Lest We Forget
How the Military and Universities Had a Shared Disregard for COVID-19 Legal Advice
It has been two years, five months, and twenty days (902 total days) since the administration of my employer, the University of Guelph, banned me from accessing my office and laboratory. I would like to have access to my work spaces. Segregation makes me feel less than human.
- B. Bridle -
Kudos to Those Serving in the Military
I like reading about the history of military conflicts. Even if I haven’t sometimes agreed with the rationale for, or goals of some conflicts, I have always had the utmost respect for the members of our military services on the front lines that have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to enact their personal goal of ensuring that others can retain basic freedoms and qualities of life.
The Military Brass Ignoring Legal Advice
So, it was with some anger and frustration that I read an Epoch Times article, written by Isaac Teo, about how the Canadian “Military Disregarded Legal Advice in Imposing [a COVID-19] Vaccine Mandate”. The article is here and requires a subscription. The relevant details, which are based on military internal communications that were reviewed by the Epoch Times, are as follows…
“Canada’s defence chief received legal advice from the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) in 2021 that there was no evidence supporting a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members”
“We have no supporting evidence at this time that there is a need for all CAF [Canadian Armed Forces] members to be inoculated”
“The legal advice says the Canadian Armed Forces had an obligation to accommodate members to the point of breaching a “Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR)”“
I noted this latter statement with particular interest. At my university, the administration had a COVID-19 vaccination policy that stated that they would, first and foremost, follow the recommendations of our provincial medical officer of health. This medical officer of health stated his expectation that all public institutions provide accommodations for those who did not want to take the shots. My university mandated the shots anyways and provided no accommodations.
In one case, a staff member that I know well had been working remotely, along with all other members of their administrative department. They were mandated to take the shots anyways. They lost their job because they did not want to disclose their personal medical information. The person that replaced worked entirely remotely. They left for another position and the current person serving in that role worked entirely remotely. So, there is no way that forcing anyone in this position to take the shots was required to ‘ensure the safety of the campus community’.
It appears that expectations of accommodations may have been broader than what the Canadian public were led to believe. It appears that a lot of lives were ruined by administrators choosing to ignore their obligations to provide accommodations.
Uninformed Consent
“The document also says it’s important that “informed consent” be obtained prior to vaccination.”
“The document references guidelines from the Canadian Medical Protective Association on the issue of consent.
“Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent obtained under any suggestion of compulsion either by the actions or words of the physician or others may be no consent at all and therefore may be successfully repudiated. In this context physicians must keep clearly in mind there may be circumstances when the initiative to consult was not the patient’s, but rather that of a third party, an employer or a police officer,” the guideline says.”
This guideline speaks for itself. Out of curiousity, I wonder if this means that former police officers serving in the roles of police chiefs are ‘double-contraveners’ of informed consent.
“Based on this guideline, the JAG Office document concludes that, “As such, requiring CAF members to attend an inoculation event whereby they would be peer-pressured to consent could result in a finding that the member did not voluntarily consent to inoculation.””
I wonder what the JAG office thought of things like the ice cream cone clinics held in places like Toronto.
My goodness, world-renowned immunologist and vaccine expert, Polkaroo, was even used to coerce (I mean ‘teach’) children to accept the safety and necessity of getting the shots, even though COVID-19 represented only a miniscule risk to them. Informed consent cannot possibly be achieved unless Polkaroo endorses a novel, experimental medical procedure. [read this paragraph with lots of sarcasm]
Polkaroo:
World-Renowned Vaccinologist and Advocate of Informed Consent
For those who are unaware, this is what Polkaroo, the global vaccine expert, looks like…
…because this is how we should represent serious science supporting the very serious issue of informed consent. My goodness, why didn’t the alarm bells go off for many more parents when they saw things like this being used alongside legal consent forms? Shame on physicians, such as the medical officer of health for Toronto, for showing such a blatant misunderstanding of how informed consent works. If a product is safe and effective, it will sell itself, period.
A Succinct Summary
One of the reader comments on the Epoch Times article succinctly summarized the problem…
“And you expect us to trust the military?”
For those who can, please read the entire Epoch Times article.
And you expect us to trust [fill in the blank]?
I assure you that everything this article had to say about the military can be said of academic institutions (all institutions for that matter) that did exactly the same thing.
