Facts Wither in the Battle of the Experts
Court Series #1: The Seneca College Vaccine Mandate Court Challenge
Will the courts uphold the Constitution, the supreme law of Canada, or do we live in a country where rights have been supplanted by “privileges” to be granted or taken away at the whim of whomever holds power?
Certainly, recent court rulings appear to be allowing constitutional abuses to continue. This is certainly the case for the highly discriminatory Covid-19 vaccine mandates still impacting staff and students at Seneca College and the University of Western Ontario, for which there is no scientific or evidentiary justification. While the lack of rationale for these measures was apparent in the summer of 2021, prior to vaccine mandates and travel restrictions, it has now become undeniable. So how are government bodies and those institutions acting on government influence able to circumvent the law?
Because factual evidence does not back many, if not most, of the harsh government measures imposed during the pandemic, justifications for the restrictions often involve a good deal of statistical slights of hand backed by expert opinion in fields outside their actual areas of expertise.
These tactics muddy the waters and detract from clear, irrefutable evidence that what they did was scientifically (and ethically) unjustified and indeed unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it seems the courts are either receptive to, or unaware of, such tactics.
Consider the recent case of Costa et al. vs. Seneca College.
In this case, applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the college from enforcing its Covid-19 vaccine requirement. To defend their position, Seneca called upon the expertise of an Infectious Diseases physician and a front-line physician to provide insight into the current state of medical knowledge of the Covid-19 virus. But are these experts in the best position to speak about the necessity and effectiveness of a Covid-19 vaccine policy on a college campus? This post demonstrates why the answer is an emphatic NO.
Justice Black was faced with weighing the testimony of two opposing sets of experts: on the one hand he heard the familiar mantra of medical doctors with expertise similar to those who’ve been guiding the pandemic response. On the other hand, a controversial research scientist, largely exiled from his community, raised uncomfortable concerns about the potential health risks of the novel genetic vaccines. Add to this imbalance the courts propensity to allow the presumption of an implied public benefit of vaccine mandates. This setup made it relatively easy for Justice Black to default to mainstream opinions and (falsely) claim he is taking the cautious approach that’s in the best interests of public good by denying the injunction.
It needs to be understood that the Seneca applicants were fighting an uphill battle against a great deal of systemic bias. Indeed, many similar court challenges have faced, and will likely continue to face, these same hurdles with equally disappointing outcomes if the imbalances are not addressed.
This post examines the skillset of the three experts in the Seneca case and discusses how Justice Black’s interpretation of their expertise impacted the proceedings. Since medical doctors (MDs) are routinely called upon to give expert opinion about Covid-19 measures, this discussion has relevance to other court cases of a similar nature. I also weigh in on the prejudicial nature of the public good presumption and show how it created a huge barrier for the applicants. As such, this presumption needs to be refuted if invoked in future proceedings if the applicants do not wish it to sabotage their case. The post concludes with a list of simple, scientifically irrefutable facts that should be at the forefront of any anti-mandate case and a discussion on the value of keeping irrelevant scientific distractions at bay.
I am looking at this as a statistician trained in the sciences who possesses a strong background in risk-benefit analysis. Much of statistics focuses on evaluating evidence as well as the identification and mitigation of potential sources of bias since it plays a key role in what conclusions can be drawn. And there is certainly ample opportunity for biases to invade these court proceedings.
Are MDs experts in assessing scientific evidence?
While medical doctors play a vital role in the care of Covid-19 patients, being an MD doesn’t make one an expert in the assessment of scientific evidence, risk-benefit analysis, performance measurement or statistical data analysis. The recent “redemption tour” of Dr. Aseem Malhotra illustrates this point perfectly.
The telling case of Dr. Aseem Malhotra
As I was scrolling through my twitter feed a few days back, I came upon a series of tweets by renowned cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra who, over the past year, has changed his stance on the Covid-19 vaccines. The tweets revealed the following:
Dr. Malhotra was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.
He believed it would stop transmission (and therefore reduce population burden).
