Reflections on leaving Canada: The VX
Publishing my Religious Exemption from 2021 as a goodbye note
A lesson in Courage
A lot of people are asking me these days, “What made you decide to uproot your life in rural Canada to move to the Chicago suburbs?” Great question!
It all started in 2021 when I was being made a second class citizen in my own country due to a decision around what medical product goes into or doesn’t go into my body.
I never imagined leaving Canada in my life, we have our families, we love our little community, and as a Canadian historian I appreciate the culture, attitude, and spirit of the Canadian people and how we use the wilderness to define ourselves.
But I hated what happened during the pandemic. I hated how my neighbours turned into snitches. I hated how media made people like me the enemy. I hated how government took away our rights. I hated everything, and it felt like everyone hated me. It seemed like everyday in 2021 I mentioned to my wife, I need to get out of this country, intensifying in the fall when the government imposed vaccine mandates came into affect.
Remember, I was banned from legally leaving my country, I became a prisoner.
My wife has always had the option to apply for international positions in her work, but we never were open to that idea. She mentioned to me in fall 2021 that she could become open to international relocation and I said “PLEASE MAKE IT YESTERDAY”
2022 and 2023 came and went and things slowly returned to normal in Canada, and to be honest we kind of forgot that international relocation was part of our plan. Then my wife needed a promotion at the beginning of the year and we were thrown back into the possibility of getting out of Canada.
The pain of how I was treated by those closest to me all the way on out to society at large still impacts how I feel about Canadians and this country. And wouldn’t you know it, as I was back home packing up things for our move I came across my old religious exemption for the vaccine mandate my university employer inhumanely imposed upon me.
When people ask me about courage to stand up on principle, this is one of my proudest moments. It was SO HARD friends, but I never wavered and my wife supported me, she always told me the truth, but never threw me under the bus like everyone else in my life. So this move is part of me paying her back for defending me when I needed it the most.
Many have asked me to share that document so now it seems appropriate. The fact I had to do this just to keep an ‘online teaching job’ where I was not in physical contact with ANYONE is just one of the many reasons we are leaving Canada. It was a humiliation ritual, but one I can say I passed.
Below you can read the entire exemption request. There are 36 citations ranging from medical information to religious scripture. It’s 5 single spaced lines of text. I had to get it notarized by an officer of the court too, and had many lawyers say directly to my face they refused to notarize it and believed I shouldn’t even have the chance to apply for a religious exemption.
I believe my consistent habit of trail running gave me the courage to keep fighting for what I believed was right. It helped me find the signal of my heart through the noise of my brain. It’s what helped me stay up late putting this document together.
If you need proof that training for your spirit gives you the willpower to take courageous stands when it matters the most, this is it.
I’ve written articles on courage, on training for your spirit, on being creative with exercise, in using love and fun to orient your aim, on having internal motivation guide you towards value and truth, and you shouldn’t believe the words by themselves. Match them with how I act, with what I do day to day, with how I live, and how I show up in the hardest seasons of live ready to embrace the struggle and smile through the adversity (as best I can of course).
2025 is the year we all double down on living through the heart. That’s why I’m sharing this today. Final days in Canada. We’ll be back. But first, we need to get away.
Happy Training Friends
Dr. Jordan Goldstein Religious Exemption
Section I: Religious Objection – Aborted Fetal Cells
Pursuant to Section 1 of the OHRC, Ontario Universities must not discriminate against employees by denying accommodation, including accommodation for those unable to receive Covid-19 vaccines due to their religion or creed. To do otherwise would be unlawful discrimination. I was raised in the Jewish religion and believe deeply and strongly in my Jewish faith, in the sanctity of all human life, and that abortion is immoral (except in order to save the mother’s life). This initially derives from scripture and the mitzvah (good deed) of p’ru ur’vu that we should be fruitful and multiply [1]. This is extensively documented in the Talmud and recognized by contemporary religious leaders. The Babylonian Talmud as described by Rabbi Bleich ““The Gemara concludes that the embryo is endowed with a soul at the moment of conception. Moreover, the Sages taught, “There are three partners in [the generation of] man: the father, the mother, and G-d [2].” Contemporary evidence includes statements from the highest religious authorities, “The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of America, Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, clearly stated the position of Jewish law [Halacha] on abortion when he said: All major religions have their parochial and their universal aspects, and the problem of abortion is not a parochial one. It is of universal morality, and it is neither a Catholic problem, nor a Jewish problem, nor a Protestant problem. It involves the killing of a human being, an act forbidden by universal commandment [3].” All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus have been produced and/or tested with cell lines originating from aborted children [4]. The J&J vaccine “is an adenoviral vector grown in the PER.C6 cell line that originated from a healthy 18-week-old aborted child [5]” and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested using the “morally compromised HEK-293 cell line,” originating from “a child aborted in the Netherlands in 1972 [6].” The highest principle regarding health for Jewish individuals is to preserve life. This is referred to as ‘Pikuach Nephesh’ and derives from Genesis 1:27 ““And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him [7].” This means that almost all religious laws can be broken in the service of saving one life. Given that abortion destroys life and that Jewish religion demands us to preserve life, taking a product with aborted fetal cells goes against any religious prescription to ensure my own safety by taking a vaccine. Only if I am in mortal danger can I be made to override this religious mandate, and I will prove later (see Section 2) that I am indeed not in mortal danger if I do not take the vaccine. Therefore I refuse to participate in the promotion of death based on my religious stance against abortion which is linked to the Covid-19 Vaccines through the use of aborted fetal cell tissues.
