Is the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Meeting the Standard for Informed Consent?

…It is a classic propaganda technique to use the generic term “Canadian doctors” instead of specifying ‘some Canadian doctors’. Other headlines, like the one on the Toronto Sun, used similar language. It helps to facilitate an assumption that perhaps ‘all’ doctors agree with the sentiment, giving the false impression that there might be a ‘consensus’. But I know of many physicians who are dead set against these shots for pregnant and breastfeeding women, and the number is growing as hidden and censored truths get revealed. The headlines could just as easily say ‘Many Canadian doctors support the U.S. and the many other countries that have pulled the shots for Moms’.

Statement by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC)

You can find SOGC’s official statement at this link, and here it is:

Consideration of the use of a medical intervention demands that a proper risk-benefit analysis be done. This statement emphasizes risks of disease but fails to adequately discuss risks and open-ended questions associated with the intervention, let alone the growing evidence of cover-ups and lies. It also fails to acknowledge the inherent weaknesses in the data sets used in the studies to evaluate the risk of disease. These include, but are not limited to, things like reliance on PCR as the sole basis for diagnosis of disease instead of as an aid to diagnosis.

SOGC also give the impression that their statement is based on a whole bunch of great science by reaffirming their “full” so-called ‘consensus’ statements from more than three years ago, at this link. This is from the first page…

Use of the term ‘consensus’ in the context of a field of science that is ever-evolving is nothing more than a propaganda technique. Note there are only nine authors publicly standing behind this document. The most that can be claimed is that these nine reached a consensus on the published text. However, it ignores the fact that numerous scientists around the world have always disagreed with the statements being promoted by SOGC, with that number swelling by the week as massive amounts of hidden and disconcerting data continue to be unveiled.

Note that the recent policy change in the USA is for healthy women, but this is ignored by SOGC, which instead chose to use the propaganda technique of conflation by lumping healthy and unhealthy women together. Note, however, that to place an emphasis on risks, SOGC had to focus on women with multiple comorbidities (see their full statement). This is not only known to dramatically increase risks from COVID-19, but for almost ALL infectious diseases. But what is not appreciated is that it likely also increase risks of either harm or lack of effectiveness of vaccines.

SOGC also stated the following:

“The benefit of vaccination during pregnancy for the infant (e.g. pertussis and influenza) is recognized and recommendation of these vaccinations is part of routine prenatal care.”

– SOGC –

Again, they are leaning on the propaganda technique of conflation. Vaccines against pertussis and influenza are completely different technologies targeting different pathogens. They do not contain synthetic modified RNA, nor cationic lipid nanoparticles, nor excessive contaminating bacterial DNA that includes concerning sequences such as the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence that the manufacturer (Pfizer) failed to disclose. Nor do they instruct cells throughout the body (following widespread systemic biodistribution) to manufacture and express the spike protein, which is problematic for multiple reasons, including making cells throughout the body targets of the ensuing immune response, in addition to the many known potential direct toxic effects of the spike protein. And there are many other concerns that SOGC failed to disclose. Indeed, what the SOGC is promoting is the theoretical textbook definition of an ideal vaccine.

This recent public statement from the SOGC is far from being a balanced risk-benefit analysis. Physicians are legally required to facilitate informed consent. So, let’s see how these nine physicians, and the SOGC, which has endorsed this document, fare in this regard based on an array of information that is available.

Informed Consent

It is the responsibility of anyone administering or promoting any medical intervention to facilitate the cherished medical concept of informed consent. Canada’s legal definition for informed consent is clearly articulated in Consent: A guide for Canadian physicians. A long time ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the standard for informed consent is to be measured by what a reasonably thinking pregnant or breastfeeding woman would have expected to hear before consenting to receipt of a COVID-19 shot.

Is SOGC Facilitating Informed Consent?

For the SOGC, who are physicians that are obligated to meet the standard for informed consent, I have the following partial list of questions:

1. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that “Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women”?

This is what Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada said to the federal government in response to Order Paper Question #Q-2163:

2. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that the manufacturers never asked for their shots to be administered to them?

This is what Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada said to the federal government in response to Order Paper Question #Q-2163:

3. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that no data have been submitted by the manufacturers to Health Canada to support giving her these shots?

This is what Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada said to the federal government in response to Order Paper Question #Q-2163:

4. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that product monographs take precedence over any documented claims regarding safety and efficacy? And this is what they say (Pfizer/BioNTech shown; Moderna is very similar)…

And this is the response from Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to the federal government with respect to Order Paper Question #Q-2163:

5. Would a breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that Health Canada was investigating early post-marketing surveillance data showing that for breastfeeding Moms that had inadvertently received the shots, 21.2% of the suckling infants had clinical issues, and 24.6% of the Moms had lactation issues?

6. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that biodistribution data showed lipid nanoparticles from the COVID-19 shots spiking in a massive array of tissues in females and that the health regulator tried to hide this for 75 years?

7. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that the preclinical toxicity study that should have been performed BEFORE the public rollout showed, after the fact, that the accumulation of lipid nanoparticles in the ovaries of rats decimated their ovaries?

…all ovarian follicles, where the eggs reside, were substantially reduced in number, except for the ‘atretic’ follicles, which are the ones you don’t want because they are the bad ones that are regressing.

8. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that an early iteration of a study that demonstrated massive systemic biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles from the COVID-19 shots, resulting in illness and even death of the test rats, was hidden?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to hide the results of this study for 75 years, but were compelled to release it by court order. It turns out that the disconcerting biodistribution data revealed in documents obtained from the Japanese government represented the ‘best’ half of the data that came from a second study using a lower dose that was not acutely lethal. The first iteration of the experiment was an unmitigated disaster, with the study director noting to Pfizer/BioNTech the sick and dying rats and that “a subsequent review of the data showed concentrations [of LNPs] were well detected in tissues”.

9. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to keep their biodistribution data covered up for 75 years and when compelled to released it by court order, they nefariously redacted and cropped images to hide obvious evidence of systemic biodistribution and then lied about it?

The FDA’s version of Pfizer’s biodistribution report was excessively redacted. However, they didn’t seem to realize that some of the redacted data had previously been released in a leaked early draft of the report, as well as in a different version of the report that had been submitted to the Japanese government. On the left in the figure below is an example of a redacted figure from the official report released by the FDA. Note that it shows a picture of two mice on which are overlaid a bioluminescent signal to quantify the amount of modified RNA being expressed in tissues. After careful examination and comparison, I discovered that this picture was a cropped and manipulated version of the one on the right, which is from Japan’s report…

Here is a close-up of the relevant images, with the version from the FDA on the left and the version from Japan on the right…

…more important than the manipulation of the intensity of the signal to give the false impression that it is a different image, is the fact that the image was cropped to hide the obvious signal in the region of the kidneys and adrenal glands. Even the image in the Japanese data set had the upper bodies cropped out of the images.

The FDA then showed images of the modified RNA in the livers of the mice…

…cropping the image to avoid showing distribution to the region of the kidneys and adrenal glands allowed the FDA’s report to conclude that the liver was the only place outside of the injection site where a signal could be detected. This fit the publicly parroted narrative that the shots could only be found at the injection site and then where removed rapidly from the body via the liver (ignoring that this would require dissemination through blood vessels). As you can see with your own eyes, this was an intentional bald-faced lie.

10. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that COVID-19 shots DO NOT prevent infection or spread of the disease?

Note that SOGC has just re-affirmed the following statement…

“In Canada, the dominant vaccines in use to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 are the mRNA vaccine platforms.”

– SOGC –

They seemed to forget that the public propaganda changed since early 2022. They are now supposed to say they merely ‘dampen severity of disease’, despite things like the growing evidence that those who received multiple shots likely have enhanced susceptibility to COVID-19, and Canada’s own evidence (removed from their website by Alberta Health Services) that there is an acute period of enhanced susceptibility to COVID-19 immediately following injections.

11. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that the incorrect messaging that COVID-19 shots only stay in the body for a very short period of time was based on hiding data to the contrary?

The early public narrative claimed the components of the COVID-19 shots were rapidly removed from the body; likely within 24-48 hours or shortly thereafter. This was based on data like these, which were released by the U.S. FDA only after a court order over-ruled their request to hide the information for 75 years…

…but no relevant data were shown! The reader was forced to blindly accept the conclusion that the vaccine was cleared from the body by day nine post-injection. But I identified the same graph, in non-redacted form, in the information package held by the Japanese government…

…the FDA’s redacted version of the graph is on the left, the non-redacted version that had been submitted to the Japanese government is shown on the right. This demonstrates that the signal did not reach baseline, as had been stated in the FDA’s version, which counters the narrative that ‘expression in the body is very transient’. Again, this is definitive proof of nefarious editing of a report. Is it any wonder why so many people have lost confidence in health regulatory agencies!

12. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that “naturally acquired immunity is not only non-inferior to what the COVID-19 shots can confer, it is superior”?

As of 1.5 years ago, these 108 peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrated this (many more have accumulated since then)…

…yet, SOGC have just re-affirmed the following:

“We recommend pregnant individuals should be offered vaccination against COVID-19 at any time during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, if no contraindications exist. This recommendation extends to those who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

– SOGC –

This is an egregious lack of recognition of the validity, let alone the superiority, of naturally acquired immunity and the mounting evidence that multiple shots may increase the risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2.

13. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that data hidden from the public by British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control showed, after normalization for doses, that reports of serious adverse events accrued 16-times faster for COVID-19 shots than for historic influenza vaccines?