He didn’t conceive of the possibility of ANY serious side effects.
He heavily promoted the vaccines, and in February 2021 appeared on Good Morning Britain to combat what he considered anti-vax propaganda at that time.1
After his dad’s unexpected death (cardiac arrest) in July 2021, he started asking questions; and,
Now he is calling for a pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19.2
Like many (perhaps most) MDs, Dr. Malhotra believed the vaccines to be safe and effective just as he was told by the medical establishment. He based his support on trust as opposed to actual evidence or knowledge. Moreover, he had conflated the new genetic injections with conventional vaccines despite huge differences in both the mechanism of action and immunity conferred. His confusion was no doubt influenced by the massive amount of propaganda equating the two. Indeed, misleading people into believing these injections were just like any other vaccine was a great way to get buy-in from medical experts, the public and even the courts without having to prove their worth.
Dr. Malhotra tweeted that he didn’t even conceive that the vaccines weren’t perfectly safe. While this may seem negligent, understand that MDs give out countless drugs every day under the assumption that approved drugs are safe and effective. It's not the MD’s job to critically evaluate them, nor do they have time to do such a thing for every drug they administer. MDs rely on regulatory agencies to do their due diligence when it comes to safety and efficacy.
Because of his trust in the regulatory body, Dr. Malhotra publicly supported the vaccines as did many other MDs. In fact, he heavily promoted them until he suffered a personal tragedy that caused him to question the vaccine’s safety. Following the second dose, Dr. Malhotra’s (very fit) father suffered rapidly progressive coronary artery disease and sudden cardiac arrest.
"His postmortem findings really shocked me. There were two severe blockages in his coronary arteries, which did not really make any sense.” — Dr. Malhotra, cardiologist
As a cardiologist with intimate knowledge of his father's lifestyle and health, Dr. Malhotra couldn’t ignore the strange findings. Once Dr. Malhotra actually researched the science pertaining to covid vaccines, he gained a new understanding of how they worked. That caused him to completely change his opinion about their safety and efficacy.
And therein lies the crux of the problem: MDs were treated like experts throughout the pandemic in fields they knew little about — from statistics & risk-benefit analysis to safety & efficacy of experimental vaccines. They were used to promote harmful public health measures.
But when it comes to relying on the opinion of MDs for these vaccines, the problem runs deeper than that.
Everyone knows the value of seeking a second opinion when it comes to getting medical advice — not all doctors agree on the best course of action. But now, that second opinion has been cancelled out of existence.
In Ontario and throughout Canada, if an MD voices any opinion that calls into question the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccines, they risk disciplinary action and possibly losing their license.3 4 Many physicians have no choice but to take the jabs themselves if they want to continue practicing in hospitals. On the other hand, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has looked the other way when overzealous MDs openly violated the CPSO drug policy and administered covid vaccines to hundreds of young children prior to Health Canada's approval. 5 6 7
So, we have MDs supporting the vaccine and other pandemic measures based on trust not expertise, while MDs who do not support them remain silent lest they be reprimanded by the CPSO. Yet, MDs have widely been regarded as the trusted go-to pandemic experts and the public has been assured of medical consensus.
It’s past time to look at these experts more closely.
The Court Challenge Against Seneca’s Vaccine Mandate
In the Seneca case, the college presented the expert testimony of two MDs while the applicants challenging the mandate presented an expert with a PhD in viral immunology. When considering the opinions offered by each expert, it is important to recognize their core areas of expertise as well as their limitations.
It should be noted that an MD program focuses on the application of medicine to diagnose and treat patients while a PhD program focuses on research to expand knowledge. This is a very important distinction when it comes to evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new experimental drug with a limited safety profile.
In Justice Black’s Seneca College endorsement issued Sept. 12th,8 he clearly favored the testimony of Seneca’s experts — Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman — both of whom are Infectious Diseases physicians. The judge was more hesitant about the testimony provided by Dr. Bridle — a PhD viral immunologist who specializes in R&D — the sole expert for the student applicants.
