Tone Deaf CFPC Fails Its Members, Embarrasses Itself

Recently, in what seems to these old eyes to be an insulting, vindictive and offensive move, Canadian Family Physician, the “Official Journal of The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC)”, published a hit piece on Family Doctors that only serves to further demoralize and dishearten a beaten down profession. I cannot fathom the amount of, what at best could be described as political naïveté, and at worst a disconnected Ivory Tower mentality that would be required to write such a venomous attack on those who actually pay money to keep their organization going.

Seriously, what was the CFPC thinking when they okayed Roger Ladouceur’s editorial, titled “Family Medicine is not a Business.”?? (I refuse to link to it as I don’t want it to get any more hits).

Truly, it’s not really an editorial, rather a massive litany of complaints against family physicians, while sarcastically suggesting “surely, it’s just gossip!”

What exactly are evil rotten family doctors doing according to Ladouceur? He suggests the CFPC has “heard stories” about family doctors not seeing patients in person and wondering how they can assess complicated patients. He has “heard stories” about doctors only calling patients at more lucrative times and abandoning patients with high medical needs. He has “heard stories” about family doctors “charging excessive fees” for services not covered by health insurance.

He ends off his purulent missive by blithely stating, “Family Practice is not a business.” Marie (“Let them eat cake”) Antoinette would have been proud of such a comment, dismissively heaped on the approximately 40,000 overworked family doctors in Canada.

There’s a lot to unpack in Ladouceur’s diatribe. First and foremost is the fact that despite extolling the virtues of evidence based medicine, the CFPC allowed an editorial to run that had, well, no evidence to back it up. The whole argument was based on “I have heard stories.” There are no numbers to back it up, no names of offending physicians, no statistics on how widespread these alleged problems are. Just gossip and innuendo based on what he has “heard.”

If you want evidence by the way, I can confirm that the OMA Board was told that based on OHIP billing data over 98% of family doctors in Ontario continued to work after the pandemic was declared. It is true that they are using a mix of virtual and in person visits, but given the need to social distance during these times, a mix is clearly the correct way to proceed.

Furthermore, the banal statement that “Family Medicine is not a business” is simply factually incorrect, and reveals a kind of ignorant, Ivory Tower mentality that shows a complete disconnect from the real world.

Let me be clear about this, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. My family has food on the table. We have a roof over our head. There is no danger of my car being re-possessed. I’m fortunate compared to the average Canadian and am extremely grateful to be in that position.

But while I genuinely enjoy seeing my patients (they’re a great bunch of people), I still have to pay my staff, order supplies, pay rent and utilities, ensure my computers are working properly, get payroll taxes paid, comply with labour legislation etc etc. In short, while we all hate to think about this side of things, Family Medicine has been, and will continue to be a business of some sort. That the CFPC would allow such an obtuse comment by Ladouceur to run, shows a wanton disregard, and, dare I say it, contempt for the many day to day issues that its members face.

Look, no physician likes seeing one of their organizations scold them (and certainly I will always push back when I see this kind of stuff happening), but I really have to wonder just how completely out of touch the CFPC must be to allow this type of berating in the middle of the biggest physician burn out crisis I have ever seen. Prior to the pandemic, 26 % of physicians were clinically burnt out, 34% were suffering from a degree of depression and over 50% reported some symptoms of the burn out. Exactly what do you think has happened to those numbers after the pandemic? Especially with physicians recognizing that even though we seem to be coming out of the pandemic, there is an overwhelming backlog of delayed care to address?

Yet amongst this backdrop, here comes the CFPC, not to try to find ways to support physicians or provide tools to help them be healthy so they can look after their patients better, but to berate, admonish and vilify them as a group. This is supposed to make things better??

The type of evidence free invective Ladouceur ran should never have been given any platform, much less a platform on an organization who’s mission statement includes advocacy on the part of the specialty of Family Medicine. Frankly, I’m embarrassed to be a member of the CFPC, though given the regulatory requirements to maintain my continuing medical education, I can’t resign from it.

If the CFPC really wants to help, they will pull Ladouceur’s screed from their magazine, and apologize to all 40,000 Family Physicians in Canada. Anything less will suggest complicity and sympathy with his views, and will contribute to Family Physicians losing confidence in the CFPC.

Conscience Rights are HUMAN Rights

Last year, I wrote a blog about Conscience Rights.  The motivation for the blog was the concerning move by the Ontario courts to “infringe on doctors’ religious freedoms.

I know, I know, the case dealt with whether physicians (and other health care providers) had the ability to refuse to provide a referral for situations where they conscientiously objected. Currently, the hot topic for this scenario is Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). And yes, the headlines simply said the request for an appeal of a lower court decision on granting physicians conscience rights was denied. I also know there was a lot of talk about the right of the patient to determine their own health care (which is of course must be respected).

