Henry Lu, is a student at University of Toronto, and a cancer survivor. At first, in September 2021 or just prior, it seemed the university would allow masking and testing as an option for those attending in person. Soon after, “vaccination” became mandatory for attendance—and every course was pushed to return in person, which mounted the pressure to get ‘“vaccinated”. He had only one course to finish his degree.
His oncologist only told him the shot was “safe and effective” without discussion about how his cardiovascular system, damaged by chemotherapy, might act as a comorbidity for the “vaccine”. No studies of people in similar circumstances were discussed, and thus no risks were considered.
In Ontario, only those who developed myocarditis from the first shot, or very severe allergic reactions, were even considered for exemption for a second shot.
Henry tried every avenue, every office on campus, to get a hearing. His attempts resulted in nothing. No assistance from either the Student Union or the student newspaper was forthcoming—at most, they only feigned sympathy and concern.
He values his medical privacy, and does not want to discuss it with strangers, normally. Destructive “vaccine” mandate policies are catching all sorts of vulnerable people in their cross-hairs, he explained.
The University has delayed his education by a whole year.
How has his experience affected his thinking about science? It has not shaken his belief at all—their “science” is not real science at all. His oncologist is not a real doctor. Did the university make any economic impact assessment in terms of the future careers of affected students? No. Indeed, he is working in retail, not in computer science. Should he return to studies in the future, he will get less in student loans, because he became a de facto “no show” in his recent class. What the University is doing is absolutely coercive, a negation of informed consent, and they leverage the fact that they have the students’ tuition payments, held as a ransom.
Irvin Studin (Institute for 21st Century Questions) spoke on the crisis in education, which he thinks is the major human catastrophe of this crisis, by far. “Third bucket kids”—are those educated not in person, not by virtual means, but rather receiving no schooling at all. Half a billion children around the world were placed in the third bucket; the estimate for Canada is 200,000. They do not necessarily return when schools reopen. Few were even aware that they had exited when schools went online. The compulsory school system collapsed. No attempt is being made to find these children. In the post-pandemic world, which is crueler, more fastidious, and now with a harsher economic climate, the third-bucket children will fare poorly and it will create a huge underclass that will destabilize Canada in the future. Studin recommends that schools never be closed again—it’s an existential issue. Institutions are continuing to press with “vaccine” mandates, even when governments have lifted them, as if they need to be individually instructed to stop.
The educational system was the most affected negatively, he argues.
In response to questions from the panel, he stated that if a national independent inquiry were to happen, he would agree to help develop the terms of reference for studying the impact on children. There has been a national collapse in thinking, he argued. Ottawa had no involvement at all in matters affecting schools—it was a provincial matter. Chief Medical Officers of Health exceeded their expertise or mandate in pushing for school closures.
James Kitchen, a lawyer, talked about “vaccine” mandates in universities and colleges in Canada, and also concentrated on this in his work for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Before we had mandates, he explained, we had strong recommendations—which by September, latest by November, became mandates, with threats of expulsion for non-compliant students. He could only try to help some students (with exemptions, mostly religious ones), in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. There was incredible divergence on mandates across the country.
Universities blatantly rejected their human rights obligations with their near-blanket denials of requests for exemptions. Some students took on significant legal costs and were forced into endless games with university administrations. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for why some applications for exemptions were granted, others were not, why some won on appeal. Kitchen explained because there was no rule of law, there was just power, just arbitrariness.
Kitchen did not push any cases for exemption based on natural immunity, on having acquired immunity due to infection. He was instead forced to select, as a sole basis, a legally protected characteristic. There needs to be more government oversight of universities, he answered in a response to a question—perhaps, he was doubtful on this point, given his opposition to government intervention—which could result in reduced arbitrariness. He cited provincial governments that have stepped in to protect free speech on campuses, as an example. Can students take any legal action to recover costs they incurred for seeking legal representation? Unlikely, he thought, given that the courts have taken the side of governments on almost all Covid cases. Human rights commissions have taken a “woke” stance against students who refuse “vaccination”.
Dr. York Hsiang spoke of the situation of his mother in an assisted-living home in British Columbia. His own life, as a medical professional, was adversely affected by the mandates. His mother was admitted to a nursing home in late 2019. In the early stages of the crisis in 2020, there were restrictions on the number of visitors—he was the sole visitor that was designated. Entry was through a back door, where visitors were screened, and were then admitted for a short period of time. Clients at the home were then confined to their rooms. In 2021, with the “vaccine” rollout, his mother was injected. Visitors could return, with an appointment—and had to be “vaccinated”. He acquired natural immunity, and that was not allowed as a substitute. His mother’s condition worsened. He has only seen her three times, and each time was associated with an overdose of sedation—he was allowed only a brief visit, under supervision. Once she had improved, he was once again denied the right to see her. As a result of confinement and isolation, he feels that her dementia has worsened. He argues that the mandates have been overdone. The vax mandate for visitors in British Columbia remains in place, despite its being lifted everywhere else. He is thus unable to monitor the medications being given to his mother.
In response to questions from the panel, he agreed that the nursing homes continued to care for their clients in the best way they knew how. He does not disagree with “vaccinating” the very elderly, who are most at risk from Covid. Nobody at the long-term care facility was prepared to discuss his situation with him—they are following policy guidelines set by the Ministry of Health of BC. They are not in a position to evaluate or question those policies. Again, an absence of any dialogue prevailed in this situation, as it did with students in the previous panel. There is thus no accountability or explanation of the policies. Hsiang argued the need for a separate, independent body to assess these policies. “The police cannot police themselves,” he said. If he had been in charge of that nursing home, what he would have done differently would have been to still limit the amount of visitors, but not to confine the clients to their rooms alone; he would have also examined alternative treatments.