Justice Black noted the controversy surrounding Dr. Bridle, making mention of a letter penned by Bridle’s University of Guelph colleagues back in early July 2021 and the social media backlash against Dr. Bridle’s opinion. Justice Black also took note of Dr. Leis’ “remarkable and singular kind of criticism” regarding Dr. Bridle’s work. The judge admitted that this emphatic criticism by Dr. Leis caused him to approach Dr. Bridle’s views with further caution.
It appears, based on the endorsement, that Justice Black weighed the perceived credibility of the experts more so than the factualness of the evidence they presented, then judged accordingly.
So, let’s take a look at the expertise of Dr. Leis, Dr. Vaisman and Dr. Bridle and see how well they match the issues relevant to the case at hand. For this comparison, I looked over the research papers of all three experts as listed on the National Library of Medicine as well as their online biographies. My assessment of their work is presented below.
Seneca’s Experts
Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman are Infectious Diseases physicians who carry out clinical research. Their publications appear to be predominantly of a practical nature for the routine care of individuals, but are fairly weak in terms of evidentiary merit — more like discussion pieces (e.g. associative correlations as opposed to strong or causative links).
Dr Leis:
The papers by Dr. Leis demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor, are quite limited in scope, with some containing erroneous conclusions and improper inferences. One such example is an early covid paper that erroneously supported the conjecture that the virus is spread by droplet transmission, not airborne.9
While Dr. Leis likely can speak to mainstream opinion within his practice, he appears to lack the analytic background to evaluate experimental treatments and critically weigh the evidence.
Typical studies that he is involved in aim to further whatever the consensus approach happens to be, and not by much. Additionally, his level of contribution is diffused by large numbers of co-authors. His pattern is to go with a consensus approach as opposed to a more objective scientific approach that assesses strength of evidence. This is very problematic with new treatments that initially carry a great deal of poorly characterized uncertainty and risk.
Dr. Leis can speak to issues related to patient care. He can provide some insight into vaccine effectiveness/immune response for a limited subgroup of dialysis/hemodialysis patients. He has taken part in research that discusses the waning of vaccine immunity, poor immunogenicity and vaccine effectiveness in these patients.101112 13 These observations are not generalizable to the greater population.
Dr. Vaisman
Dr. Vaisman is a front-line physician involved in direct clinical care and management of Covid-19 patients, he can speak to hospital outbreaks and patient care throughout the pandemic.
He co-authored a paper that discussed a Covid outbreak amongst vaccinated patients and healthcare workers that occurred at the Toronto Western Hospital in June 2021 during the Delta variant. All cases were amongst the vaccinated, so perhaps he can speak to the apparent lack of vaccine efficacy back when the vaccines were purportedly more effective.14
Topics Outside the Seneca’s Experts Core Areas of Expertise:
It should be noted that Health Canada’s established decision-making framework calls for a risk-benefit approach so it would be prudent to question the expert’s knowledge on this, specific to the college population.
Quantitative risk-benefit analysis:
Discussions involving the benefits and risks of Covid-19 vaccination of healthy, young adults and students attending college/university appear to be outside their core areas of expertise.
Their opinions are more likely to be based on their assessment of the current state (accepted view) of medical knowledge as opposed to a scientific assessment of the risks and benefits of the vaccines for this population.
MDs are not trained to evaluate the safety and efficacy of experimental drugs and there is nothing apparent in the Seneca experts’ research backgrounds or online profiles that indicates they are qualified to conduct such evaluations.