But in the text of the initial ruling, the courts clearly and unequivocally admitted that they were infringing on doctors’ rights.

I made a Star Trek reference in my last blog on this issue. Hence, one would be appropriate here. It would seem the Ontario Courts were using the logic first uttered by Mr. Spock in Star Trek 2 – The Wrath of Khan:

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

But is that really the case here? Will patients be unable to access legal health care services, simply because physicians are able to keep their fundamental human rights? The short answer is no.

In Ontario, for a service such as MAiD, all a patient really has to do is call the MAiD co-ordination service, and they are guaranteed an assessment. A physician who gets a request for this service simply has to give a patient the 1-800 number to call. Heck, patients can even look the number up online and call themselves without asking their own physician.

In short, the service is readily available to those who want it. The needs of the many are not, in any way, shape or form compromised by Conscience Rights legislation. The Ontario Courts have therefore willingly infringed on the rights of a minority, on the basis of a false premise.

Let me also mention the reaction to my last blog on this issue. I had mentioned that in the near future, we would be facing many ethical dilemmas as a society. Not the least of these include new genetic treatments and therapies. Most physicians were supportive of my blog but some expressed concern that brining up genetic advancements was too extreme. One commentator even used the analogy that seemingly all twitter arguments degrade to – “…can’t compare asking for MAID to asking to revisit the Nazi eugenics movement

And yet.

Look what’s happening in the world.

In China, a group of scientists have inserted human brain DNA into monkeys. They state the reason for this is to study conditions like Autism. Jeez, have these people never seen Planet of the Apes????

As Elon Musk dreams of colonizing Mars, scientists are now actively looking at “tweaking” the DNA of people who wish to colonize Mars as a way to protect them from harmful radiation and microgravity. There is even thought being given to merging our DNA with tardigrades (weird microscopic creatures that can seemingly survive anything).

This s all in addition to work that is being done by companies like Neuralink (another Elon Musk organization) to develop brain implants.

Indeed, as Davis Masci pointed out last September:

“But thanks to recent scientific developments in areas such as biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology, humanity may be on the cusp of an enhancement revolution. In the next two or three decades, people may have the option to change themselves and their children in ways that, up to now, have existed largely in the minds of science fiction writers and creators of comic book superheroes”

These aren’t some weird tabloid, National Enquirer type stories. There are real scientists actively doing this kind of work. The point being that protecting Conscience Rights is not just about MAiD, it’s about ensuring that on a go forward basis, peoples fundamental freedoms are not impugned in what promises to be the most ethically challenging time for science in human history. It’s about ensuring that people do not have to work on or accept for themselves, things that they find morally objectionable.

As a free society, we have always recognized certain inalienable human rights. It’s not just the right to free speech, assembly or vote. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically mentions freedom of conscience and religion (see section 2). This was due in large part to a recognition that a diverse society is a stronger society and in order to protect that diversity, we must protect fundamental freedoms.

That’s where the judges erred last year. By infringing on the rights of a few, stating that by doing so they were protecting the right of many (which as I’ve shown above, isn’t even the case), the judges have damaged our society as whole, and made it easier to take away more rights from more people. They failed to realize that you cannot make a society stronger, or more free, by taking away the rights of a minority. You only increase the possibility of taking away more rights in the future.

As a society, we must be ever watchful for these infringements on our freedoms. To use another Star Trek quote, this time from Captain Jean-Luc Picard (nerd alert – TNG episode “The Drumhead”):

Vigilance. That is the price we continually have to pay.

“Clients”: an Offensive, Dehumanizing Term in Health Care

Over the past 15 years, one of the most troubling trends in health care, has been the desire by health care bureaucrats, to start using the term “clients” instead of patients when referring to people who are in need of health care.

Proponents of the term (mostly administrators and managers who probably have never actually provided front line care) make all sorts of pompous, highly exaggerated claims about what will happen if we all start saying “clients.” Magically, people will feel empowered, autonomy will be promoted, and self-determination will suddenly be granted in the treatment planning and recovery process.

Not only that but social, physical, cultural, spiritual, environmental, medical and psychological needs will suddenly be taken care of in health care, because of course, doctors and nurses completely ignore all of this right now.

Reading through documents that promote the use of the term client is like reading a thesaurus of health care buzz phrases. “Shared decision making.” “Partnerships.””Declaration of Values.””Achievement of targets set out in the quality improvement plan.””Patient Experience.” (I note the irony in the fact that they didn’t use the term client experience). All this and much more, thrown randomly and in rapid fire succession at the poor reader, futilely hoping that something will resonate.

What poppycock.