Section 2: Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines vs. Age Stratified Risk
I will now address the safety and efficacy of the vaccines against alternative treatments and age stratified risks. Only in the case of mortal danger without effective alternatives can Jewish law compel me to be vaccinated against my individual choice. These conditions are not currently met in Ontario which allows me to override the advice of religious and medical leaders and to follow my own conscience on the matter. Denying me this option amounts to religious discrimination as outlined in Section 1 of the OHRC.
In Jewish Law we are obliged to keep our bodies healthy and immunization of proven medicines is required. This is covered by the ideal of refu’ah bedukah “"Jewish tradition would define immunization as part of the mitzvah of healing and recognize it as a required measure, since we are not entitled to endanger ourselves or the children for whom we are responsible by refusing proven medical treatment [8]." However, this only refers to proven medical treatment and cannot include coercive measures to compel vaccination “however, are of the opinion that while we can at times force someone to receive medical treatment, we cannot, from a purely halachic perspective, compel a healthy person or a parent to vaccinate, even if his or her refusal is based on an “irrational fear [9].”” Religious and Jewish Legal scholar Ofra G. Golan argues “However, when the patient feels that adherence to the doctor’s advice might cause him harm, or if he worries that the proposed treatment might put him at risk, or when the patient feels that he needs a certain therapeutic intervention that is not necessarily indicated by medical opinion, his opinion must be respected and accepted. This rule is derived from the verse “the heart knoweth its own bitterness” (in Hebrew, the bitterness of his soul).34 What this actually means is that “in regard to anything required by the patient, his own assessment of his needs is supreme and overrides any medical opinion ... But in the reverse circumstances, when medical opinion requires a possibly lifesaving action not deemed necessary, or rejected, by the patient, his wishes must be disregarded, even at the cost of his spiritual ideals … and a fortiori his physical considerations [10].” This means that a patient can demand alternative treatments or methods when they may provide similar benefits and cannot be compelled into accepting a medicine they do not believe is in their best interest. Please refer to Section 3 of this letter for extensive evidence that this Vaccine and Mandate are both not ‘proven’ and also that informed consent is being violated.
Regarding Vaccination in Ontario, there are clear alternatives that have been employed beyond vaccination to ensure public health. Very effective NPIs have been deployed widely in Ontario including the use of social distancing, wearing of facial masks, handwashing and proper hygiene, use of sanitation and disinfection, and the use of PCR and rapid antigen testing. There is also no grave danger as indicated by the average global infection fatality rate (IFR) which is very low at 0.15% according to a major systematic review that was published before the Covid-19 vaccines became widely available [11]. In terms of protection for unvaccinated uninfected individuals, evidence suggests that most people have common, pre-existing and cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 both during and before the pandemic [12-13]. In a study population with only 0.6% prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, a very high seroprevalence rate of 90-99% was observed showing positive antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens including spike protein, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain and/or nucleocapsid protein, [14] confirming previous reports of crossreactive IgG antibody to conserved SARS-CoV-2 protein epitopes pre-pandemic [13]. In terms of long-term protection after natural infection, studies show considerable immune memory is observable for at least up to 8 months after Covid-19 infection for cases that were asymptomatic, mild, moderate, or severe [14]. Given these facts about infection and alternative safety measures, it is unreasonable to force myself to inject a medication into my body that carries known risks while denying me other options that do not carry those risks that also respect public health and preserve my health and those of the community. In Ontario already, two vaccines that were initially promoted as safe and effective were pulled back after side affects were discovered. In particular AstraZeneca was removed due to blood clotting issues [15] and Moderna was recently recommended against for males aged 18-24 because of increased risks of Myocarditis/Pericarditis [16]. Furthermore a whistleblower also reported to the prestigious British Medical Journal that Pzifer vaccine trial data is compromised because of a desire for speed over “data integrity and patient safety [17].” Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that these vaccines are not ‘proven medicines’ that would compel me to follow immunization based on Jewish Law. Please see section 3 for further evidence of the ‘experimental nature’ of these Vaccines.
