119 Medical Experts Open letter to Quebec Medical College questioning safety and efficacy of experimental COVID vaccine for children.
February 9, 2023
Dr Mauril Gaudreault
President of Collège des Médecins du Québec
1250, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest,
Montreal (Québec), H3B 0G2
Dear Dr. Gaudreault,
Mr. President of the CMQ, following our last meeting, you let us know that you would
communicate the fruit of your reflection possibly in January 2023. We still have not
received any answer to this day.
However, we would like to thank you for having received us on December 7th as
physicians, researchers and citizen representatives to discuss the management of the
COVID-19 health crisis.
We also thank Dr. Isabelle Tardif (Assistant to the Director), Marie-Josée Dupuis (Trustee),
and Dr. André Luyet (Director General) for their particularly attentive and professional
listening. All three seemed to us to be very open-minded. We salute them and thank them
wholeheartedly. We also thank Mr. Jacques Tétrault, Director of Communications, for his
presence.
We feel that this meeting was fruitful.
Although from the outset you excluded the possible participation of our experts or a
member of our group in the formation of a committee of reflection, although you also
excluded a study by committee of the ethical issues raised, although you also did not see
fit to examine the possible solutions we proposed nor did you want to answer five questions
we had formulated, you nevertheless allowed us to express our views on the experimental
vaccination of children and pregnant women in Quebec.
We also note that you did not formulate any opposition to the information and
interpretations proposed in our written communications (letter of October 19, November 3
and 21, 2022), and verbal communications. You are of course always invited to do so. In
the meantime, we believe that we are authorized to continue our reflection on these same
bases and although the facts evoked and the assertions put forward are sometimes at odds
with the usual narrative, they are admissible because they are supported by science. Isn’t it
the very nature of science to examine controversies and draw the best lessons from them?
You pointed out to us, Dr. Gaudreault, that the CMQ is not a scholarly society. But does
this mean that the CMQ is on the fringe of science? Should its conduct be inspired by
marketing firms or should it be inspired by the most rigorous and independent scientific
analyses available?
The pharmaceutical industry’s motives regarding the gene-based vaccination of
children:
The real motives of the industry regarding the vaccination of children are: On the one hand,
to put the manufacturers under the legal umbrella of the Vaccine Act, thus guaranteeing
them total legal immunity conferred by this special status, and on the other hand, to secure
a considerable recurrent income year after year by introducing this product into the
children’s vaccination schedule.
In this purely mercantile business plan, as one would expect from a for-profit company,
the best interests of the child are never taken into account.
Will the CMQ take over? Isn’t the CMQ the ultimate bulwark, the statutorily apolitical
safeguard to guarantee the well-being and safety of our children?
On which side of history, science and ethics will the CMQ position itself on this crucial
issue affecting Quebec’s children and pregnant women?
Injections that continue…:
Every day hundreds, if not thousands, of children in Quebec are injected with a messenger
RNA gene vaccine. This gene “vaccine” is administered to them claiming that it is a “safe
and effective” product,
– without parents being fully and intelligibly informed of the unknown, unrecognized and
potential dangers and risks of this product in the short, medium and long term,
– without parents being clearly told that this is an experimental product that has not been
adequately tested on animals,
– without parents knowing that this product can permanently weaken their child’s immune
system (V. Dr P. Offitt)
– without being told that it is a completely different product from the vaccines they know
and that it interferes with the intimate mechanisms of human genetics (which are the result
of 3.5 billion years of evolution),
– without being told that this product subjugates and takes hostage the endothelial cells of
their child’s body for the purpose of manufacturing a foreign substance, both immunogenic
and toxic for the child,
– without being pointed out that about 70 to 90% of the children do not need it, having
already acquired a natural immunity, which immunity, both humoral and cellular, surpasses
in quality and duration the incomplete and unstable immunity conferred by the product that
is offered to them
– without explaining to them that the product they are given, which is irreversible, has not
been the subject of any safety study regarding carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, or even
toxicity and bio-distribution,
– without informing them that this inflammatory substance has the potential to cause
functional disturbances and lasting damage to certain organs of the human body. All of the
above is specific to mRNA technology and not to the traditional vaccines with which they
have been falsely associated.