My University Failed to Show Leadership When It Mattered Most
I, along with two other senior immunologists at my academic institution, bore witness to one of our vice-presidents definitively stating to us in an on-line meeting that the University of Guelph had obtained advice from their legal counsel with respect to the prospect of implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Our vice-president was unequivocal in telling us that the legal counsel had strongly advised against implementing a vaccine mandate for numerous reasons. As such, this vice-president was confident that a mandate would not be implemented at our university. In fact, based on this legal advice, our vice-president expressed concern about the coercive tactics and peer-pressure mounting on campus to get the shots. So much was the concern that myself, and my two colleagues were asked if we would be willing to serve as respected, senior members of the campus community that people could report to if they were feeling undue pressure to take the COVID-19 shots. We were then to report these incidents to the vice-president so the administration could take action to ensure that these members of our community could be relieved of the coercive pressures.
The problem is that this vice-president never returned our communications again and the administration of the University of Guelph, like so many others, instituted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate that destroyed the careers of faculty and staff, and the academic programs of hundreds of students.
Exemptions
“Citing the Canadian Human Rights Act, the CAF legal department’s document also notes that discrimination based on disability, sex, or religion is forbidden.”
- Epoch Times -
My colleagues and I could also testify in a court of law about the many members of our campus community that had their applications for exemptions denied. But it is far worse than a simple single denial of applications.
At my university, quite a few people were issued exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Remarkably, however, the administration actually rescinded these exemptions and asked everyone to reapply using an ‘updated’ application process. Upon re-application with the same documentation MOST of the re-applications were denied! It was almost like the administration had received some kind of memo indicating that they had issued too many exemptions. This occurred prior to the university bragging publicly many times about the campus being >99% vaccinated.
By the way, one would think that this would have accomplished the originally stated goal of herd immunity in spades. Interestingly, myself and the other two senior immunologists who understood the science inside and out hypothesized that this would never protect the campus from outbreaks of COVID-19. Guess what happened? Drum roll please… Wave after wave of COVID-19 ripped through our campus. The ‘unvaxxed’ weren’t allowed to be there. So, who were the dangerous people?!? It remains a great mystery to the narrative-pushers.
How do I know about the fiasco with exemptions on my campus? Because I helped mentor, as per the original request of my vice-president, a grass roots support group that emerged on campus for those being devastated by the push, and eventual adoption of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Sadly, this group exploded into the hundreds, and included staff, faculty, many students, and many upset and concerned tax-paying parents (for some international readers, universities and colleges in Canada rely heavily on funding from taxpayers).
Students within this group, after having communicated with one another, shared concerns that there might even be some biases in the re-applications that were accepted versus rejected. Although limited data were available within the group, we did have some and it did suggest the possibility (not proof) of a bias against certain religions.
Non-Disclosure of Committee Memberships at a Public University
When I asked for the names of the people serving on the committee reviewing requests for religious exemptions, I was told these names could not be disclosed. This is highly unusual at a publicly-funded academic institution. Any of my colleagues can find out what committees I serve on. And I have never been denied a request like this before. Why the sudden secrecy? I asked if I could at least be assured that the committee was heavily populated by the leaders that constitute our Multi-Faith Resource Team. I never received an answer. So, I am left wondering if it was experts in the areas of faiths and religions that were reviewing these applications.
In terms of of the committee reviewing exemptions for medical reasons, I was also denied access to the list of members. I was given only one definitive piece of information. A single physician that worked for the university sat on the committee. The other members were apparently non-physicians. And members of the support group that I mentored confirmed that requests for medical exemptions had also been denied.
Several members of the group shared their exemption notifications and they were sadly lacking in rationales for why the decisions were rendered.
An Egregious Example of Rescinding Exemptions
This one is quite remarkable. A couple of members of my campus community received exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate because they were actively enrolled in a human clinical trial that aimed to identify ways to improve COVID-19 vaccines. The study included a control group that could not receive COVID-19 vaccines, because the study was comparing naturally acquired immunity and shot-induced immunity. This sounds like a very legitimate reason to provide an exemption, doesn’t it? After all, the University of Guelph prides itself on being one of the top research institutions in Canada. Remarkably, however, these exemptions were subsequently rescinded.
The Silenced Majority
I have shared a lot of information about egregious activities in this Substack article. Most of it has been hidden ‘behind the scenes’. Why? Because the many people that suffered the harm were and remain far too scared to speak up. They fear horrible consequences. And as someone who has tried to be a voice for the silenced majority, I can assure you that their fears are warranted. Even as an expert vaccinologist who can back up what I say with the weight of the primary scientific evidence, my life has been torn apart by colleagues-turned-vultures and many others. This is why I always endeavour to respect the anonymity of those who need their stories to be heard by others.