Jewish Law compels us to listen to medical experts, however, individuals are allowed to break religious imperatives in Jewish law when compelled even in the case of ‘proven medicines.’ Again the religious directive that “The heart knoweth its own bitterness [18]” allows a patient to override medical opinions as a religious directive. An example of this comes from fasting on Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement. Even if a doctor will allow an individual to fast due to medical reasons, that individual can subjectively override their orders and break the fast if they feel their health is in jeopardy. In Halacha (Jewish Law) we are compelled to keep our bodies in good health and to trust the medical consensus opinion. Yet individuals are also allowed to break these religious imperatives in order to protect and preserve life. In this case, my subjective analysis of the risks posed by the vaccines against the risk of contracting the virus means I believe that I am more at risk of serious adverse events by taking the vaccine as opposed to contracting Covid 19 (see stats and analysis above regarding side effects and vaccines being pulled). Health Canada warns young adults under 40 that taking an mNRA vaccine carries a higher risk of developing Myocarditis/Pericarditis than exists in the general population. [19] According to Jewish Law only in instances of immediate death can medical officers override a patient’s subjective evaluation of their own ‘bitterness.’ The survival rate for 30-39 year olds from Covid 19 as calculated by epidemiologist John Ioannidis from Stanford University using publicly obtained data is 99.969% [20]. In Ontario, using data supplied by the Government, 98,212 individuals between the age of 30-39 have tested positive for Covid 19 while only 73 individuals have died (CFR of 0.0743% or chance of survival at 99.9257%) [21]. This data clearly shows that I am not at immediate risk of death and therefore my wishes to not take the Covid 19 vaccine does not violate the Jewish law to preserve health. Furthermore, given the NPI’s that have been employed and accommodations being given in certain contexts (such as testing options), it is not reasonable to deny me these options. Also, some medical options such as preventative care using Vitamin D supplementation [22-23] and the use of Tumeric Curcumin [24-25] are not being advised by the government and thus constitutes a justified exercise of my subjective opinion under Jewish Law: “or when the patient feels that he needs a certain therapeutic intervention that is not necessarily indicated by medical opinion, his opinion must be respected and accepted [10].”
Because the Covid 19 Vaccine is not needed to prevent imminent death Jewish law permits me to rely on my own subjective determination of how best to preserve my life. Be refusing me alternative options when they exist also denies my right to make health care choices based in Jewish Law. Forcing a Covid 19 Vaccine on me therefore discriminates against my religious freedom and beliefs.
Section 3: The Right to Informed Consent
As a researcher and teacher employed by the University, I believe strongly in the core principles of research ethics. These are respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. I am duty bound to abide by them as required in the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) for Ethical Conduct of Research bounds me to abide by these guiding principles [26]. Respect for persons includes the following commitments to autonomy and free and informed consent: “Autonomy includes the ability to deliberate about a decision and to act based on that deliberation. Respecting autonomy means giving due deference to a person’s judgment and ensuring that the person is free to choose without interference. Autonomy is not exercised in isolation but is influenced by a person’s various connections to family, to community, and to cultural, social, linguistic, religious and other groups [26].”