The Applicants’ Expert
Dr. Bridle holds an MSc and PhD in immunology with a post-doctoral fellowship in viral immunology. His research has focused on cancer-related aspects of immunology and the development of vaccines. Dr. Bridle can speak to complex issues of the immune system and the development of biotherapies and vaccines. Over the course of his career investigating viruses at an R&D level, Dr. Bridle has become intimately involved in the full process from theory to early development through to testing and eventual implementation of a mature product. His research papers specific to Covid-19 include:
The exploration of intranasal NDV-vectored vaccines as a viable option for protection against COVID-19.15
Exploring mechanisms of how SARS-CoV-2 affects the brain, with an emphasis on the role of the spike protein in patients with neurological symptoms.16
Exploring components of the first-generation viral vector and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that are believed to contribute to adverse reactions and which may negatively impact fetal and neonatal development.17
Exploring a plausible biological mechanism through which SARS-CoV-2 may trigger a cascade of escalated immune responses (cytokine storm syndrome). Implications for the treatment of patients and the development of vaccines are also discussed.18
Dr. Bridle is trained to think critically about existing knowledge, not just accept it. He can speak to the plausible mechanisms of harm and potential for unintended health impacts of Covid-19 vaccines. However, the likelihood of these potential harms and how they will play out in the population is largely unknown since the observation windows in the clinical trials were short, there’s very limited long-term data available, and adverse vaccine events are not being actively tracked and monitored.
How Justice Black (Mis)interpreted the Expertise of the Experts
How well do the statements made in Justice Black’s Sept. 12th endorsement, on their own, reflect the strengths and limitations of the experts?
Throughout Justice Black’s endorsement, the qualifications of the Seneca experts were often played up whilst the qualifications of Dr. Bridle were downplayed. One particularly striking comment appeared as follows:
“Dr. Bridle is neither a physician nor a veterinarian, and accordingly has had no experience in treating patients of any kind…Dr. Leis describes Dr. Bridle as a “bench scientist” with expertise in “immunology focused mainly on the pre-clinical development of therapies…””
That statement highlights why Dr. Bridle’s expertise is arguably more relevant to the current case than those of the two physicians since under normal circumstances this injection would still be in the pre-market R&D stage. Oddly enough, the comment appears to be used as a slight against Dr. Bridle, thus demonstrating that neither the judge nor Dr. Leis understood the brunt of the mandate challenge.
Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman can certainly speak to issues related to patient care, the importance of hygiene, and the use of personal protective equipment in controlling viral outbreaks in hospital settings. But this court case is not about treating patients or washing your hands, it’s about mandating a new, experimental vaccine and Dr. Bridle is in a far superior position to speak to the problems of utilizing an injection of this nature.
That the court may not fully appreciate this fundamental point is very problematic; if left uncorrected, it tilts the proceedings against the applicants. The reasons are twofold: First, the testimony of the Seneca experts may be considered more relevant and reliable than is the case while the testimony of Dr. Bridle may seem less pertinent. Second, it indicates that the judge and the MDs are not considering the experimental nature of the Covid-19 vaccines. This speaks to the conflation problem discussed earlier where the rushed-to-market unproven genetic vaccines are inappropriately equated to conventional, well-vetted vaccines. The presumption of safety, efficacy and “public good” follow. Indeed, the whole “anti-vaxxer” jargon that has permeated media over the past year has only solidified this coupling — when even MDs are influenced by the propaganda, it’s naïve to think the courts are immune.
Labels matter. Indeed, many people took notice when, during a summer press conference, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health referred to the new injections as “therapeutics.” Simply labelling something a vaccine doesn’t make it so… unless you change the definition (a topic for another day).
As a related example, consider how often the term “Covid deaths” is interpreted as the number of individuals who died FROM covid instead of WITH covid. Even Dr. Tam has interpreted Covid deaths as the number of deaths caused by SARS‑CoV‑2.19 This misinterpretation has had a huge impact on public perception and the need for drastic measures. The same is true of using the word “vaccine” to describe the mRNA injections.
In order to combat the perception that the new injections are just like conventional vaccines, a modifier such as “experimental” or “experimental, genetic” should be used whenever discussing the Covid-19 vaccines.
The Presumption of Public Good: A Pervasive Bias
To some extent Justice Black can be forgiven for thinking the opinions of the medical doctors are more relevant than is really the case since MDs have routinely been called upon to weigh in on pandemic measures, to let everyone know the dire state of our healthcare system, and to convince the public that the best, and only, way forward is through vaccination. But as noted above, this misconception can lead to (unintentional) bias.
