenza Vaccination Rates and SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak Infection Rates in OECD Countries,” [SSRN, March 20, 2020] found the following using large datasets of influenza vaccination coverage rates for 29 OECD countries:

“Here we show that reported influenza vaccination coverage rates for 29 OECD countries are associated significantly with recently observed SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in these countries. This early observation, which merits further investigation, suggests that during the current coronavirus outbreak an influenza vaccination background might be a relevant factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The observed phenomenon is discussed in the context of vaccine associated virus interference and antibody-dependent enhancement of viral infectivity.”

“These early observations from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic support the hypothesis that influenza vaccination coverage is a risk factor associated with higher infection rates through SARS-CoV-2.

Other studies have been done and nearly buried completely. As Owen Dyer explains in his paper titled, “What did we learn from Tamiflu,” [British Medical Journal, 19 February 2020]:

“We hear so much about the vital importance of flu shots that it will come as a nasty surprise to learn that they increase the risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections such as rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, RS viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, HMP viruses and enteroviruses. This has been shown in at least two studies that have received little attention from public health authorities: A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from noninfluenza virus infections (unadjusted OR 2.13, CI 1.20—3.79). Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73% (OR 1.73, CI 0.99—3.03). (Table 2 in Kelly et al, Pediatric Infect Dis J 2011;30:107)….A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of noninfluenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04—8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04—9.83). (Table 3 in Cowling et al, Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1778)…..To my knowledge, the foregoing risk figures have not been explicitly published anywhere. They will not be found in the abstracts of the articles, so you have to go to the tables and look at the numbers themselves.”


With both seasonal influenza and COVID-19, it is the elderly who are most vulnerable. Consider the following up-to-date chart of COVID-19 deaths in Canada by age group to see just how much that is the case:

Only 3.3% of deaths in Canada have been people under the age of 60.  

The elderly – even if they had all the facts – will have to weigh the information and their personal situations to assess potential risks and benefits of either getting or not getting the influenza vaccine this year.

That there are only “benefits” and no down-sides or risks is simply not accurate and I only put together these two articles because the PEI government has chosen not to openly share information with the public about the unknowns, the lack of studies, the known risks, and especially that because of all of the fore mentioned, there is no possible way the PEI government can declare that the influenza vaccines they are telling Islanders to get are safe and won’t cause them or their children harm.

What must also be kept in mind is that there will not be any safety trials or even observational data to assess the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine with respect to possible negative interactions with influenza vaccines. With the PEI government strongly encouraging all Islanders 65 or older to get the vaccine, and that “super-vaccine” for that age group alone has 4x the normal amount of antigen, Island Seniors should know the significant risk they are taking regarding the likelihood increased chance of contracting and having a more severe outcome with COVID-19.

What might the impact of that much stronger dose be with respect to potentially increasing the likelihood of contracting a respiratory infection from COVID-19, a coronavirus? This is definitely something that should be looked out for on a go-forward basis given what is known about viral interference with influenza vaccine and other strains of coronaviruses.

How sadly ironic that the safety information that the Flu Shot will significantly increase the odds of contracting COVID-19, making it more severe, potentially deadly, is not provided. The focus is rather on preventing COVID-19 infection while getting the FLU SHOT. That’s about the only type of FLU SHOT SAFETY available to the public these days. The claim that these flu vaccines are safe and won’t cause harm simply can’t be made in the absence of safety trials and data and the company clearly states that in it’s own literature saying the data does not exist upon which to make a safety recommendation for many particular potential harms or adverse events. Why isn’t the PEI government not sharing that information with Islanders?  Rather than saying only crazy anti-vaxxers think there’s a link between vaccinations and autism spectrum disorders, government needs to tell Islanders that the impact of vaccines on fetal development is not being studied, and that no safety trials were undertaken prior to approval by Health Canada assessing a whole range of potential harms Something is causing a phenomenal increase in autism, we should be trying to find out if it might be all these vaccines we’re assuming are safe.

The one thing that my foray into seasonal vaccination research has taught me is that the “vaccinations are absolutely SAFE” mantra isn’t something the PEI government should be telling Islanders – it’s untrue, irresponsible, and a grave disservice to Islanders to pretend otherwise.