These injections are largely done “blind” with minimal data including indications that the
future fertility of our injected children may be compromised (Pfizer Japanese study in rats).
The blood levels of these substances, their degree of fragmentation as well as their duration
of action and half-lives are unknown and often random.
A reminder of two tragedies involving insufficiently studied products:
The use of Thalidomide and Diethylstilbestrol during pregnancy in the 1960s had resulted
in fetal malformations and gynecological cancers decades after the administration of these
products. During our meeting, you did not deny the very appropriate parallel between these
products and the current gene vaccines. Does the CMQ, which has a 150-year history,
remember this iatrogenic tragedy whose victims are still identifiable today? Would the
CMQ take the risk of being a spectator to the repetition of a similar drama?
Promotion of an experimental product:
Has the CMQ been dragged into the wake of a promotional campaign? If so, would it have
suspended or obscured entire sections of its own code of ethics, including the right of
citizens to free and informed consent? Thus rendering parents and pregnant women unfit
to make a decision of great consequence on behalf of their living or unborn child?
Pregnant women and their fetus:
The Pfizer Company in the explanatory leaflet of its gene vaccine, says the following:
“There is no data establishing safety for pregnant women”. Why then impose this product
on pregnant women in Quebec while keeping them ignorant of its true nature? Why is the
precautionary principle implicitly mentioned by Pfizer not taken into account by the CMQ
itself?
An irreversible procedure:
These substances are injected into our children and pregnant women by an irreversible
procedure, i.e. by injections that cross the natural protective barriers of the human body.
They have been presented to the public as “vaccines like any other”, as “safe and effective”
products; which in our opinion is misinformation of the highest order. The FDA itself
defines this product as a gene therapy: “Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate
the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic
use 1 “. (If this gene vaccine does meet the CDC definition, however, it is because the
definition has been arbitrarily modified for this purpose). The public has a right to the truth.
Uninformed parents making decisions on behalf of their child:
The ethical principle of “free and informed choice without threats or constraints” is loudly
proclaimed.
Who can claim that this principle has been respected when there has been a lottery for
vaccinated children, when non-vaccinated children have been ostracized in schools, when
non-vaccinated children have been denied access to sports, and when they went so far as
to threaten to refuse medical assistance to unvaccinated pregnant women?
Parents have not been informed of the potential dangers of these products in the short,
medium and long term. Yet health authorities have known or should have known for a long
time that these products have caused a host of side effects; this has been demonstrated by
all the detection systems in the world: VAERS, V-Safe, Yellow card, Eudravigilance, Vigi
Access etc). These products have caused more deaths, more morbidity than all the real
vaccines combined in 30 years of use.
Side effects denial and misleading claims:
As of February 2021, Pfizer had documented 1,291 side effects of its product. It took a
court order to force Pfizer to disclose the side effects of its product (which the company
only wanted to disclose in 75 years).
That it was decided to extend the use of such products authorized only under an
“Emergency Use” clause, to children and pregnant women for whom there was never an
emergency, that it was done with misleading claims by using marketing firms in
complicity with many doctors with such obvious conflicts of interest that they should have
abstained from any public intervention, that it was done on a worldwide scale, constitutes
in the eyes of many observers the greatest crime in the history of health medicine.
Ethical Violations:
These violations of many of the principles of our code of ethics are so egregious and have
such pernicious and detrimental consequences for our children and pregnant women that
they require urgent action. Mere theoretical reflection is not in order.
Rather, these violations require urgent recommendations from the CMQ to the Quebec
public health department and to the government to declare an immediate moratorium on
the vaccination of children and pregnant women, pending the results of the work of
independent committees of experts, following the example of the proposal we have made.