When it comes to the evaluation of vaccine safety, how well they performed, and the justification for vaccine mandates, keeping all the biases in check is challenging. Some biases, such as those inherent in covid statistics, are easy for objective analysts to identify (though they are often being ignored). Other biases, such as those ingrained in public perceptions, may prove more difficult. The unprecedented, highly disruptive pandemic response no doubt has had a profound impact on people emotionally and psychologically with conditions ripe for groupthink to overtake objective, critical evaluation. As such, widely held presumptions regarding pandemic measures may be heavily biased.
Consider Seneca’s argument that their vaccine policy should carry the presumption of public good. The following statement was duly noted in Justice Black’s endorsement:
“Courts are to assume that implied benefit to the public of an impugned policy, and “will not order lightly” such a policy inoperable without a complete constitutional review: Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 SCC 57, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764, at para. 9”
The presumption of public good comes into play both directly as well as indirectly through reliance on previous court rulings. For example, Justice Black referred to three court challenges that relied heavily on the presumption of public good, using them to negate the applicant’s alleged violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter. Two of these court challenges were held prior to the Omicron surge while the third challenge occurred in March 2022 by which time the vaccine policy in question had already been rescinded because “circumstances and public health measures have changed.” In fact, all three cases contain arguments regarding both the safety and efficacy of the vaccines that have been shown to be factually incorrect for the Omicron variant. This highlights the folly of the “public good” presumption and the danger of referring to previous covid-related court challenges that employed the presumption and relied on other scientifically unsubstantiated claims that changed over time.
The “public good” presumption is highly problematic for several reasons. First, a public benefit was never established for the vaccine mandates, though the notion has been ingrained into the public psyche through endless repetition in the media. Second, the presumption provides a false sense that upholding the policy for these EXPERIMENTAL vaccines is the more cautious approach. Finally, the presumption is likely to permeate all aspects of the case thus creating an insurmountable bias in favour of the respondents. To see this final point, appreciate that “public good” is an overly broad, unspecified concept that naturally confers a sense that the vaccines must be “safe and effective” and that allows the judge to buy into the notion that the opinions presented by Seneca’s experts are accepted truths. If their testimony is overvalued by the judge, as discussed in the previous section, then any such bias is correspondingly amplified.
There are numerous indications that such a pervasive bias was present in the Seneca case.
In Justice Black’s endorsement, he states that courts rely “on opinions firmly grounded in accepted standards in the fields from which they are offered” but he fails to recognize that the Seneca experts are testifying in areas outside their core field of expertise.
He further states:
“A minority view, may carry considerable weight in a courtroom if reflecting a reputable body of opinion within the field at issue.”
Hmm.
Are Nobel prize winners not reputable?
How about one of the creators of the mRNA technology that’s being used for these vaccines?
Or a former vice president of Pfizer?
Or the most published peer-reviewed cardiologist and internist in the world?
How about Denmark — they’ve stopped making the vaccines available to anyone under 50. Are they not reputable?
The Ontario Minister of Health advised that young, healthy individuals weigh the risks of serious vaccine injury such as myocarditis/pericarditis against the very, very small benefit of vaccination. ls he not reputable?
Are there no reputable opinions within the tens of thousands of scientists and medical practitioners that signed the Great Barrington Declaration?
The Florida State Surgeon General now recommends against males aged 18-39 from receiving mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. The Florida Department of Health has issued the following guidance:20
“Based on currently available data, patients should be informed of the possible cardiac complications that can arise after receiving a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac related death among men in this (18-39 years) age group.”
Yet, Seneca demands that the students and staff in this cohort subject themselves to this risk in order to receive an education or retain their income. Is this requirement really based “on opinions firmly grounded in accepted standards”?
This is not a “fringe minority”. There are more than “a handful of physicians, other scientists and health providers” that disagree with Seneca’s experts. The courts must take notice. Take a look at the cross section of individuals who’ve spoken out against the vaccine mandates with everything to lose and nothing to gain. Look at the protests regarding these vaccines. There are MANY reputable bodies that do not accept the validity of Covid-19 vaccine mandates, nor the views put forth by Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman. To trust that the views held by Seneca’s experts are “well-accepted” is to deny the obvious controversy and growing discontent.
