fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

SELICK: The Two Sides to the Vaccine Safety Debate

Karen Selick takes on the politicians trying to use government to force vaccinations.

mm

Published

on

EDITORS NOTE: The Western Standard Editorial Board encourages open debate by its columnists. The column below reflects the views of its author, but not necessarily that of the WS Editorial Board.

This article is about a recent event in Eastern Canada, but it should ring a cautionary bell for all Canadians since we will all soon be facing a similar issue.

New Brunswick’s Education Minister Dominic Cardy is fuming because an amendment to provincial legislation that he championed was recently defeated in a free vote. Had it been successful, the amendment would have made numerous vaccinations mandatory for school children in New Brunswick, removing an exemption that previously existed for students whose parents filed a written objection.  

According to Mr. Cardy, “There are no two sides [to the debate] around the safety of vaccines.” He described opponents of his bill as having given in to “medieval conspiracy theories.” Rhetoric like this is common in the vaccine debate.

However, existing legislation in Ontario indicates that Mr. Cardy and those who make similar statements are profoundly misinformed on this subject. 

In June, 1987, Ontario adopted a law on immunization that’s now section 38 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.  It applies to the vaccines for 13 different diseases, including diphtheria, polio, measles and influenza. It requires doctors, nurses and pharmacists to watch for and report any adverse reactions to the vaccines they administer, including: 

  • Persistent crying or screaming, or anaphylactic shock, within 48 hours of vaccination
  • Shock-like collapse, high fever, or convulsions occurring within 3 days of vaccination
  • Arthritis occurring within 42 days of vaccination
  • Hives, seizures, encephalopathy, brain inflammation or other significant occurrence within 15 days of vaccination
  • Death following any of the symptoms already described. 

The 1987 legislation came about through the efforts of then MPP Jack Pierce, who spoke in the legislature about eight cases of severe vaccine injuries that had recently occurred in his riding of only 30,000 people. It was drafted after extensive consultations with the medical community. It was “doctor-approved” law, in a day when it was still permitted to discuss all sides of the vaccine issue without being ridiculed or silenced.

Patients can and do suffer vaccine injuries of the kind described in Ontario’s legislation far more often than Mr. Cardy seems to be aware of. 

The vaccines used in Canada are the same as those used in the United States, and there’s a little-known database of vaccine injuries available to anyone who cares to look. That’s because the US abolished tort liability against vaccine manufacturers in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Instead of suing vaccine manufacturers, injured persons are now restricted to making a claim against a government-run compensation fund called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program reports monthly on the compensation it pays out. 

Since inception, the program has paid out more than $4 billion in compensation to 7,252 individuals suffering vaccine injuries (figures as of May 1, 2020). This is a significant amount of money. Some vaccine injuries are devastating. They can include permanent brain damage. 

These figures underestimate the extent of the damage done by vaccines because the compensation program has a strict time limit for making application. Many parents of vaccine-injured children don’t find out about the compensation fund until after that window of opportunity has shut. 

According to a World Health Organization publication from 2011, there are 19 countries around the world that have recognized the dangers inherent in vaccines by implementing compensation programs for individuals who have been injured by them. Germany was the first to implement such a program in 1961, eight years after the German Supreme Court ruled that people injured by mandatory vaccinations (smallpox, in that case) were entitled to compensation. 

In the 1970s, eight countries recognized the dangers of the “DTP” (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccine by adopting compensation programs for the vaccine-injured. These included Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.

In 1972, a five-year-old girl in Quebec was vaccinated against measles as part of the province’s large-scale free vaccination program. She developed acute viral encephalitis, resulting in almost total permanent disability. The family sued the Quebec government, and initially obtained a judgment of $385,000. The trial court explicitly found a causal relationship between the vaccine and the child’s encephalitis. The compensation award was eventually overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal on the grounds that Quebec civil law does not recognize no-fault liability. However, even at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, “the Attorney General [was] no longer disputing the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis.”

As a result of this case, Quebec became the only Canadian province to adopt a vaccine compensation program. Between its inception in 1988 and April 1, 2019 (the latest date for which statistics are available), it had paid compensation to 51 vaccine-injured individuals, in an amount totaling $5,797,000.  

A study was published in 2011 by scientists associated with the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto. It showed that when infants aged 12 months or 18 months were injected with live vaccines (such as the MMR—measles, mumps, rubella vaccine), they were significantly more likely to visit the hospital emergency room within the next twelve days, as compared with the number of visits they would make during a control period that did not follow vaccination.

What additional evidence would it take for Mr. Cardy to recognize that there are indeed two sides to the vaccine safety debate?

Parents faced with the prospect of mandatory vaccinations for their children are perfectly justified in their concerns. They are not part of a “medieval conspiracy theory”. It is very disturbing that an individual in a position of power such as education minister Cardy is both ignorant of the facts and willing to vilify individuals who are more knowledgeable than he is himself. 

Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for the original Western Standard, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca.

Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for the original Western Standard, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca.

Opinion

GEROW: WE scandal shows how government corrupts our charities

“Charity work is an important and meaningful part of human activity; one far too important to leave in the hands of corrupt politicians and useless bureaucrats.”

mm

Published

on

On July 23, 2020, federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion announced an investigation into Justin Trudeau and the decision to have WE Charity administer a $30 million Canada Student Service Grant Program. The red flags which prompted the investigation were the fact that this type of program is within the regular mandate of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). The ESDC is the government bureau where the unemployed go to collect E.I. benefits and employers can hire a temporary foreign worker at a reduced rate.

After scratching just below the surface, it was revealed that Trudeau’s mother and brother had received over a quarter-million dollars from WE Charity. His wife had been involved with WE Charity. Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s daughters worked for WE Charity and the organization had paid for trips his family had taken to Kenya and Ecuador.

It’s easy to understand why Canadian’s are outraged at the conflict of interest. It appears the Trudeau government took money from taxpayers and intended to launder it into the coffers of family and friends through a non-profit organization. Opposition parties called for a variety of actions. The CPC’s Pierre Pollievre demanded the release of documents. The Bloc Quebecois’ Yves-Francois Blanchet suggested that Trudeau should step down. The culpability of the Prime Minister and his inner circle is apparent, but the opposition fails to address the real problem. That is, that the government and their preferred tax-exempt organizations having the ability to engage in racketeering. Instead they argue for tougher regulations.

Charity is the reciprocal love of one’s fellow man manifest in the giving of alms to the poor, ill or helpless. To give voluntarily, to sacrifice your time or property for the good of mankind, is foundational in religious and spiritual thought. It is an act of civilized, empathetic kindness and community. Regulations which limit the ability of charity to function on a large scale have made most non-profit organizations in Canada an extension of Ottawa’s social bureaucracy. There is nothing honourable in filling out government grant applications. 

In its attempts to preserve those aspects which are most dear to the idea of charitable giving, the federal government has instead built a web of red tape and restrictions that limit supply by creating artificial barriers to entry. This in turn creates monopoly privilege for organizations like WE Charity who are close to political power. Just the same as in corporate monopolies, non-profit monopolies create higher profits for its stakeholders. 

In extreme cases we see entitled families grabbing tax dollars that would otherwise be used on local community initiatives and using them to backstop speaking engagements for the irrelevant aging mother of a prime minister plagued with scandal. The calls for stronger regulation on charities are misguided. More regulations on these organizations only further monopoly privilege and collusion with Ottawa. The only regulation needed for true charity is that it is free from political influence.

Why was the Canada Service Grant Program not administered by Employment and Social Development Canada?

On July 16, Rachel Wernick, the senior assistant deputy minister at ESDC testified to a parliamentary committee that WE Charity had been selected to administer the program because of the charities connections to youth and their ability to administer the program on a scale and with speed which the ESDC could not. Part of which is true. Private charities are much more efficient at delivering these types of initiatives than bureaucratic agencies, although it seems obvious that WE Charity was chosen for different reasons.

The question still has deeper meaning and further reaching implications than that which have been obscured through a myriad of partisan talking points. The answer is if a $30 million program is itself not a valid use of that departments regular mandate, then it should not be administered at all, or if that mandate is better left in the responsibility of private charities, then Employment and Social Development Canada should cease to exist. 

Charity work is an important and meaningful part of human activity; one far too important to leave in the hands of corrupt politicians and useless bureaucrats.

Darcy Gerow is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

DAVIS: After Trudeau’s throne speech, the West must fight back with more than words

“Shaking our fists, going to court, and promises of greater autonomy someday, are no longer enough.”

mm

Published

on

It’s really no surprise that the Liberal throne Speech was more of the same rhetoric they’ve been regurgitating for the last five years. It’s really just more of the same tired march toward his idea of liberal-socialism: with gun grabs, censorship, and condescending emergency orders during the pandemic. 

If anything was surprising, it was his lacklustre reiteration of the throne speech with no added value to speak of. Sure, it was delivered in his same breathy tones, but for a guy who likes to ham it up, it was decidedly bland.  

What we saw in the throne speech and his remarks in the House the next day was an open disregard for the plight of the West and the growing tinderbox of alienation here. It’s hard to tell at this point if Justin Trudeau is just that blissfully unaware, or is being willfully ignorant.

As the pundits were busy reporting on a “Liberal re-set” that wasn’t – forgetting the scandals which made this entire farce necessary – the opposition and provinces weighed in on what they heard.

Conservatives won’t support the government. The NDP are being obtuse, and the Bloc leader Yves-Francois Blanchet sounded like an extortionist as he insisted that the government has one week to hand over more healthcare money, or else.  

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney sounded more like a spurned lover than a premier ready to go to the mat for his province. I say this not because of how he said things, but because of what he did and didn’t say.