Here’s the thing. The term patient has been around for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. While the bland dictionary definition is “a person who is under medical care or treatment”, the reality is the word has its origins thousands of years ago in Latin (patiens). It has a deep meaning dating back to the days of Hippocrates and denotes a special and honourable bond between doctors and nurses, and those that they serve.

Note my last sentence. “…those that they serve.” The word patient by its historical meaning clearly denotes a deep obligation on those of us who provide health care. The word patient compels us to heed our patients needs, their wants and their desires. It is we who serve them, not the other way around.

Does this always happen? Of course not. There are cases of doctors (and nurses) who have abused the privilege we have of looking after patients. These situations are offensive and diminish the rest of us, and are rightfully and appropriately dealt with by the regulatory bodies.

But here’s the thing. Using the phrase client won’t change any of that. Client is defined as “a customer, anyone under the patronage of another; a dependent.” Client, in its literal definition, suggests a hierarchical, dare I say even patriarchal, relationship that bureaucrats claim to oppose.

Why then is there a persistent desire to try and force this phrase on physicians and nurses? My two Canadian cents (2.44 cents American) is that this is likely driven unconsciously by the fact that many bureaucrats are jealous of the relationships doctors and nurses have with their patients. They won’t admit it, heck, they are probably unaware of it, but my strong suspicion is that the relationship we have with our patients is something bureaucrats fear.

One thing I’ve come to appreciate about bureaucracy in general is that it doesn’t actually care as much about cost savings, efficiency, or even patient experience. What matters most is predictability and control. Doesn’t matter if the budget is going to be three times more than last year, so long as bureaucrats know in advance that it will be that. Doesn’t matter if hospitalization rates go up, so long as, you guessed it, bureaucrats know about it ahead of time.

The reality of health care in Canada is physicians threaten predictability and control. Supposing a patient is admitted to hospital with a pneumonia. Some consultant from Dogbert Inc. will tell me that based on age and co-morbidities that person should spend 3.4 days in hospital. But what if that person lives alone? What if home care is stretched and can’t provide a daily visit on discharge? Well, then the physician will of course, keep the patient in hospital for an extra day or two (because we serve the patients). But there goes the plan the bureaucrat had put forth for the patient. The carefully laid out discharge prediction now has to be unexpectedly revised. The horror!

This is where the term client becomes really offensive, dehumanizing and degrading. When one has a client, they are essentially a commodity. Extraneous factors (likely living alone with no family support) have no meaning. They become a widget that actually has to meet uniform standards (out of hospital in 3.4 days!) or else.

This is why it offends me so when I see health care agencies use this term. Public Health units use it a lot, mental health services are using it and even the last referral form I filled out for Hospital for Sick Children used that phrase.

Shame on all of them.

Words matter. Patient is an honourable phrase, steeped in history and tradition. While ongoing emphasis and education needs to be placed on a patient’s right to autonomy and input into their care needs, renouncing a principled title like patient for a consumerist phrase like client is not the answer. We do need to do better to recognize patients rights, but we need to do it by better realizing the distinguished meaning of the word patient, and not by cowardly giving into bureaucrats who subconsciously want to diminish and degrade the sacred bond we have with those we care for.

And if you don’t believe that other front line physicians feel the same way, see the spontaneous applause I got when broaching this during my inauguration speech two years ago:

Let’s Discuss the Astra Zeneca Covid Vaccine

The following blog is written by Dr. Anne-Marie Zajdlik, MD, CCFP. She is the founder of ARCH Clinic Guelph and Waterloo, Founding Director of Bracelet of Hope and Founder of the Hope Health Centre

Let’s discuss the AstraZeneca vaccine.  I am just going to give you some facts.  You can make your own decision about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

On March 29th,  Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommended provinces pause on the use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine on those under the age of 55 because of safety concerns. NACI’s priority is vaccine safety.   Their decision came after the European Medicines Agency ( EMA), Europe’s Health Canada equivalent, investigated 25 cases of very rare blood clots out of about 20 million AstraZeneca vaccines given.  On March 18th the EMA concluded that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine far outweigh this risk if there is a true increased risk of the blood clots.

Most of these rare blood clots occurred in women under the age of 55 ( 18 out of 25).  Thus, NACI’s recommendation to halt the use of the AZ vaccine in this age group pending further review of the ongoing real-time research.

So, 25 cases out of 20 million vaccinations is a risk of about 1 in a million.  That means that if there actually is an increased risk, the risk is 1 case of the rare blood clots out of 1 million vaccines given. One in a million.

Let’s shed some light on that: The risk of blood clots developing among new users of oral contraceptive pills ( birth control pills) is 8 out of 10,000. Thirty four out of 10,000 women who use  hormone replacement therapy ( HRT ) will develop a blood clot at some point.  And, the risk of developing a blood clot in women in general  is is 16/100,000. 