The judge goes on to state:
“Beliefs without a firm foundation in accepted and tested propositions within a given area of study or endeavor may have less traction in court.”
Well, guess what? The vaccines were tested.
They were given out to tens of millions of Canadians, and they FAILED to stop transmission.
Cases SURGED to new heights after the vaccine rollout. The vast majority of Canadians appear to have caught the virus and gotten over it. And while the Seneca experts maintain that there are significant preventative benefits of the current vaccines even against the Omicron variant, we have yet to see any, especially in the student-aged population.
While Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman’s testimonies may be well-supported by corporate media and politicians, the question is whether they are actually supported by the FACTS. Several statements made by Seneca’s experts upon which Justice Black appears to have put his faith in are either unsubstantiated and refutable, provably untrue, or irrelevant to the case.
Consider, for example, Justice Black’s reliance on their assertions that: (1) there are significant preventative benefits of the current vaccines (2) the vaccines prevent infection in a substantial percentage of people, and (3) the vaccines significantly reduce the risk and impact of the virus, if contracted, in the vast majority of vaccinated patients. What specifically do the vaccines prevent? Not infection. Not transmission. Not serious illness nor death.21 And how are benefits in hospital patients relevant to healthy students and staff at Seneca College?
There is also some question as to whether Seneca’s experts, and more excusably the judge, understand the scientific research process. Consider the following statement pulled from the endorsement:
“More concerning, Seneca’s experts note that there is no evidence that the vaccines potentially cause long term neurological damage, as Dr. Bridle alleges, and they observe that he overstates other risks of the vaccines and omits or ignores important studies in the area.”
First, the onus of proof regarding vaccine safety is on the pharmaceutical companies and, given our government’s desire to rush these vaccines to market, they were given a free pass when it came to demonstrating long-term safety. In fact, these drugs were approved with no long-term safety data whatsoever. Even their short-term safety profiles were lacking. This speaks to the experimental nature of these drugs. It also speaks to the importance of Dr. Bridle’s expertise in identifying plausible mechanisms of harm and potential for unintended health impacts. Which brings me to the second point: the Seneca experts don’t seem to understand or value the role of R&D experts nor appreciate the limits of their own knowledge. Finally, it’s important to understand that uncertainty equates to risk, and due to their rapid development and deployment (months instead of a decade), the vaccines come with much uncertainty.
Once you understand the uncertainty in the system and the potential for harm (huge) versus the potential for benefit (small), you realize just how difficult it is to overstate the risk our health care authorities and government bodies have subjected the public to in the reckless way they’ve rolled out these vaccines. While specific risks are not mentioned in Justice Black’s statement, the opinion of Seneca’s experts that vaccine risks have been overplayed and that these injections are “safe and effective” is simply naïve given the abundance of evidence to the contrary. Moreover, whether Dr. Bridle overstated certain risks is a matter of scientific debate that is superfluous to the matter at hand. That being said, an independent, measured overview of the risk-benefit profile of these vaccines for students and staff may help provide clarity regarding the extent to which constitutional rights are being violated.
The lack of long-term safety data should be considered a huge shortcoming of the covid clinical trials and a strike against the vaccine mandate as opposed to a slight against Dr. Bridle. Instead, Justice Black has found it more concerning that Dr. Bridle may be overstating vaccine risk.
I’m left to wonder if Justice Black is looking through the wrong end of the telescope… bias can be so pervasive.
The endorsement contains a fair amount of verbiage to justify the court’s preference for the testimony given by Seneca’s experts over that given by Dr. Bridle, including mention of the unflattering letter penned over a year ago by many of Dr. Bridle’s colleagues. The date of this letter is particularly relevant since much has transpired over the past year that has tested and cast doubt on the claims made against Dr. Bridle. Certainly, the signatories’ confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines didn’t age well and it does call into question their ability to account for uncertainty and to adequately characterize “misinformation.” Moreover, the endorsement’s glaring omission of any reference to the undeniable surge in cases following the vaccine rollout that clearly demonstrates the vaccines failure in terms of reducing transmission is difficult to defend. How long can courts pretend this didn’t happen?
