Editor: Any medical professional should be aware of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, implemented by the Ontario government in 2004, which states that an individual’s medical information, including vaccines, is confidential, and disclosure of that information without the consent of the individual is illegal.
Municipal solicitor David Taylor was correct in recommending council seek legal guidance before pursuing the matter further.
Rick Nicholls has been labeled as “vaccine hesitant.” I prefer to label him as “vaccine cautious.” If one takes the time to self-educate, as Rick clearly has, one will find that the mRNA graphine oxide vaccines have never been injected in humans until now.
(Editor’s note: According to fact checking by Reuters, graphene oxide is not used in any of the COVID-19 vaccines.)
Clinical trials were fast tracked, and the vaccines were authorized for emergency use only and not approved by Health Canada.
How can claims that the vaccines are safe be made when long-term side effects are unknown? Health professionals know that all drugs, including vaccines, have side effects. In Canada, the information from the Drug Adverse Effect Reporting system is available only to doctors and not open to the public. With this in mind, how can anyone be expected to make an informed decision pertaining to the vaccines? From the beginning, Health Canada issued a warning that individuals with autoimmune issues or who have a history of allergic reactions should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. As well, those who have contracted the infection have natural immunity to protect them against reinfection. Yet, all are advised to receive the vaccine. Why?
Have the individuals who have consented to receive the injections been made aware that, by doing so, they are essentially part of the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials that are required prior to the drug approval process? Mandating the administration of an experimental, unapproved vaccine as a prerequisite for employment is not a decision based on science, and should not be implemented simply because the majority of citizens have opted to do so.
I personally know individuals who have experienced side effects to these vaccines.
Council passed a motion March 1 directing administration to conduct a review with regards to implementing changes to improve the municipality’s customer service. Would the decision to mandate an experimental vaccine as a prerequisite for employment not be equally important?
Perhaps council could pass a motion to conduct a similar survey with regards to this vaccine debate. Then perhaps the concerns expressed by the “vaccine hesitant” could be laid to rest. But, until then, getting back to whether Rick Nicholls’ vaccine status is open for public scrutiny, my opinion is this: It is better to walk alone than to follow others in the wrong direction. I am right behind you, Mr. Nicholls.
Carmel Marentette
Chatham