The Canadian maternal mortality rate ( the rate of death in women during childbirth) is 8.3 deaths per 100,000.

No medical intervention is without risks.  The question is, should we take that risk?  That is what NACI will try to figure out in the coming weeks. Let’s balance that risk of 1 in a million with the risk of COVID-19. 

A new briefing note from a panel of science experts advising the Ontario government on COVID-19 shows a province at a tipping point. Variants that are more deadly are circulating widely, new daily infections have reached the same number at the height of the second wave, and the number of people hospitalized is now more than 20 per cent higher than at the start of the last province-wide lockdown.

These variants are more dangerous and more easily transmitted.  They cause 2.5 to 4.1 deaths per 1000 detected cases.  That’s deaths.  The risk of serious complications with the variants is double the risk of the original COVID-19 virus:  20 out of 100.

Here’s a quote that scared me.  “Right now in Ontario, the pandemic is completely out of control,” Dr. Peter Juni, the scientific director and a professor of medicine and epidemiology with the University of Toronto and member of Ontario’s COVID-19 science advisory table.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is over 70% effective up front and almost 100% effective at preventing deaths and hospitalizations from COVID-19. Breathe.  It is not time to throw out the baby with the bath water.  No blood clots have occurred in people over 60.  We should continue using the AstraZeneca vaccine in this age group which is most at risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19.

Open Letter to the Emergency Operations Centre

I wrote this email on March 23, 2021 to the Emergency Operations Centre of the Ministry of Health in regards to Directive #3 which places significant restrictions on the residents of Long Term Care homes during the pandemic. The email has gone unanswered and so I making it public today.

Hi there,

I’m currently the medical director for Bay Haven Long Term Care in Collingwood Ontario.  I had sent the email below asking for some easing of restrictions for our LTC as we now have all but two residents (new admits) who were fully immunized for COVID-19.  Our medical officer of health, Dr. Colin Lee expressed that while he was sympathetic, he could not overturn Directive #3, and asked that forward you with my original email.  I would ask that you please consider the overall well being of the residents in LTC centres like mine, where we have almost full immunization.


Begin original letter:


Hi Xxxx, 

I understand you are the contact person at Public Health for Bay Haven.  I’m hoping that you can help me advocate for the residents of the nursing home.  As you are aware, most nursing home residents throughout the province are suffering from “confinement syndrome”.  The year long isolation caused by the COVID pandemic has had a devastating effect on their emotional health and the residents are really struggling as a result.  

As the Medical Director, I see these issues when I visit, and it pains me to see how much the mood of the residents has gone down in the past year.  Don’t get me wrong, I do understand the rational behind some of the restrictions that have been put in place, and I have supported those restrictions.  They were important to protect the health and safety of Bay Haven, and we have been fortunate to not have a COVID outbreak in our facility. 

But we also now are in a situation where all but two of the residents (new admits) are immunized for COVID and a good number of staff are immunized as well.  With that, I need to focus on the other aspects of care for the residents.  

The blunt reality however, is that Bay Haven will not go against Public Health directives, no matter what I personally think of them.  So I need your (or somebody in public health’s) support to change some of the directives. 

I want to point out that the most recent data shows that the COVID vaccines DO, in fact, reduce transmission (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pfizer-covid-vaccine-cuts-transmission-coronavirus-new-real-world-study-n1260542).  This is unsurprising as every other successful vaccine also reduces transmission, but we now have proof of this.  In fact, transmission of COVID is reduced after just ONE dose of the vaccine (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-after-1-dose-study-finds_n_6038e92ec5b6b745c4b655ba). 

With that, I would like to implement the following changes (and need Public Health to support): 

1) We continue to have less than 100% of our staff immunized.  To encourage more of them to be immunized, I would like to stop screening with np swabs, those that have been immunized (two weeks after their second shot).  Nobody likes getting an NP swab.  If the un-immunized staff see that they will not be subjected to this test, it might encourage them to get their own shots.  And we get to save our swabs for those who really need it.  (Addendum – Since this letter is public, what I was not aware of when I wrote the original is that Bay Haven actually has one of the highest percentages of nursing home staff who’ve been immunized in the province – almost 80%! Having said that, nothing wrong with going for the other 20%)

2) All the residents who have been immunized need to be allowed to go back to congregating as usual.  This includes all their group activities and sessions. 

3) We should allow an increased number of visitors to the facility.  I would agree the visitors should have proof of either immunization, a recent negative COVID swab, or be willing to have a rapid swab done in our facility.  I think each resident can assign 4 people who can come and visit, and we can work on putting a limit on the number of visitors at any one time.  

4) If a resident has been immunized, they should be able to leave the facility for social gatherings, not just medical appointments.  Whoever drives them would need to have proof of immunization, a recent swab or have an NP swab in our facility since they presumably enter the building.  But the immunized resident cannot (as per the articles above) bring back and transmit the infection themselves. 