Funding of bio-medical research and conflicts of interest:
It is unfortunately necessary to specify here that, in accordance with our code of ethics,
there must be no conflict of interest, nor even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Therefore, experts who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry must
be excluded from any independent committee ruling on these gene injections. Articles 7,
63 and 64 of our code of ethics are quite explicit on this subject. The public has the right
to free and enlightened information. Does it need to be reminded?
Since practically all biomedical research in Quebec is financed by the pharmaceutical
industry, the designation by the CMQ or by our health authorities of experts who are in
good faith and free of any ties that could interfere with their judgment is even more
important. It should be noted as a manager, for example, that the Society of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) has very conflicting sources of funding that can
distort their advice.
Canada. Censorship of science. Ethics sacrificed. Future of the profession:
In Ontario and British Columbia, in the wake of the societal crisis we are experiencing, the
future of the medical profession is at stake on the legal front. In Ontario with the Trozzi-Luchkiw’s-Philips case and in British Columbia (Bill 36), a vital question is being asked:
Should physicians prioritize their Hippocratic oath and their code of ethics when
administrative directives run counter to their ethical obligations, or should they obey
these same directives? Are we witnessing the end of medicine as a liberal profession? Will
the physician’s mission and primary duty to defend the interests of the patient be nothing
more than wishful thinking? What is the CMQ’s position on this burning issue?
Safety Alerts:
On October 22, 2020, the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER),
before mass vaccination began, produced a report outlining 22 classes of predictable side
effects based on mRNA vaccine technology. All of these are found in surveillance systems
around the world such as VAERS, V-Save, Yellow Card, Eudravigilance etc.
After much delay and pressure, the CDC finally released the safety signals for the adverse
events reported in VAERS in July 2022. A safety signal is a signal that, after comparative
statistical analysis, is found to be associated in all probability with the administration of
the gene vaccine. Among these signals, there were 65 signals for children aged 5-11 years
and 92 signals for those aged 12-17 years.
Denial in the face of such information is no longer possible. Advertising slogans, each
more reassuring than the last (vaccine like the others, safe and effective vaccine, rare and
benign myocarditis, vaccine immunity better than natural immunity, etc.) asserted over and
over again, will not be able to shield us from our responsibilities in the face of justice.
Doctors, administrators, influencers and health authorities in Quebec are subject to the
penal code and must all be aware of their immediate and future legal responsibilities. This
is why we implore you once again, Dr. Mauril Gaudreault, to recommend the immediate
suspension of the Covid-19 “vaccination” of children and pregnant women in Quebec,
if only to respect the precautionary principle.
A foray into the world of adults here and elsewhere and what it means for our
children:
Our remarks do not concern the gene injection of adults. However, this experimental gene
vaccination of adults also concerns children, on the one hand because it is the same product
that was first injected to adults under the cover of an “Emergency Use” and then injected
to children under the same cover, without any emergency for them. And, secondly, because
the analysis of the beneficial and deleterious effects of this product in adults is useful to
know what to expect if one were to administer this product to children in the absence of
evidence of a favorable risk/benefit balance.
In Quebec:
– It is clear that despite the most restrictive containment measures compared to the rest of
the Western world, despite a rate of people injected well beyond the initial objectives, the
SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, known for its high mutation rate, could never be contained.
– It is also important to note that in Quebec, according to official government statistics, in
June 2022 (data are not published after this date), people who had received 3 doses of
vaccine were largely over-represented among those hospitalized with COVID-19. Thus,
while those who had been inoculated 3 times comprised 51.2% of the population, they
accounted for 70% of COVID-19 hospitalizations. They were therefore overrepresented by
18.8 negative points. The risk for a 3-dose inoculated person to be hospitalized was 1.46
times that of a non-vaccinated person. Put another way, being adequately vaccinated
became a risk factor for COVID-19 hospitalization.