I do not see much in Justice Black’s endorsement regarding the counter-arguments made by the applicants’ legal counsel or Dr. Bridle refuting the expert testimony provided by Seneca or the presumption of public good. Based solely on the endorsement, I am left to wonder if much of a challenge was launched at all. If one was launched, it certainly didn’t come out in Justice Black’s comments and that would lead to even greater concerns about potential bias.
Regaining the Plot: Focus on the Irrefutable
Two sets of expert opinions were weighed against each other with conditions favorable to the status quo. But opinion isn’t fact and the court needs to decipher between the two.
While Dr. Leis and Dr. Vaisman can provide awareness of issues related to patient care and hospital outbreaks during the pandemic, such insight doesn’t extend to the population of mostly healthy young adult students and staff attending college and university. The risk of severe illness due to covid for the applicants and their peers is very, very low and there is no supportive scientific evidence that they or unvaccinated individuals pose a disproportionate risk to others.
While Dr. Bridle can shed insight into the potential harms that may result from taking the experimental vaccines, there is plenty of non-controversial evidence that the applicants can draw from to further their cause. The main pillars (most relevant facts) of evidence are irrefutable, easy to comprehend and they need to be hammered home. Namely:
Covid-19 is highly transmissible regardless of vaccination status
The vaccine does not stop infection
Covid-19 presents a serious risk to a small, but identifiable group of individuals, namely the elderly and those with comorbid conditions
Covid-19 presents minimal risk, comparable to the common cold, to most individuals, especially the young and healthy
Vaccinated individuals transmit covid and cases surged to new heights after the vaccine rollout
Clinical trials for the mRNA vaccines did not establish a reduction in all-cause hospitalization, serious illness, nor mortality
Covid-19 vaccines have been linked to serious health outcomes, as acknowledged by Health Canada, such as: allergic reactions, cardiovascular injury (myocarditis/pericarditis), blood clots and strokes, capillary leak syndrome, neurological/immunological issues such as Bell’s Palsy and Guillain-Barré syndrome
At the time of vaccine authorization, many serious adverse health impacts were not known or flagged but have since been identified (such as the new syndrome of vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic (VITT), myocarditis/pericarditis etc.)
Covid-19 vaccines lack sufficient long-term safety data
Vaccine adverse events are not being actively tracked and monitored in Canada.
Moreover, recent reports indicate that the majority of people in Canada have already had Covid-19. So why are institutions clinging to this vaccine nonsense?
Many of the above observations were clear from the early days of the vaccine rollout and have become even more painfully obvious since the emergence of the Omicron variant. One doesn’t need a science degree to see it. The simple facts listed above make it very difficult to justify the vaccine mandate. But what makes the pro-mandate stance even more dubious are the vaccine assertions that have NOT been established, namely:
That Covid-19 vaccines reduce community transmission
That the mandatory vaccine policies provide a public benefit
That “unvaccinated” pose a greater risk to the community.
Moreover, the college has not specified the length of time students will be expected to adhere to the policy or face exclusion from educational programs and activities. Nor have they specified the total number of doses that a student will be required to take over the course of their program. That, coupled with the fact that all but a fringe-minority of hold-out universities have dropped the vaccine requirement, indicate that the policy is both arbitrary and unnecessary (a LOT more can be said about the arbitrary and unnecessary nature of the mandate, but I’ll leave that for a later post).
The above facts are all problematic for the pro-mandate stance and no amount of expert opinion or statistical gymnastics can change them. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be stopping some misguided institutions from trying.