14. …or that reports of hospitalizations and deaths were accruing 14- and 24-times faster, respectively, after COVID-19 shots than for influenza vaccines?

15. …or that adverse event reports following receipt of COVID-19 shots accrued 8-times faster for women than men?

16. …or that the public release of these data involved the removal of the comparison to the flu vaccines to hide these safety concerns, while lying about finding signals above background rates?

17. …or that the total number of serious adverse events was slashed by at least 82% in the public disclosure?

18. …and that this was done nefariously by changing the definition of a serious adverse event just prior to public disclosure?

19. Would a pregnant or breastfeeding Mom reasonably expect disclosure that organizations like SOGC are being misleading when exclusively stating effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in terms of ‘relative risk reduction’?

A fact that has historically been well-recognized by health regulatory agencies is that “patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used”. For example, stating that there was a 0.84% absolute risk reduction in getting a positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 in Pfizer’s original clinical trial, as opposed the publicly disclosed 95% relative risk reduction, sounds much less scary and accurately reflects the fact that the vast majority of the people in the trial never tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2.

20+. Or, would pregnant or breastfeeding Moms reasonably expect disclosure that:

• Subclinical harms (i.e., no obvious signs of harm) from COVID-19 shots might be underestimated and, in some cases, like heart damage, might be cumulative?

• The manufacturing process for COVID-19 shots was changed between the clinical trials and public rollout, resulting in them becoming contaminated with excessive amounts of bacterial DNA?

• Health Canada misleadingly claims that the DNA contamination is sometimes below their outdated safety standard, but that standard is for naked DNA, not lipid nanoparticle-associated DNA that is taken up by cells with two orders of magnitude greater efficiency?

• Pfizer broke regulatory rules by failing to disclose to Health Canada that their contaminating DNA contains a SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence that could potentiate cancers and/or modification of human chromosomes?

• Contaminating DNA contains a gene sequence for an unknown protein that is most similar to a protein from the silk worm?

• The synthetic modified RNA in the COVID-19 shots gets erroneously converted into unexpected and unpredicted mutant proteins ~8% of the time due to an unexpected phenomenon called ‘frame shifting’?

• People who have received multiple doses of the COVID-19 shots have evidence of increasing immunosuppression that correlates with greater risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19?

• Etc., etc., etc.

…sadly, this is only a very short list of the additional questions that could be posed. There simply isn’t space to contend with all the issues within a single article without it becoming unwieldly.

Promote Informed Consent

Please share these legitimate scientific concerns about COVID-19 shots with all pregnant and breastfeeding women that you know. Let them see with their own eyes the ‘cons’ that narrative-pushers have failed to disclose alongside their ‘pros’. These women have a right to informed consent and too many physicians, including the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, seem to have neglected this medical duty.

SOGC boldly claim that we are “in an age of growing misinformation and disinformation”, so “the SOGC strongly urges that vaccine decisions, including during pregnancy, be guided by evidence-based science and clinical expertise”. For all the reasons outlined above, and many more, it is apparent that the SOGC has become a major spreader of misinformation (possible disinformation) and would be a source to avoid if evidence-based science is the goal. I would be more than happy to discuss this claim with any members of the SOGC that want to publicly defend their official statement. I can bring the aforementioned evidence and much, much more. For example…

SOGC misinformed the public by stating:

“This model [the COVID-19 shots] consists of messenger RNA (mRNA)”

Wrong, mRNA is a naturally occurring molecule that is fragile and gets degraded rapidly in the body. The COVID-19 shots use synthetic modified RNA (mod RNA) that can last far longer in the body than what was disclosed to the public.

SOGC misinformed the public by stating:

“The vaccine provides the host cell instructions to manufacture only this spike protein”

Wrong, mRNA can get translated into proteins by our cells in a largely error-free fashion. In stark contrast, modified RNA is prone to producing unacceptably large quantities of mutant proteins because it gets mis-read by our cellular machinery. Also, many COVID-19 shots contain contaminating DNA with a sequence that can potentially be translated into a protein that is somewhat similar to a silk protein found in the silk worm.

SOGC misinformed the public by stating:

“The mRNA does not enter the nucleus or alter human DNA and human cells do not have the machinery to allow it to do so.”

Wrong. Their claim has never been proven and contradicts the precautionary principle that all medical scientists should adhere to. In fact, there are studies that provide proof-of-principle that this could occur. Further, machinery does exist “to allow it to do so”. For example, the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence in Pfizer’s shots can serve as a nuclear localization sequence. Also, human cells can express reverse transcriptases (e.g., LINE1) needed to convert RNA into DNA.

Please Comment

So, when it comes to COVID-19 shots, do you think the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has met the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard for informed consent for pregnant and breastfeeding Moms?