News about undisclosed DNA sequences in the Pfizer and Moderna Covid 19 inoculations has recently come to light from none other than Health Canada. My attention was drawn to a couple of statements in the reporting,“Health Canada has confirmed the presence of a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which the manufacturer had not previously disclosed.”and“There is debate among scientists with regards to the significance of the finding, with some saying the DNA sequence has the potential to cause cancer, and others saying it poses little to no threat.”Oh good. When I received my shots, I made a point of asking the “caregiver” if he had conveyed to me all the relevant information required for me to make an informed choice.“Do you want the shot or not?” was the curt response. That was helpful.I took the shot because, at my age, death is not all that daunting, my study of the Pfizer trials and the VAERS database suggested that the risk of complications was under one percent, and I was happier to visit my out-of-country grandchildren than to cower in my home. For this, I have been called a sellout. Fair enough.The point is that even if my medical interlocutor had given me data on the contents and effects, it would have been inaccurate information about a shot that some experts say has the potential to cause cancer. Do I blame the medical professional who was so abrupt with me? No, because his response determined whether his license would be revoked. How do I know? Because many doctors across Canada were suspended by their respective governing bodies for sharing “unproven medical information.” Does not telling us about potential carcinogens in the shots count as “sharing unproven medical information?” I know a doctor who is soon to go before his College because he saved a patient’s life with Ivermectin. Horrors! I took Ivermectin prophylactically and, for $1 a day, never got COVID-19. That is cheaper than an apple a day. Many will argue that the shots saved me from COVID-19. Except that almost everyone I know who took the shots but not the Ivermectin got covid — more than once. Who knows... But here I am spreading unproven medical information that can be backed up by dozens of clinical trials and peer-reviewed papers.The impact of the responses to COVID-19 will be with us for many years. I think it might be necessary to evaluate the utility of professional governing bodies in their current forms and mandates. Is the role of these bodies to ensure quality of training and practice or is their role to enforce only those procedures approved by them? Is there a risk of regulatory capture of these bodies and if so, what should be done to prevent it? Is informed consent to be defined by professional regulating bodies or should a wider spectrum of society be involved in that definition?Probably the wide variety of professional regulating bodies that operate in Canada will pass any such evaluation with flying colours. But I will be interested in hearing their response to why they advocated so aggressively for a serum that had hidden contents with the potential to cause cancer. Why would I listen to them in the future? There must be a mistake.
News about undisclosed DNA sequences in the Pfizer and Moderna Covid 19 inoculations has recently come to light from none other than Health Canada. My attention was drawn to a couple of statements in the reporting,“Health Canada has confirmed the presence of a Simian Virus 40 (SV40) DNA sequence in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which the manufacturer had not previously disclosed.”and“There is debate among scientists with regards to the significance of the finding, with some saying the DNA sequence has the potential to cause cancer, and others saying it poses little to no threat.”Oh good. When I received my shots, I made a point of asking the “caregiver” if he had conveyed to me all the relevant information required for me to make an informed choice.“Do you want the shot or not?” was the curt response. That was helpful.I took the shot because, at my age, death is not all that daunting, my study of the Pfizer trials and the VAERS database suggested that the risk of complications was under one percent, and I was happier to visit my out-of-country grandchildren than to cower in my home. For this, I have been called a sellout. Fair enough.The point is that even if my medical interlocutor had given me data on the contents and effects, it would have been inaccurate information about a shot that some experts say has the potential to cause cancer. Do I blame the medical professional who was so abrupt with me? No, because his response determined whether his license would be revoked. How do I know? Because many doctors across Canada were suspended by their respective governing bodies for sharing “unproven medical information.” Does not telling us about potential carcinogens in the shots count as “sharing unproven medical information?” I know a doctor who is soon to go before his College because he saved a patient’s life with Ivermectin. Horrors! I took Ivermectin prophylactically and, for $1 a day, never got COVID-19. That is cheaper than an apple a day. Many will argue that the shots saved me from COVID-19. Except that almost everyone I know who took the shots but not the Ivermectin got covid — more than once. Who knows... But here I am spreading unproven medical information that can be backed up by dozens of clinical trials and peer-reviewed papers.The impact of the responses to COVID-19 will be with us for many years. I think it might be necessary to evaluate the utility of professional governing bodies in their current forms and mandates. Is the role of these bodies to ensure quality of training and practice or is their role to enforce only those procedures approved by them? Is there a risk of regulatory capture of these bodies and if so, what should be done to prevent it? Is informed consent to be defined by professional regulating bodies or should a wider spectrum of society be involved in that definition?Probably the wide variety of professional regulating bodies that operate in Canada will pass any such evaluation with flying colours. But I will be interested in hearing their response to why they advocated so aggressively for a serum that had hidden contents with the potential to cause cancer. Why would I listen to them in the future? There must be a mistake.