While evidence does not support the use of covid vaccine mandates, courts seem content in acting oblivious to the obvious. They go on pretending that the post-vaccination covid surge doesn’t reflect a failure of the vaccines and that the growing body of discontent doesn’t challenge the “well-accepted” views of those pushing for mandates. As such, it may be necessary to draw upon the expertise of those equipped to evaluate scientific evidence to help keep the courts focused on the factual elements of the case and to combat any statistical illusions or flawed studies being used to muddy the waters. A good statistician may help keep irrelevant “scientific” riffraff at bay.
Concluding Remarks
We’re well into our third year of government overreach and have yet to be offered any real justification for the harsh measures we’ve been subjected to. Instead, the tiresome slogans and empty platitudes continue — “we’re in a pandemic”, “it’s for the greater good” — as if these phrases alone negate the need for any real justification or evidence of necessity.
While the Constitution is supposed to protect our fundamental rights and freedoms from government abuses, courts appear reluctant to rule against government measures or concede that our rights have been trampled on. Instead of objectively weighing the evidence to determine legal merit, some courts and arbitrators appear content to defer to the opinions of experts who offer little in terms of facts pertinent to the cases at hand. This has caused many to question the integrity of the judicial system.
In the Seneca court challenge, an interlocutory injunction was sought to prevent the college from enforcing its Covid-19 vaccine requirement based on constitutional grounds. As noted by Seneca’s legal team, only in the clearest of cases do such interlocutory injunctions succeed and courts often assume an implied benefit to the public of the impugned policy. However, in the case of vaccine mandates, the facts underpinning the notion of public good and those speaking to violations of the applicants’ Charter rights are inextricably intertwined. Thus, such a presumption greatly tilts the proceedings in Seneca’s favour.
Indeed, the presumption of public good is particularly nefarious as it results in a compounding bias; the presumption must be rebutted in any future cases if applicants do not wish it to prejudice the proceedings.
The views of two medical doctors with expertise in the treatment of patients were called upon to justify Seneca’s requirement that all students and staff be vaccinated irrespective of age, risk of infection or transmission or whether they have anything to gain from being vaccinated. Their views and opinions appeared to resonate with the judge. Meanwhile, the expertise of the applicants’ one and only expert — a viral immunologist who specializes in research and development of biotherapies and vaccines — was viewed with great caution. Perhaps additional, less controversial, experts could help bring clarity to the science and facts supporting the applicants’ stance.
Even so, there are other challenges.
The argument can be made that the Charter does not apply to Seneca’s action. While I believe it should apply and Justice Black assumed, arguendo, that the Charter does apply, it is not a forgone conclusion. In subsequent proceedings Seneca may very well argue that the Charter doesn’t apply and, if it does, will argue that no violations occur under the policy. Finally, if the court finds that the policy does violate Charter rights and freedoms, Seneca may then argue that the violations were justified as per Section 1 of the Charter. On that front, it can be shown that the vaccine mandates do not, in any reasonable manner, pass the Oakes test justifying the violation in Charter rights. The courts would be remis to rule otherwise. I will leave that discussion for another post.
The evidence against the vaccines is mounting and soon the dam will break. The courts will not be able to so easily dismiss controversial experts and uncomfortable evidence without destroying whatever semblance of credibility they still have amongst the people they’re supposed to serve.
From an evidentiary viewpoint there is no question that these experimental vaccines did not meet the onus of proof required to impose mandatory vaccinations. There is no question that for healthy young adults and children the RISKS of these injections FAR OUTWEIGH any possible BENEFITS. That is what an objective, scientific assessment yields. That was clear a year ago and it’s even more clear now.
And unlike the Seneca experts on this point, I am speaking well within my area of expertise.
CPSO - Prescribing Drugs: “Physicians must not prescribe drugs that have not been approved for use in Canada (i.e., drugs for which Health Canada has not issued a Notice of Compliance) except in the limited circumstances permitted by Health Canada.”
We need a combination of a good lawyer who understands science, a math type who understands statistics, a bio scientist, and a reasonably honest judge.
I think "good lawyer who understands science" is the toughest controllable criterion.
Well written article. BTW...are you still active on substack?