I also think this is why I see so many Canadians displaying stickers that say things like “Proud to be part of the fringe minority”, a saying made famous in response to Canada’s hate-filled prime minister. It is because people in-the-know understand that it is not a minority. For every voice out there, there are a large number of silenced people behind them. A silenced majority does not make a minority.
The Push for Amnesty Continues as Damning Evidence Mounts
Evidence continues to mount that scientific data were hidden from all of us. We’ve seen this in things like court-ordered releases of data sets and responses to freedom of information inquiries.
Evidence keeps mounting that the scientific and medical experts that fought against the mandates, and were viciously attacked, ridiculed, and censored, were right to hold those concerns.
My goodness, there is now clear-cut and compelling scientific evidence that we have created a population that is now at greater risk of getting COVID-19 than those who, with great difficulty, resisted the massive coercion campaigns. Indeed, when it comes to COVID-19, those who saw through the corruption are the safest to be around.
There is even ever-growing evidence that the COVID-19 shots may have rendered people more susceptible to other infections, and maybe even non-infectious diseases.
And the worst of all of the scientific denial that occurred was the deliberate choice to ignore the validity, let alone the superiority, of naturally acquired immunity!
Overview
In short, the Canadian military brass chose to ignore their strong and clear legal advice against implementing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Worse, they implemented them under the guise of maximizing the ‘operational capacity’ of our military force. Instead, we now have a military force that is disproportionately susceptible to COVID-19, and possibly an array of other diseases. And the Epoch Times article disclosed something that is very important: members of the military reported more serious adverse events after receiving COVID-19 shots (and this is through a passive monitoring system that substantially underestimates occurrences) than there were hospitalizations due to natural infection with SARS-CoV-2!
Rooting Out the Problem Means We Must Keep Talking About It
I consider part of my role as a taxpayer-funded public servant that prioritizes the health of Canadians, to keep reminding the world of the egregious things imposed upon so many critically thinking people of integrity who legitimately knew better but were punished for it.
Many people fought for the freedoms and health of all, including those who segregated, defamed, censored, and penalized us; including their children and other loved ones.
The only way to avoid this kind of all-out attack on the freedoms and constitutional rights that form the very foundation of our democracy, is to have society rigorously support justice. The declared COVID-19 pandemic revealed an infrastructure capable of rapidly overthrowing basic democratic rights and freedoms. As long as the infrastructure and, more importantly, the people at the helm of the infrastructure remain in place, we can expect no better outcomes in the future.
I cannot begin to imagine how horrible it must feel for members of our military that died or have shown a willingness to lay down their lives for freedom only to have their own freedoms stolen when they tried to exercise them; and for something that completely lacked an appropriate scientific rationale. Remember, being presented with the so-called ‘choice’ of a shot under coercion and disclosure of only a portion of the scientific evidence (such that the principle of informed consent can never be met) versus losing one’s livelihood is not a reasonable choice.
“And you expect us to trust the military?”
And you expect us to trust our universities and colleges?
And you expect us to trust [fill in the blank]?
I would love to know what the behind-the-scenes legal advice was to all of our institutions when they began considering mandates. And did the laws of our country secretly and suddenly change in the following weeks?
Justice, Not Amnesty
More and more people that rigorously drove and supported the COVID-19 narrative seem to be pushing for some kind of amnesty as the avalanche of condemning evidence continues to mount; a ‘let’s forget and move on’ approach. Easier said and done for those who retained their freedoms, livelihoods, and ever-important reputations. Guess what, to publicly apologize and seek forgiveness would go a LONG way. But, in the end, to maintain the status quo is to let history repeat itself.
Until justice is met or we all agree to give up our constitutional rights and freedoms, we need to keep these conversations going.
LEST WE FORGET
I have struggled most of my life to have faith in our social institutions. I now have none. Having worked on numerous political campaigns (because I believed in our political system), I once had respect for some of our politicians. I now have none. I have always been skeptical of big pharma and the medical model in general. I take no joy in stating that my reasons for skepticism have been proven to be minor complaints in comparison to what we now see and know is going on.
Dr Bridle, thank you for your continued comments on the plandemic. As costly as the illegal mandates were to your career, my anger and empathy goes out to the health professionals that worked through the most dangerous times with Covid patients, without vaccines and probably without proper masks, lived through it and then were removed---loss of their profession, their earnings and sometimes their homes. And yet, the push for vaccines goes on (even to babies!) and the sheeple continue to offer themselves up (some of my relatives are up to 6 shots now, not mentioning the other various true vaccines); as long as the legacy media is a propaganda organ of the government, we are at the mercy of those at the top of the power pyramid. Clueless administrators who deplore the lack of nurses and doctors while (in BC and NSW) still ban them from working!