If Public Health could support this, it would go a long way to improving the mental health of the residents and improve their quality of life.  It’s the least we can do after all they have done for society over their years.   

Sohail Gandhi, MD, CCFP

Medical Director, Bay Haven Seniors

Alberta Doctors Should Reject the Tentative Agreement

Disclaimer: Just a reminder that, once again, I am not speaking on behalf of the Ontario Medical Association. The opinions expressed in this blog are mine, and mine alone.

Many who read this will wonder why I’m talking about a potential physicians agreement in another province. Some will point to my role at the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) as past-president and suggest that I should stay out of the affairs of another Provincial, Territorial Medical Association (PTMA). Normally I would. But the situation in Alberta has implications for physicians across the country, including Ontario, so I feel compelled to speak out. Besides, considering the then President of the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) commented on our own tentative agreement in 2016 (and he was right by the way), I think it’s ok for me to speak out as well.

I don’t know all the details about the ins and outs of how the AMA works, nor do I know all minutiae about their negotiations process.

But I know when doctors are getting screwed by a government.

Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro

Last week, the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), announced a tentative agreement with their government. The agreement allows their volatile, combustible Health Minister Tyler Shandro almost unlimited, and truly unprecedented power over Alberta Physicians:

  • It reduces their physician pay to 2018 levels
  • It gives the temperamental Shandro Ultimate authority over how much physicians get paid. Just read this truly scary statement by the AMA:

“The AMA acknowledges that the physician services budget is established by the minister in the minister’s sole discretion,” it states.

“The AMA further acknowledges that nothing in this agreement fetters the minister’s authority or discretion with respect to the physician services budget.”

  • It places a hard cap on the physicians services budget, meaning that if the demand for care went up above the predicted level, physicians incomes would be clawed back to make up the difference. As an aside, demand will almost certainly exceed the projections. We are coming out of a pandemic and are facing an enormous backlog of care. How eager do you think the volatile Shandro will be to allow an overage of the physicians service budget going forward?
  • Worse, the AMA is required to discontinue their lawsuit demanding binding arbitration, which all physicians should view as an inherent right.

For me personally, the whole Alberta situation has brought back some particularly bad memories. In 2012 the OMA accepted a 0.5% fee cut in the hopes that appeasement of a bullying government would lead to better things in the future. This of course is not the way to stand up to bullies, and Ontario physicians felt the brunt of this as the now second worst health minister I have ever seen, “Unilateral Eric” Hoskins, sensing weakness, imposed unilateral cuts to physicians in 2015.

After a couple of years of internecine warfare, the OMA and Unilateral Eric came to a tentative agreement in 2016 as well. That agreement:

  • Reduced physicians pay to levels from a few years back setting a lower base rate for the Physician Service Budget
  • Allowed for a hard cap on physicians billing
  • Allowed the Health Minister to claw back physicians billings if usage exceeded projections

Sound familiar? At least the Ontario agreement allowed our own Charter Challenge on Binding Arbitration to continue (which it painfully, slowly does to this day).

We were told by the OMA Board at the time that this agreement was the “best that could be done” and that we were going be faced with even more clawbacks and cuts if we turned it down. As is well known now, the agreement was soundly rejected, the increased clawbacks never materialized and when faced with the prospect of an election, the government of then Premier Kathleen Wynne finally had to recognize that Arbitration was an inherent right for all essential workers, physicians included, and we secured a fair Binding Arbitration Framework.

All of which is my way of encouraging Alberta Physicians to realize that they don’t have to simply roll over and accept the “best we can get”. While there will be some pain in rejecting the agreement, at the end of the day, governments need to go to the polls. That’s when having angry doctors makes them vulnerable. It will not be pleasant to hold out, and say no (it certainly wasn’t in Ontario!) but I submit that it is better to keep your integrity intact and stand up to a patently unfair deal.

But wait, what about these implications for physicians across Canada I referred to? It all has to do with negotiations.

Obviously, I can’t talk in detail about negotiations. BUT, what I can confirm is what many of us have long suspected. Bureaucrats from Provincial Governments talk to each other all the time. They share data. They share information, and they share tactics. They may or may not (depending on their political masters) use a particular tactic/program/scheme etc, but they do share.

Which means, that IF Alberta docs pass an agreement like this, which chains them to a hard cap and allows even a minister as incendiary as Shandro, free, unfettered reign, then we can expect other governments to attempt this as well. “Your colleagues in Alberta accepted this, why can’t you be as reasonable and co-operative as them?”will be the opening position in negotiations in many provinces after this.

That is why physicians across the country should follow the situation in Alberta with interest. That is why we should support our Alberta colleagues. That is why, for the sake of physicians in Alberta, and everywhere in Canada, this deal needs to be rejected.