– It must also be noted that between July 2021 and June 2022, again according to Quebec
government statistics, the risk of dying from COVID-19 was much greater if you were
properly vaccinated than if you were not.
Ordinary citizens will be excused for ignoring these Quebec statistics, which are
undoubtedly known by the public health department. These embarrassing statistics, which
are opposed to the promotional discourse of gene vaccination, have stopped being
published here in Quebec, but also in the United Kingdom and in the Western world. They
were communicated to us following a specific request via the Access to Information Act.
Whether we like it or not, there has never been an epidemic of the non-vaccinated (except
through statistical fraud) and we are instead witnessing an epidemic of the vaccinated (1).
In addition, elsewhere in the world, one must question why gene vaccination of under-12s
has been discontinued in developed countries such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Germany, Australia, Florida and the United Kingdom. One must also take into
consideration several clinical and epidemiological observations that are perplexing,
including: 1) the excess mortality (non-covidian mortality) in the under-50 age groups,
which has already been taken into account by the actuaries of life insurance companies
who have no bias other than profitability, 2) the very significant VAERS safety alerts that
should have forced the discontinuation of the use of these experimental products according
to the FDA’s own standards.
The mere mention of these observable facts by the best statisticians in the world, such as
Professor Norman Fenton, or epidemiologists such as Dr. John Ioannidis, is likely to send
a cohort of journalists, decipherers and doctors under influence to the barricades. We
remind them that an approach devoid of any commercial bias, in the best interest of
children, requires great intellectual honesty on the part of all in order to find an explanation
for these undeniable observations.
(1) https://reinfocovid.ca/deux-ans-de-vaccination-anti-covid-19-lesvaccins-ont-une-efficacite-negative-ce-nest-pas-nous-qui-le-disonsmais-les-donnees-de-la-sante-publique/
In any case, as far as our subject is concerned, if the precautionary principle had to be
sacrificed, annihilating with it the Hippocratic oath, these observations concerning adults
as well as the safety alerts, alone, should be sufficient to justify an immediate moratorium
on the vaccination of children and pregnant women in Quebec.
Independence of the CMQ:
It is only a matter of time before Health Canada authorizes the integration of the COVID19 bivalent vaccine into the vaccination schedule of children, as is being done in the United
States. This authorization will be transformed into a de facto obligation in Quebec since
this product will be introduced into the vaccination schedule of children, making it difficult
for ill-informed parents to detect the subterfuge. Especially since this gene product is likely
to be merged with the real vaccines for measles and rubella; the manufacturers have openly
acknowledged their intention to do so. If this were the case, you would have contributed
by your inertia and passivity to a colossal fraud with deleterious repercussions that you
may or may not witness in the years to come and that will affect an entire generation.
Quebec politicians have inherited, in spite of themselves, the management of this pandemic
according to the Quebec Public Health Act. We also understand that politicians are the
target and focus of relentless lobbying by marketing firms (McKinsey) and pharmaceutical
companies. They must ensure that the many pharmaceutical company head offices remain
in Quebec and that Moderna is established in Laval. All this to preserve well-paid jobs.
Thus, only a politically independent body such as the CMQ, dedicated to the protection of
the public and is in a way its ultimate guardian, can act without any interference for the
well-being of children. This duty to protect children falls to you.
A “foreign body” in the children’s vaccine schedule?
We cannot allow such a product to have, very cleverly by the manufacturers and by a welltargeted influence peddling, traced its path and avoided by the back door all the control
and protection organizations of the public, all the governments as well as the public health
departments. We cannot allow the pharmaceutical industry to definitively evade all the
normal marketing steps of a product that would thus end up under a false name,
permanently embedded in the vaccine schedule of children without the knowledge of the
population and to its detriment. This would be a vile deception. Dr. Mauril Gaudreault, in
the career of any man with a high responsibility of service to his people, there are
courageous decisions that must be made. This decision to ask for a moratorium on the
genetic vaccination of children and pregnant women is one of them.