Essentially, Kenney plans to stay his course of angry words and lawfare, suing the federal government over every breach of the constitution. This means uncertain outcomes, and years in court. Years Alberta doesn’t have.  

He spoke of implementing the findings of the Fair Deal Report, but hasn’t taken any concrete actions toward achieving those goals. Appointing the Alberta Firearms Officer is one of his “we’re going to do’s”, but when? He’s devoting $2 million to analysing the viability of a provincial police force instead of investing that money in recruitment and training facilities for the new force now. These uninspiring actions look like flinching under the pressure of a sovereigntist movement that keeps getting federal oxygen fanning the flames of discontent.

In fairness, the United Conservative government has done a good job during the pandemic. As much as some may cry foul at that assertation, the fact remains that we were able to send PPE to other provinces because of Alberta’s preparedness.  

I admire Jason Kenney for going to the airport to verify if reports of a lack of COVID testing were true; they were.  In response to this, he began more thorough checks at the Calgary airport, one of four airports still receiving international flights during the crisis.  

Kenney has also been actively seeking investment and diversification of the Alberta economy.  It should be a personal thorn in his side that immediately after the throne speech, much of his work was undone as investors are back to questioning if they can do business in Canada with the regulatory uncertainty restated by the Liberal government.

It was disappointing to hear Mr. Kenney say that he will continue on, bullishly complaining, going to court, and fighting a game that he cannot win. Time is of the essence and Albertans need him to come up with a plan B fast.  

Asserting provincial autonomy, removing ourselves from as many federal programs as possible is a necessary start regardless of if independence is the end-goal or not.  But independence must be put on the table as a last ditch option regardless of whether Mr. Kenney likes the idea or not. We face an existential threat – survival or disintegration under this federal government, bent on crushing everything Westerners hold dear or essential for survival.

We must begin a strategic plan, create a contingency blueprint, putting the pieces in place so that if it should come to it, Alberta is ready to go its own way. The province must be prepared and ready to implement those plans quickly.  

We could take the example of Quebec’s preparations in 1995, learning from their mistakes and successes. We should be speaking to indigenous leaders, forming alliances early in a fair and equitable fashion. International relationships for both trade and support ought to be pursued now.  

Shaking our fists, going to court, and promises of greater autonomy someday, are no longer enough. Tangible action is required and it’s required now. The United Conservative Party must face these facts and acknowledge that foundational steps are necessary to put Albertans on firmer ground and give us the leverage we need to say no to Ottawa the next time they come with matches and kerosene.  

Gilly Davis is a guest columnist for the Western Standard 

Continue Reading

Opinion

ANDRUS: Kenney prepares to fight “all-out war” from his knees

“A constitutional convention may be the only way to keep the country together. Without one, enflamed regional anger will continue to divide the country and the viability of remaining a single nation will continue to deteriorate.”

Published

on

“The only time in the Speech from the Throne that Saskatchewan was essentially mentioned was in the phase out of our energy industry workers.”  

That was Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s response to the massive shift in direction signaled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Throne Speech on Wednesday. His words rang true across the West and the fight for the heart of the energy industry has ramped up yet again.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney described the Throne Speech as a “full-frontal attack” on the constitution.

“There were more policies that invade provincial jurisdiction than I could count,” said Kenney. “Alberta will continue to work with our allies across the country to focus on lives and livelihoods.”

From the reaction of the premiers, it is now clear that national unity hangs in the balance.

The announcement of ambitious legislation guaranteed to be detrimental to the interests of Westerners, pits Moe and Kenney against the full might of a federal government targeting the heart of the energy industry.

The rhetoric both have displayed in recent days highlights the rage bubbling amongst their electorates, already concerned about their futures, but rhetoric is just that.

While both premiers have talked the talk, angry citizens await firm action. In Alberta, Kenney has slow walked his Fair Deal plan to a crawl. Two of his best options – a provincial pension plan and referendum to abolish equalization – have been delayed until next fall at the earliest. Constitutional challenges, while bold in rhetoric, will take years to unwind. Strong letters are just words on a page; empty threats unless backed up with strong action.

More than ever, the need for bold leadership is of vital importance. The constitution is under attack. Western alienation, scoffed at by the Laurentian establishment and Trudeau himself, is on the rise. Further delays will only see that anger redirected at provincial governments and Premiers that are seen to be waffling. Watering down messaging in a time when strong action is needed will further weaken the fabric of national unity.

The next few months will demonstrate clearly that constitutional reform is required to strengthen national unity and provide equal footing for provinces wary of federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. The current constitutional order is designed to favour voter-heavy provinces, with no real defence available to smaller provinces.

A constitutional convention may be the only way to keep the country together. Without one, enflamed regional anger will continue to divide the country and the viability of remaining a single nation will continue to deteriorate.

These reforms are long past due. It’s time to recognize gravity of the situation and act. Words will simply fall on deaf ears.

Josh Andrus is a columnist with the Western Standard and the Executive Director of Project Confederation.

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.