If you want more, a colleague has prepared a helpful Q&A about our situation, and you can access it here.

The REAL Reason NACI Recommends 16 Weeks Between COVID Vaccine Shots

Recently, the National Advisory Council on Immunizations, or NACI, announced that it was reasonable to wait up to sixteen weeks between your Covid-19 vaccination shots. This applies to the three, Health Canada approved, two shot vaccines (Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca). Canada is the only country in the world to stretch out the interval between shots to four months. The manufacturers of the vaccines continue to suggest three weeks between shots.

This decision was not without controversy. No less than Canada’s chief scientist, Dr. Mona Nemer, called this a “population level experiment.” Multiple other physicians have tweeted concerns about this. Pfizer/BioNtech won’t sign off on this, and I’m not aware of Moderna or AstraZeneca agreeing to this extended interval either.

But NACI is made up of some really smart people as well. They’ve been providing independent and unbiased advice on all vaccines to the Federal government since 1964. No doubt NACI looked at data from countries around the world, and found that in countries like the UK and Israel, the incidence of COVID19 fell dramatically in the general population after just one dose. This was particularly of note in the UK because they had delayed their second shot (to 12 weeks) despite being called reckless by other countries.

So, we have one group of extremely bright and knowledgeable people saying delaying the second shot up to 16 weeks is ok. Another group of extremely bright and knowledgeable people is saying that this is a problem.

Look, I’m just an old country doctor, not a virologist or immunologist or population health specialist or so on. There is no way I could get into an educated discussion about whether going to 16 weeks between shots will be safe and effective or not because my brain is just not big enough to understand all the minutiae around rising and falling antibody levels.

But I’ve been around long enough to have read multiple statements and press releases from bodies like this, and I’ve learned to read between the lines. Here’s what’s really going on, that nobody (including the press) is talking about.

It’s the fourth bullet point in the summary section of NACI’s recommendation:

  • NACI recommends that in the context of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply, jurisdictions should maximize the number of individuals benefiting from the first dose of vaccine by extending the interval for the second dose of vaccine up to four months

“The context of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply.” See the reason that NACI felt obliged to have Canada be the only country in the world that extends the interval to 16 weeks, is because Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government have botched the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. If we had more COVID-19 vaccines, NACI would never have been put in a position of having to explore a population level experiment.

Trudeau has been saying for weeks now that more vaccines are coming. Heck back on Feb 19 he promised a “big lift” of vaccines. But despite all the hyperbole, the simple fact remains that as I write this blog, Canada is 62nd in the world when it comes to delivering COVID-19 vaccines to our population. We’re behind such illustrious world powers like Dominica, Serbia, Estonia and Aguilla to name a few. For a G-7 country, that’s just embarrassing.

Table courtesy of Our World in Data. Shows Canada has immunized only 8 people per 100 as of March 14, 2021)

This source for all the above information is Our World in Data and you can link to the relevant page here. It is updated daily so my comments are based on what I saw as of March 14, 2021.

Is it any wonder that there’s actually a #TrudeauVaccineFailure on Twitter?

Look, I, like you, am acutely aware that the Trudeau government has signed lots of deals with vaccine manufactures to get Canadians the vaccine. But it’s also extremely telling that Trudeau has refused to release the vaccine contracts. These contracts undoubtedly have a delivery schedule in them, so the fact Trudeau won’t let us see them really incriminates his government. It does nothing to dispel the concerns around the competence of how his government handled the vaccine procurement process.

Th main role of a national government is to protect the welfare of its citizens. If Canada had been in the top ten in vaccines procured per capita (surely not unreasonable for a G-7 country), NACI would not have needed to explore a 16 week vaccination interval. And we likely wouldn’t be looking at a third wave in Ontario.

By not procuring COVID-19 vaccines in a more timely manner, the Trudeau Liberals have failed the people of Canada.

Which COVID Vaccine Should You Get?

Me getting the first dose of my Covid-19 Vaccine.

Canada now has 4 different vaccines to help us fight COVID-19, BioNtech/Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson. While that’s a (very) good thing, this has led to some inevitable questions about which vaccine is “better” and whether people should wait for one or the other. An email from a friend who questioned the AstraZeneca vaccine inspired me to write this.

First, to re-iterate once again, while is true that all of these vaccines were developed at a rapid pace, the reality is that they all have been thoroughly tested. The shortcuts that were made were made in the bureaucracy, not the human trials. You can read my thoughts on that here, or see my colleague Dr. Greg Rose explain it better here.

There will likely never, ever be a vaccine (of any kind) that is 100 per cent safe (ever), but overall these vaccines are extremely safe for the general population.