Conclusion:
You will understand from the foregoing that, although we are grateful to you for meeting
with us, and considering that the mission of protecting the public belongs first and
foremost to physicians who have taken a personal oath in this regard in addition to their
ethical obligations, we cannot accept the status quo. Our code of ethics and our obligation
to be faithful to the facts of science belong to us and cannot be subcontracted to the media
and to more or less qualified influencers.
It is urgent and we commit ourselves to work together so that the mission of our institution,
the CMQ, is respected, particularly with regard to our children and our pregnant mothers
who constitute the future of Quebec.
In the absence of a resolute and concrete decision on your part, we will continue our work
tirelessly. We are professionals who have benefited from a high level of education; this
education cannot be dissociated from our duty to serve and protect the population. This
letter is also an invitation to all physicians and health authorities in Quebec to adopt a
position that will be etched in history and judged according to the highest principles of
ethics and science.
We represent many physicians and professionals who prefer anonymity in a time of
relentless factual and scientific censorship. More importantly, we represent thousands of
citizens who have been helpless victims and who support our efforts. It will not be said that
we have not done everything in our power with limited means.
Sincerely,
A collective of doctors and health professionals.
www.reinfocovid.ca
(See list of signatories)
Encl.: Principles of the Code of Ethics undermined or obscured,
CDC Safety Alerts based on VAERS.
cc.: INSPQ, MSSSQ, Association des pédiatres du Québec, Ordres professionnels, FMOQ,
FMSQ, Association des cardiologues, DRMG
cc. Medias : Le Devoir, La Presse, Le Soleil, Journal de Montréal, Radio-Canada, Le Droit,
L’actualité et autres.
cc. Politicians of the National Assembly, Parents Associations
Signatories:
1. Dr René Lavigueur, Md
2. Dr Robert Béliveau, retired doctor
3. Dr Danielle Fisch, retired doctor
4. Dr Alain Roux, retired doctor
5. Dre Snezana Stanojlovic, Md
6. Simon Ruelland, family physician, Pessamit, Côte-Nord
7. Bernard Massie, Ph.D. en microbiology U. de M, career at CNRC Canada
8. Patrick Provost, Ph.D., Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Laval
9. Christian Linard, Ph.D., DEPD en clinic biochemistry
10. Dr Gaétan Brouillard, retired doctor
11. Dr Jacqueline Magny, Md
12. Barry Breger, retired doctor
13. Pierre Thériault, family physician
14. Anne Marie Begué Simon, retired doctor
15. Michel de Maupeou, retired GP
16. Marie-Claude Bourquel, Md
17. Pierre Larose, dentist
18. Mariane Hébert, retired veterinary doctor
19. Mario Labrie, pharmacist
20. Sarah Paradis, pharmacist
21. Priscilla Guenette, pharmacist
22. Jean St Arnaud, retired obstetrician family physician
23. Raymond Pageau, md retired researcher and professor
24. Euridice Prado, DDS, Ph.D.
25. Diane Leroux, retired dentist
26. Guy Duquet, dentist
27. Luc Limoges, retired dentist
28. Robert Bergeron, retired denturologist
29. Dre Lyne Naud, optometrist
30. Alain Roy, health sociologist
31. Karine Dorais, aux. nurse in neurosurgery – CIUSS
32. Gabriela Lucaciu, first assistant nurse in surgery
33. Claudine Jouny, nurse educator
34. Lucie Asselin, Bachelor of Science in Nursing
35. Sébastien Cormier, aux. nurse
36. Isabelle Plante, nurse
37. Nathalie Hamel, palliative care nurse
38. Anne-Louise Boily, nurse
39. Caroline Raymond, aux. nurse
40. Dalila Ghelid, aux. nurse
41. Adéline Plante, aux. nurse
42. Lucette Nadeau, retired nurse
43. Jason Garant, aux. nurse
44. Nicole Roy, retired nurse
45. Yulia Babakova, nurse
46. Marie-Claude Dubé, nurse
47. Réjeanne Marois, nurse
48. Guylaine Berthelette, nurse clinician
49. Sonia Fulham, nurse EPSH and teacher
50. Melissa Viau, nurse clinician
51. Jenny Faulkner, IPSPL member of OIIQ
52. Stéphanie Paradis, nurse clinician
53. Francine Brien, retired nurse
54. Lucie Rochette, retired nurse
55. Ninon Poisson, ex nurse
56. Guylaine Berthelette, nurse clinician
57. Guy Racine, nurse
58. Nathalie Marcotte, nurse
59. Diane Albert, nurse, B.Sc., M. Sc
60. Claudia Faille, midwife
61. Michèle Daneau, paramedic
62. David Turgeon, paramedic
63. Dr André-Marie Gonthier, BSc, DDDC, FICC
64. Jean-Michel Juste, spiritual care worker, CISSS
65. Odile Desbois, physiotherapist
66. Sylvie Moquin, physiotherapist
67. Dany Boudreau, physiotherapist at CISSSAT
68. Laine Roczniak, physiotherapist
69. Isabelle Morneau, physiotherapist
70. Liliya M Gurvits, orthotherapist
71. Dre Nolwenn Falquet, chiropractor, D.C.
72. Dre Tanya Doyon, chiropractor
73. Dr Jean-Luc Flipo, chiropractor D.C.
74. Dre Louise Marcotte, chiropractor, B.Sc., D.C.
75. Isabelle Ayers, chiropractor
76. Dr Pierre Bernier, chiropractor
77. Dr André Lajoie, chiropractor
78. Pierre Des Lauriers, chiropractor, D.C., N.D.
79. Dr Jasmin Pitre, chiropractor
80. Jean-Marc Doyon, acupuncturist
81. Sébastien Côté, acupuncturist
82. Sophie Titley, acupuncturist
83. Marilène Côté, acupuncturist
84. Julie Gazard, acupuncturist
85. Alexandra Duclos, acupuncturist
86. Emmanuel Francoeur, acupuncturist (A-040-87)
87. Isabelle Bories, occupational therapist
88. Nathalie Fontaine, occupational therapist
89. Esther Gauthier, osteopath
90. André Fortier, osteopath
91. Christine Lysight, osteopath
92. Rachel Paquette, osteopath
93. Geneviève Sévigny, osteopath
94. Josée Villemaire, osteopath
95. Daniel Parent, osteopath
96. Suzanne St-Pierre, ex nurse and osteopath
97. Mélinda Fournier, agent at GAP
98. Daniela Andreeva. M.Sc in Immunology and Microbiology
99. Janick Lussier, beneficiary attendant, CIUSSS
100. Nadia Dicaire, beneficiary attendant,
101. Josée Robitaille, beneficiary attendant,
102. Sindy Laflamme, practitioner
103. Jean-Pascal Vésin, B.Sc. Biological Sciences
104. Céline Parr, hypnosis therapy
105. Lisette Duchesne, licensed massage therapist
106. Chantal Charest, respiratory therapist
107. Patrick Vésin, stress management
108. Paul Labrèche, homeopath
109. Liza Rodrigue, herbalist
110. Ghislaine Cazaubon, naturotherapist
111. France Meunier, naturotherapist
112. Daniel Ethier, massage therapist
113. Véronik Tanguay, naturopath
114. Keven Arseneault, naturopath
115. Andrée Royer, naturopath
116. Lucie Caron, M.Ed
117. Josianne Roy, M.Sc. Chemistry
118. Roseline Gagnon M.Sc. Nutrition, Licensed Naturopath
119. Mélissa Laflamme, physiotherapy technologist