As of 2015, 1 in 35 males aged 5-17 were diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  Heath Canada’s 2018 report titled: “AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AMONG CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CANADA 2018 A REPORT OF THE NATIONAL AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,” showed that ASD prevalence in PEI increased by more than 3 and 1/2 times in just 12 years:

“Retrospective data from 2003–2015 … [revealed that]…from 5.0 per 1,000 to 17.7 per 1,000 in Prince Edward Island.”

Do vaccines cause a much higher incident rate of autism spectrum disorders in the general population? Maybe. It could be highly toxic chemicals in our environment as well. It’s probably not fresh air or organic food. We would know tomorrow if it was organic food. 

We’ll probably never know if whatever is causing increased rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders if it’s human-engineered for sale: BigPharma will likely prefer to keep selling, so no telling, a sorry state of affairs that has unfortunately been the scandalous tradition of drug-related harms on a mass or quasi-mass scale causing tragic human suffering that could have been prevented, but companies covered-up information about harm to people in pursuit of the almighty dollar by the lucrative global drug lords operating in corporate shadows, forever shrouded in secrecy, a “no-tell” cartel of brazen billionaires.

These global drug giants are now so wealthy and powerful they have already successfully rearranged things so we are literally buying worse health and earlier death thinking we’re improving our health and chances of living longer.

Elderly Islanders may want to think long and hard about rushing out to get the flu shot after reading how it negatively impacts our natural immune system and ability to ward off severe impacts and death from influenza:

“An observational study with a regression discontinuity design looked at mortality in the elderly over a 14-year period. (Anderson et al, Ann Intern Med 2020;172:445. doi:10.7326/M19-3075. Epub 2020 Mar 3) Table 2 indicates that influenza vaccine was associated with an 8.9% increase in All Cause Mortality in elderly men (VE –8.9%, CI –19.6% to 1.8%), and a 26.5% increase in Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality (VE –26.5%, CI –56.1% to 3%).”

That kind of ‘statistically significant’ finding seems consistent with the findings from targeted datasets, such as the army personnel in Wolff’s study.

The authors of the article funded by Health Canada – some with disclosed “potential conflicts of interest” [Wolff had none] at the end of that article – claim to have found a methodological flaw in Wolff’s study to explain the  36% increase in army personnel who had received the influenza vaccine compared with personnel who didn’t get the flu shot. It’s important for us to also note what this team of authors left out of their report.

Dr. Allan S. Cunningham (a retired pediatrician) noted in his informative June 4, 2020 article titled “The vexed question of flu shots and the risk of Covid-19,” that:

“Danuta Skowronski and her Canadian colleagues recently found that influenza vaccine had “no effect on coronavirus or other NIRV risk.” Furthermore, they re-analyzed Wolff’s study and identified a methodological problem to account for the unexpected 36% increase in risk of coronavirus infection that he found associated with influenza vaccine. (Skowronski et al, Clin Infect Dis, 5/22/20. However, their Table 1 indicates statistically non-significant trends associating influenza vaccination with NIRVs in general and with coronavirus in particular. Crucially, they provide no specific data for the 65+ age group.”

Wait a minute!   Isn’t that 65+ age group the age group in which all those respiratory deaths are happening? 

This will be my last comment on the seasonal vaccination campaign in PEI and Canada. If what I’ve written is not deemed worthy of a response from government, or reason to change the quality, accuracy and honesty of the information being provided to Islanders on this year’s flu campaign, there’s no point in me publishing anything further.

That no one is speaking out from within the medical community is unfortunate.  I’m hoping those who have taken the Hippocratic oath swearing “to do no harm” to their patients will realize that not to speak up to voluntarily raise valid safety concerns about a medical intervention is also a decision and action, one that may result in preventable harm to their patients.

Doctors and Pharmacists on the vax bandwagon need to disavow that lazy blind obedient way of doctoring, get informed, and take action on behalf of helping their patients to become fully-informed about all of the unknowns and potential risks of particular vaccinations.  

The federal government needs to start demanding far more information from safety trials before giving approval to vaccines.

If the science is saying there is a strong likelihood there will be increased cases of severe influenza and death in the elderly who get the flu shot from COVID-19, and if getting the flu vaccine is going to apparently more likely to kill you quicker from an acute respiratory infection in the long run anyway, should Island tax payers really be footing the bill to pay for a vaccination campaign so ineffective and potentially deadly for our elderly?

Again, given the strong likelihood of a statistically significant viral interference impact from the flu vaccine with a ‘normal’ dose vaccine, the targeted and heavily pushed campaign to inject the 4x boost into Islanders 65+ is very concerning!