The difficult part in sorting out information about the COVID vaccines is two fold. First, there is a whole lot of information that comes out, almost on a daily basis. It’s hard for not just physicians to keep track of it all, but also members of the general public. Second, some of the information that is released is extremely premature, without a full analysis being done. First impressions being lasting impressions, this often times creates an incorrect perception of a vaccine, that is hard to refute later on.

For example, the BioNtech/Pfizer vaccine was initially plagued by concerns that it caused Bell’s palsy (based on a report that 4 people got it after taking the vaccine) and that death was a side effect (based on report in Norway of 33 people over the age of 80 dying after taking the vaccine). It wasn’t until later that a through review showed that the Bell’s palsy issue was actually the same or less than the background rate. Essentially, you would expect about 12 people a year in the vaccine group to get Bell’s palsy anyway, regardless of whether they got the vaccine or not, so the fact that 4 got it didn’t mean it was linked to the vaccine, just that they were going to get it anyway. As for the 33 deaths, turns out that was in keeping with Norways normal death rate for their population of over 80 year olds, so again, not related to the vaccine.

Think of it this way. The most common time to get a heart attack is actually three hours after you wake up. Does this mean eating breakfast causes a heart attack? Of course not. Just because those two things happen close together, doesn’t mean that one caused the other. In statistics this is referred to as “correlation does not imply causation.” Sadly, there is rather a lot of correlation that is brought up about all of these vaccines, and the assumption is made that they are causing problems.

It was initially claimed the Moderna vaccine had more side effects than the BioNtech/Pfizer one. But it was only after studying it more that people realized that these aren’t really side effects, but proof that the vaccine is working. Your second shot of the Moderna vaccine made your immune system mount a response to what it viewed as a foreign body. Thus the muscle aches, fever and headaches that went along with it.

Now most recently there is some sub-optimal information circulating around the AstraZeneca vaccine. First, there was concern that they would not work against certain strains of COVID19, particularly the South African strain. Second is concern about blood clots.

The South African strain issue was particularly overblown. “Only 10% effective” screamed out some headlines. South Africa even stopped using this vaccine as a result. The full story is somewhat different.

Turns out the study that suggested AstraZeneca wouldn’t work against the SouthAfrica variant was very small (2,000 people), and not well done. Further more, what really matters, is preventing deaths, hospitalizations and severe disease and AstraZeneca works for this with the South African strain. Perhaps you may get a mild case of COVID19 (cough, fever, mild muscle aches for a couple of days). But the point of the vaccine is prevention of severe cases and deaths.

Similarly, the blood clot issue again appears to be one of correlation, not causation. The background rate of blood clots in the population would explain the ones found in Europe. Health Canada and Thrombosis Canada is not worried, and you shouldn’t worry either.

So back to the question at hand. Which vaccine should you get? My personal feeling is the J&J one would be the best simply because, logistically it’s much easier. Get one shot and it’s done. The problem with that one is that we have an effete Prime Minister who’s totally botched vaccine procurement for Canadians. There’s a reason #trudeauvaccinefailure is on twitter. Last I checked we are 61st in the world for procurement of vaccines (and for a G-7 country, that’s just embarrassing).

While happily announcing the approval of the J&J vaccine, Trudeau and the Liberals neglected to emphasize the fine print. Namely that the vaccine would likely not start to arrive until the end of April or early May, and that would only be in small amounts. The bulk of this vaccine won’t be in Canada until September.

Of course, right on queue, a few days after boasting about J&J, it was announced there would be production delays. Why the media isn’t talking about the outright incompetence of Trudeau and his government in protecting Canadian lives is beyond me.

Therefore, the best thing you can do is get the first vaccine that you are offered. When you get notified to get your shot, don’t ask which one, just get it. For what matters the most (keeping you out of hospital or dying from COVID19), they all work roughly the same.

I urge you all to do your part, protect yourself, protect others, and let’s get ourselves out of this pandemic, and back to a normal life.

A Great Cause.

As an addendum I would like to encourage all of my readers to consider buying some merchandise from Conquer Covid 19. This all volunteer group did yeoman’s work providing PPE to physicians, health care workers and others in need. Last year they raised $2.4 million and donated around 3 million (!) pieces of PPE.

This year they are selling their extremely boring merchandise (check Ryan Reynolds take on it here) and proceeds will go to LTCfrontline foods, providing hot meals to those workers who are struggling in long term care homes and Call Auntie, an organization that helps Indigenous people navigate issues around COVID19.

Please click here and donate what you can.

HEPA Filters, Focus on Ventilation Can Help Open Economy

This week, much of Ontario moves out of a complete lockdown (I finally get a hair cut!). The move itself has not been without controversy, with some critics saying the government is opening too fast, and others saying they’re opening too slowly.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we can re-open the economy safely, we should. COVID19 has done terrible damage over the past year. Lives lost. Families unable to say goodbye to their loved ones. On going health issues in those who survived COVID19 infections and much, much more. But there is also an increase in the number of people suffering from mental illness, a rise in domestic abuse, and very real economic hardships faced by millions of Canadians.

