Kayla Jones, got the “vaccine” due to her employment as a law clerk, and had to work in multiple environments that demanded the “vaccine”. She got Pfizer. Three days after the second dose she experienced left-hand numbness, confusion, and displayed signs of strokes or possibly a heart attack. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance, and was cleared. Later, her doctor referred her to a neurologist. They could not find a problem from the tests they ran. Before all tests were completed, she drove into another car. Eventually they found some “abnormalities” from an MRI scan. Before her next MRI, she suffered a seizure at work. Again she was cleared—no explanation, no medication. For her follow-up MRI, they found several lesions all over her brain and told her to get to Sunnybrook Hospital right away. By the time she was discharged, they agreed to file a report that she suffered a “vaccine” injury. She only has telephone appointments with her neurologist at Sunnybrook. She has been diagnosed with Central Nervous System Vasculitis, and the doctors have no idea of how to treat it, apart from cycling her through a variety of medications to see what might work.
She has daily symptoms and still cannot lift her arm. She cannot work. Employment Insurance having expired, she now lives on Social Assistance—which barely covers rent, so she depends on food banks (some of the food is moldy, she says). Much of her EI income went to pay for medication. She has essentially been reduced to a pauper, added to her physical disability, and she is a single mother of two.
The head of the CCCA, David Ross, recommends that she go back to her employer, who demanded the shots, and ask them what they will do for her.
When she mentions that her problems are “vaccine” related, reactions are varied: “you’re stupid for getting the shot” or “how can you even blame the vaccine?” Support has been minimal to nonexistent.
April Crocker from Alberta, was injured from two Moderna shots—but her account spans a range of serious problems with her experience with the so-called healthcare system. A couple of weeks after her Moderna shot (not clear which shot is referenced), she developed weakness in the legs, and her walk changed as one of her legs began to drag. Until then she did not know what a “vaccine-injury” even was, and had not heard of VAERS. After she reported her symptoms, all her tests reported “normal” and she was told that Moderna is “100% safe”. A specialist recommended some stretching and other exercises—which cause such a massive buildup of lactic acid in her leg, that she needs days to recover.
She also discussed the use of Ivermectin with her doctor, who told her she had no time to study the randomized-control trials about the successful use of Ivermectin—and this during “such a dangerous global pandemic” as she remarked to her doctor who made no time to review the studies.
She felt pressured to get a third shot to keep her job, but her doctor refused to write an exemption. She also refused to prescribe Ivermectin. When she told her doctor she might go and get it on the black market, not knowing really what she could get (it could be poison), her doctor merely remarked: “Let me know how it goes”. Her doctor also dragged her feet about filing an Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) report with Health Canada. Her doctor then recorded the wrong symptoms, and tried to convince April that her symptoms were the result of anxiety from “vaccine hesitancy”.
April was subsequently told that regardless of what a neurologist might find, she would not get a medical exemption, period. She would have to get another shot.
A nurse who injected her confirmed that “natural immunity is best”. April asked her: “So why didn’t you ask me if I had Covid? I did have it”. Regardless, the injection proceeded.
Her GP confided she was sad that April had such a bad experience with Moderna—and then recommended Pfizer instead. On subsequent visits she was asked if she had her flu shot, a tetanus shot, a HPV shot, as if she had reported no problems at all with the Moderna shot, when she was still dealing with symptoms from it.
“I’m going to live the best life I can”.
Maria Gutschi, a pharmacist based in Ontario, made a scientific and technical presentation on the Covid “vaccine” approval process. She corrected “vaccine” to explain that what we are dealing with is a drug with a payload. This mRNA product meets the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy product. However, if used for vaccinal purposes, it does not have to go through the gene therapy approval process, which can last 15 years. Most other gene therapy drugs are given on a chronic or continuing basis, rather than one or two doses (we are already being told to take even more), hence it was slotted into the vaccine review process. General toxicity testing was not done, nor was it analyzed for any carcinogenic properties, and we do not know the underlying pharmacology (which cells are affected, for how long the spike protein is produced, how long it lasts). It is not considered necessary to do these tests for the vaccine approval process, because normally vaccines do not diffuse throughout the body. There were no drug interaction studies. However, people on Clozaril have significant toxic reactions, and that is known because they are tested every two weeks. When the clinical trials were done, the product made for the clinical trials was almost purified, virtually made by hand—but after production had to be scaled up, processes had to be automated, large volumes of ingredients had to be managed, etc., the quality of the product changed. The new samples were substandard compared to the what was submitted for trial, containing contaminants, 60% of the mRNA, double-stranded DNA, and particulate of various kinds.
The product on the market does not meet the pharmaceutical standard. Issues with impurities, toxicity, and safety continue. “The quality of the product is probably the worst I have ever seen”. For that reason, she and her husband refused the “vaccine”.
In response to questions, Gutschi says there may be problems with batches, or even with vials, and in some cases contents have started to coagulate. The process for extracting the contents to prepare an injection are also complex, and there are many steps during which mistakes could be made. What justified the accelerated process for approving the product? She was not sure, and deferred to others. “What constitutes a health emergency,” is a question the panel wants to plant as a central one to ask.
Deanna McLeod appeared again to speak of the co-opting of medicine by government and Big Pharma. She emphasized that informed consent is at the heart of our healthcare system. “Do the benefits outweigh the risks for me?” is the central question. Guidelines have to be developed by specialists concerning different treatments for particular groups of people. Conflict of interest is highlighted as a key problem—anyone paid for by a pharmaceutical company, must disclose that fact. Medical legal conflicts are central to the minds of doctors and clinicians—they have to follow guidelines, for insurance purposes, and therefore cannot veer from the guidelines to meet the personalized needs of a patient. Sometimes guidelines are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinical research. Sometimes pharmaceutical companies launder money through not-for-profit research units. In Canada, direct to patient communication by pharmaceutical companies is prohibited, but they can communicate to doctors. Vaccines in particular are super profitable and a huge market. However, if you can convince customers that you are selling prevention, what you end up selling in fact is fear. Pharmaceutical companies can also communicate via a public health system, whose collaboration they have to win. To minimize costs, governments may buy into the idea that a vaccine will prevent sickness, and thus collaborate. Public health has become the marketing arm of Big Pharma. She reminds us also of the fact that “vaccination” was held out as the only possible solution, almost from the start, and it was a one size fits all policy. The illusory lack of dissent, through censorship, is meant to create in patients’ minds that there is a consensus, and the shots are safe. Our system has been totally co-opted by pharmaceutical corporations.
This notion that an injured person is “taking one for the team” is a new principle, when previously the presence of a harm was considered unacceptable, that no one was to be risked for “global” others. There is also no logic in expanding minimal medical intervention to a wider group, like children, except as one of seeking greater profit. Otherwise interventions had to be minimal and personalized—not maximal and generalized. There have also been many political conflicts of interest during this “pandemic”. Politics have entered medical decision-making, as with mandates.
