Canada warns people not to take Pfizer vaccine if they’re allergic to ‘any’ ingredients

[Stone]

Health Canada warns people not to take Pfizer COVID vaccine if they’re allergic to ‘any’ ingredients
'People with allergies to any of the ingredients in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID 19 vaccine should not receive it.'

December 14, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Health Canada is warning Canadians to avoid the newly approved COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer-BioNTech if they have allergies to any of its ingredients after some allergic reactions were reported in the U.K.

“People with allergies to any of the ingredients in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID 19 vaccine should not receive it,” cautioned the Government of Canada’s health department in a Dec. 12 communication.

“Speak with your health professional about any serious allergies or other health conditions you may have before you receive this vaccine,” it added.

Health Canada related that two individuals in the U.K. reported “severe allergic reactions to Pfizer BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine on December 8, 2020.”

“Health Canada has followed up on the two reports of anaphylactoid reactions to Pfizer BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine in the U.K. These reactions occurred on December 8, 2020. Both individuals in the U.K. had a history of severe allergic reactions and carried adrenaline auto injectors. They both were treated and have recovered,” the health department stated.
Health Canada listed the ingredients of the vaccine.


Medicinal ingredient:

• mRNA
  

Non-medicinal ingredients:

• ALC-0315 = ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
  
• ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
  
• 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
  
• cholesterol
  
• dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate
  
• monobasic potassium phosphate
  
• potassium chloride
  
• sodium chloride
  
• sucrose
  
• water for injection
  

Canada approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which was tested using fetal cells from an aborted baby, on Wednesday last week.

Children of God for Life reported that although the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was not developed using a cell line derived from an aborted baby, it was tested — that is, the laboratory phase which verifies the quality of the vaccine on cell tissues — using the HEK-293 cell line, which was derived from an aborted baby.
The vaccine is currently approved for people who are “16 years of age and older.”

“Its safety and effectiveness in people younger than 16 years of age have not yet been established,”  the government agency said in its report authorizing use in Canada.

While the vaccine in Canada is, so far, voluntary, some Canadian provinces are now floating the idea of a COVID-19 “immunity passport” in order to travel, go to work, visit the theater, etc.

“That’s going to be really important for people to have [proof of COVID vaccination] for travel purposes, perhaps for work purposes, for going to theatres or cinemas or any other places where people will be in closer physical contact when we get through the worst of the pandemic,” Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott told reporters last Tuesday.

“So yes, that will be essential for people to have that. … That’s their choice. This is not going to be a mandatory campaign. It will be voluntary. There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go to theaters and other places,” she added.

The left-leaning Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) called the idea of an “immunity passport” “wrongheaded.”
Michael Bryant, CCLA’s executive director and general counsel, warned in a Dec. 12 email to supporters against the “dangers of society stratification -- historic oppression and discrimination that comes with publicly labelling haves and have nots.”

“Besides, the public health goal of the vaccine is to cross the threshold for herd immunity within a population. Getting to that threshold is the public health challenge, not publicly identifying the innoculators,” Bryant said.

“None of this is intended to encourage or discourage personal choices about vaccination. The impugned Cabinet Minister herself emphasized that vaccines would not be forced upon anyone by law,” he continued.

“My favourite point ends up being made by Dr. Seuss, for which I have our privacy director to thank. Rather than pitting the star-bellied Sneetches against those without, we are better off affirming that Canadians are Canadians, deserving of privacy, equality and mobility, regardless of whether they advertise their vaccine credentials,” Bryant added.

The CCLA sent an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Dec. 12 to warn him about the “bad idea” of immunity passports.

“But first it must be said, that the overall human rights challenge with Immunity Passports arises from the disconnect between means and ends. As you know well, the point of the vaccine is to achieve the herd immunity threshold, upon which the proportion of the population immune to the disease is greater than the percentage of the population capable of getting the disease for it to spread. That threshold crossed, the whole community becomes protected – not just the immunized. Herd immunity makes it possible to protect the population from a disease, including those who cannot be vaccinated, such as newborns or those who have compromised immune systems,” the letter stated.

“If the point of an Immunity Passport is to coerce inoculation, then this raises the issue of individual liberty and government mandated medical treatment, discussed below. But Canadian governments say that they are not mandating inoculation. Accordingly, the purpose of the Immunity Passport, or Immunization Passport, is unrelated to crossing the herd immunity threshold. If it is not about herd immunity, we would argue, then its purpose is wrongheaded and misleading,” it continued.

“It is wrongheaded because of its negative human rights consequences, discussed below. It is misleading, because possession of an inoculation record does not, in fact, equal immunity or proof of not being infected. Nor does the absence of a passport mean that the person is a carrier of COVID, or otherwise susceptible. The inoculated could be infected –  they could be one of the few for whom the vaccine fails – just as the uninoculated could be immune. The herd immunity threshold can be achieved notwithstanding these exceptions, however, which is why immunity passports put the cart before the horse,” the letter added.