It has been noted that there were were more deaths than expected in Canada last year, and not all of these “excess deaths” were directly caused by COVID19. We are starting to realize that some of deaths are “indirect”. That’s to say, the social isolation, the lack of emotional, financial and other support, the delayed medical procedures and more, have caused these deaths.

This situation is particularly bad in British Columbia and Alberta, where there were 270 and 360 more deaths than expected between March 15 and April 25 alone, and these were not directly attributed to COVID19.

To be clear, the lockdowns were necessary. And if we open the economy in an un-safe manner, COVID cases will rise again, there will be more death and perhaps even a dreaded third wave. We’ve seen from Sweden what happens when a country doesn’t shut down in the face of COVID. Even their king has admitted Sweden’s approach was a total failure.

It’s just that we cannot ignore the pain and suffering that occurs by a lockdown as well.

That’s why to my mind the focus needs to be on how to re-open safely. We have one of the worst pandemic responses in the world, so we must do better. Is there something we can do, that hasn’t been done in Canada yet?

Turns out, there just might be.

For far too long, Health Canada did not focus on airborne spread of COVID19. They stressed the “droplet” method of transmission, where fluid particles are expelled from your mouth, land on a surface and are then when you touch them, wind up on your fingers, and then into your body when you touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Full disclosure, if you search hard enough, you can find a video of me somewhere on the net saying exactly that, and telling people not to wear masks. It is clearly outdated now, and should be ignored.

Japan, by contrast, focused on airborne spread as far back as February of 2020. Their whole focus was to ensure proper ventilation and using air purifiers with HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters in rooms. Everybody was asked to wear a mask early last year. Granted it is culturally more accepted to wear masks in Japan. But the focus was on airborne spread right from the start.

A diagram showing Japan’s process for dealing with COVID19, part of their submission to “Environment International” – September 2020 edition

How well did Japan do? Japan has a population of 125 million people in a country about 3/4 the size of Baffin Island. As I write this, data from their COVID tracking system shows that 417,116 people have been infected (0.33% of the population) and 7,038 have died (.0056% of the population).

These numbers are all the more remarkable considering that Japan did just about everything else wrong. They did not test enough (at least at the beginning), the lockdown measures were half hearted and voluntary, many pachinko parlours (a mix of gambling and alcohol) stayed open, and traffic on their notoriously crowded commuter trains to work was only down 18%.

Health Canada did not even acknowledge airborne spread of COVID19 until November 2020 (9 months after Japan and 4 months after the World Health Organization). Our Covid19 tracker shows terrible results. We have a population of 38 million. Yet as I write this, we have had 826,528 cases (2.17 % of the population or 6.6 x as many as Japan on a pro-rated basis) and 21,309 deaths (.056% of the population or almost exactly 10 x as many deaths as Japan on a pro-rated basis).

It does make one wonder, if we had approached COVID19 as having airborne spread right from the start, could we have saved a number of lives, and limited the lockdowns we endured? And now that the evidence is strong that COVID19 is airborne, should we not have businesses focus on safe ventilation as a condition for opening?

What’s required for optimal ventilation? Well ideally, you should have an HVAC system that exchanges the air in a given room 6 times an hour with an HEPA filter. HEPA filters can remove the vast majority of droplets that the COVID19 virus (and other viruses!) live in. But the reality is that this would be ultra costly and take far too long to replace every HVAC in most commercial buildings. (Should definitely be a requirement for new commercial properties and especially the new nursing homes Ontario is building).


What can other businesses do instead? One of my patients is a manager at a Tim Hortons. They have 14 tables at the Tim’s. What if the restaurant put a portable air purifier with a HEPA filter on each table? There are many brands that cost $80-$100 each for a small size one. But with one on each table (where people would be talking and eating without masks, thus expelling the virus), you could reduce viral spread.

Granted at that price, the air purifiers would only last about six months, but by that time hopefully we will all be vaccinated anyway.

Similarly, we could mandate appropriate air purifiers in other businesses as requirement for opening. To be clear, people should still wear masks, wash hands regularly and physically distance as much as possible. Those are important and necessary precautions for re-opening. But the HEPA filter purifiers would simply provide that extra level of protection. It’s why I asked my nursing home to install them in their facility (and thank you to the owners of Bay Haven for doing that).

Canadians have suffered terribly over the past year. For the sake of our physical and mental health we need to re-open the economy, but do it in away that will not increase COVID19 infections, and not have us yo-yo between lockdowns and re-opening. Focusing on ventilation and HEPA filters can help us do this safely.