The Interim Order for Health Canada’s Covid-19 vaccines, the academic literature, and news releases from various health authorities indicate these vaccines are still in experimental trials. Full and complete efficacy and safety data will not be provided until at least May 2023 and comes with significant bodily risks. Below is a very brief summary: 1) Covid-19 vaccines in Canada are only temporarily authorized under an Interim Order which expires in May 3, 2022 [27]. Health Canada vaccine authorizations require continued collection of on-going study data including reporting of adverse events. The list of adverse events documented by Health Canada has over 50 different types of reported events including some of the following serious adverse events following vaccination: myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), capillary leak syndrome, and death [28]. These risks are greater for me based on my age and sex categories. These are only the known short-term risks and there is currently no data on the long-term effects over years or decades and/or repeated dosing. 2) Current vaccines are missing critical scientific efficacy and pharmacological safety data. In Part 2 Content (2) (d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k) it states that the application for Interim Order approval of a covid-19 drug must provide this information [27]. However, vaccine manufacturers have failed to provide much of this data, specifically, the pharmacokinetic and carcinogenicity studies in animal species for safety surveillance. For example, this is clearly stated in the Regulatory Decision Summary for Pfizer here: [29] “One limitation of the data at this time is the lack of information on the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The identified limitations are managed through labelling and the Risk Management Plan. The Phase 3 Study is ongoing and will continue to collect information on the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There are post-authorization commitments for monitoring the long-term safety and efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” This information will not be available until at least May 2023 [30]. 3) Covid-19 vaccines were not tested for efficacy in terms of viral transmission, severe disease, hospitalization, or even death: “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus [31].” Therefore, the vaccines have no proven ability to reduce rates of viral transmission and thus mandatory vaccination cannot be expected to reduce the rates of transmission on University campuses. 4) There is data showing that vaccine mandates will not stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as fully vaccinated individuals can still transmit the virus: “Adults who have been fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 can carry the same viral load of the delta variant as those who are unvaccinated…We know that vaccination does not stop infection and transmission [32].” 5) Informed consent for the above and other serious complications from mass vaccination have not been provided to individuals, specifically, the emergence of antibody-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE) which is when vaccination leads to worsening of clinical disease than compared to no vaccination. This is a well-known and documented phenomenon that has occurred with all other coronavirus vaccines tested within the past decade: [33] “COVID19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).” This information has not been communicated by Health Canada nor the University. 6) The absolute risk reduction from Covid-19 vaccines is very low [34] and vaccination does not prevent transmission or infection of SARS-CoV-2 even in highly vaccinated populations[35]. Although the relative risk reductions for Covid-19 vaccines varies considerably, the absolute risk reductions for all are very low: [34] “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.” In a recent study of health care workers with a very high vaccination rate of 87% showed similarly high infection rates in both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, none of which resulted in death:[35] “Symptoms were present in 109 of the 130 fully vaccinated workers (83.8%) and in 80 of the 90 unvaccinated workers (89.9%). (The remaining 7 workers were only partially vaccinated.) No deaths were reported in either group; one unvaccinated person was hospitalized for SARSCoV-2-related symptoms.” 7) Compulsory vaccination is a violation of several human rights protections specifically related to ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including the Nuremberg Code and the Declarations of Geneva and Helsinki, [36] and the Ontario Health Care Consent Act 1996 [37].
Therefore, based on my deep and strongly held Jewish faith and belief that I retain the right to informed consent and to make informed decisions about my body I cannot in all good conscience provide consent to these onerous conditions coercing vaccination. These decisions should not be coerced by my employer nor should they impede my ability to fulfil the employment contracts as I have agreed to. By the law, I cannot receive medical treatment for which I have not been provided informed consent or give my consent. Employers should be aware of potential liability arising from an employee having an adverse reaction to the vaccine, as well as the potential for human rights claims by employees who may allege discrimination if accommodation options are not considered. I have educated myself on the teachings of Jewish Law and my duties preserve life, to keep my body healthy, and the short-term and long-term risks of these temporarily authorized covid-19 vaccines in making my decision over my own body. Therefore, based on religious grounds, I request an exemption from mandatory vaccination and agree to rapid testing as required as a reasonable accommodation that helps keep me and the Laurier community safe.
References
1. Genesis 1:28.
2. Rosner, Fred. (2001). Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law. Fred Rosner, M.D. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, 2001, pp97, 102.
3. Clowes, Brain. (2020). “What are Historical Jewish Teachings on Abortion?” https://www.hli.org/resources/judaism-on-abortion/
4. Children of God For Life (2020). Are any COVID-19 vaccines available that are not tested or produced using a cell line derived from an aborted child? Guidance on Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine. https://cogforlife.org/guidance/
5. Trasancos, S.T. (2021). Its time to get beyond vaccines. The Catholic World Report. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/03/opinion-its-time-to-get-beyondvaccines/
6. Rhoads, K.C., Naumann, J.F. (2020). Moral considerations regarding the new covid-19 vaccines. Chairmen of the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Pro-Life Activities United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. https://www.usccb.org/moralconsiderations-covid-vaccines
7. Genesis 1:27.
8. Shurpin, Yehuda. (2019). “What does Jewish Law say About Vaccination?” https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2870103/jewish/What-Does-Jewish-Law-Say-About-Vaccination.htm)
9. Avraham, Nishmat. (2004). Even Ha'ezer and Choshen Mishpat- Medical Halachah for Doctors, Nurses, Health-care Personnel and Patients. See 426b and 427a.
10. Golan O.G. (2007) Human Rights and Religious Duties: Informed Consent to Medical Treatment under Jewish Law. In: Brugger W., Karayanni M. (eds) Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73357-7_12. Pp 424.
11. Ioannidis, J.P. (2021). Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of Covid-19: An overview of systematic evaluations. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 51: e13554. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/
12. Majdoubi, A., Michalski, C., O’Connell, S. E., Dada, S., Narpala, S. R., Gelinas, J. P., … Basappa, M. (2021). A majority of uninfected adults show pre-existing antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) Insight, 6(8): e146316. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8119195/
13. Ng, K.W., Faulkner, N., Cornish, G.H., Rosa, A., Harvey, R., Hussain, R, et al. (2020). Preexisting and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Science, 370: 1339-1343. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abe1107
14. Dan, J. M., Mateus, J., Kato, Y., Hastie, K. M., Yu, E. D., Faliti, C. E., … Crotty, S. (2021). Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science, 371(6529): doi.10.1126/science.adf4063. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063
15. Perano, Ursula. (2021). “Canada suspends use of AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot concerns.” https://news.yahoo.com/canadian-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine-over-204537515.html
16. Fox, Chris. (2021). “Ontario recommends adults 18-24 get Pfizer COVI-19 vaccine over Moderna due to increased risk of rare heart condition.” https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-recommends-adults-18-to-24-get-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-over-moderna-due-to-increased-risk-of-rare-heart-condition-1.5605400?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D375756%3FclipId%3D373266
17. Thacker, Paul. (2021). “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.” British Medical Journal, 375: n2635 doi:10.1136/bmj.n2635. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
18. Proverbs 14:10
19. Health Canada. (2021). “Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada.” https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
20. Ioannidis J. (2021). Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(1), 19–33F. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.265892. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947934/
21. Ontario Government. (2021). “All Ontario Case Numbers and Spread.” https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread
22. Charoenngam N, Shirvani A, Holick MF. (2021). Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic. Endocr Pract; 27(5):484-493. doi: 10.1016/j.eprac.2021.03.006. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33744444/
23. Yisak, H., Ewunetei, A., Kefale, B., Mamuye, M., Teshome, F., Ambaw, B., & Yideg Yitbarek, G. (2021). Effects of Vitamin D on COVID-19 Infection and Prognosis: A Systematic Review. Risk management and healthcare policy, 14, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S291584. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7800698/
24. Gupta H, Gupta M, Bhargava S. (2020) Potential use of turmeric in COVID-19. Clin Exp Dermatol; 45(7):902-903. doi: 10.1111/ced.14357. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32608046/
25. Babaei F, Nassiri-Asl M, Hosseinzadeh H. (2020). Curcumin (a constituent of turmeric): New treatment option against COVID-19. Food Sci Nutr.; 8(10):5215-5227. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.1858. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33133525/
26. Government of Canada (2018). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2018). https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2- eptc2_2018_chapter1-chapitre1.html#b
27. Health Canada (2021). Interim Order No. 2 Respecting Clinical Trials for Medical Devices and Drugs Relating to COVID-19. https://www.canada.ca/en/healthcanada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/interim-order-2-clinical-trialsmedical-devices-drugs/notice.html
28. Government of Canada (2021). Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html and https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
29. Government of Canada (2020). Regulatory Decision Summary - Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine - Health Canada. https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatorydecision-summary-detailTwo.html?linkID=RDS00730
30. Government of the United States (2020). Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals. NIH US National Library of Medicine. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=Study+C4591001&draw=2&rank =4
31. Dohsi, P. (2020). Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. British Medical Journal, 371: doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037 (Published 21 October 2020). https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
32. Griffin (2021). Covid-19: Fully vaccinated people can carry as much delta virus as unvaccinated people, data indicate. British Medical Journal, 374: n2074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2074
33. Cardozo, T. & Veazey, R. (2020). Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of covid-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. International Journal of Clinical Practice,75: e13795.Doi:10.1111/ijcp.13795. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
34. Olliaro, P. Torreele, E., Vaillant, M. (2021). Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness – the elephant (not) in the room. The Lancet, S2666-5247(21)000069-0. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
35. Keehner, J., Horton, L.E. (2021). Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a highly vaccinated health system workforce. The New England Journal of Medicine, doi: 10.1056/NEJMMc2112981. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981
36. Fischer, B.A. (2005). A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32: 69-80. 21. Government of Canada (1996). The Ontario Health Care Consent Act. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02
37. Government of Canada (1996). The Ontario Health Care Consent Act. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/96h02