Dissent Equals Iniquity
Laval fires a full professor for disseminating inconvenient information
image source
No, this is not another DEI story about someone who “misgendered” someone who preferred to be misgendered in some other way. It is a story about one of the continent’s oldest universities doubling down on what two years ago I recto-gendered by calling A Repressive Political Act. I encourage readers to review that piece. What I have to say now is merely an update, though the news it contains is by no means “mere” to him or to his family and friends: Patrick Provost has been fired.
I should add, before letting him supply the details, that he had to be fired. It simply won’t do to have professors of science speaking publicly on science, if the science on which they are speaking contains “malinformation,” meaning information inconvenient to vested interests.
And what are those interests? They are, of course, financial interests. Grants from Pfizer or Moderna, for example, or from the government departments and agencies with whom these companies partner. They are at the same time political interests, then, for the university itself is increasingly a pawn of such partnerships, to which narrative-control is absolutely indispensable. The odd theologian going off-narrative is one thing. But a scientist? That’s quite another.
People complain about the ideological tyranny displayed in so many disciplines in the humanities these days—even to call them “disciplines” is to misgender them; to call them “humanities” likewise, since they busy themselves deconstructing humanity—but there’s relatively little money in play there. The big money is in the so-called hard sciences, because that’s where the main return on investment is to be found. It is found by turning the hard sciences soft; that is, by making them pliable to vested interests.
Those vested interests don’t give a damn about science as such. It is “The Science” they care about, because that is the kind of science you can be told by narrative-spinners to follow. And when you do follow it, so does your money. It flows to them. So does much else you thought was yours.
Enter Professor Provost, who does real science. He did not take umbrage at all that. He took umbrage at the fact that innocent children were suffering the risks and reaping none of the alleged rewards of the Pfizer and Moderna products in question. That these were dangerous products he knew both scientifically and from personal experience.
It was okay for him to know that, but it was not okay for him to say that. He was attacked for saying it by soft-headed colleagues, who could not handle the cognitive and psychological dissonance it produced in their Science-addled brains. He was attacked also by those with trade-marked careers, who give careful attention to which side their bread is buttered on. Or so it appears to me. What follows below is the letter he himself released to more sensible colleagues, to inform them of what was happening and to encourage them to think harder about why it was happening.
Parts of this letter Libre Média had already leaked before the public announcement. But before I provide the full letter, here’s how Le Devoir broke the news in the mainstream French Press, after interview with Professor Provost:
Following repeated complaints about his controversial comments on COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines, Professor Patrick Provost was dismissed by Université Laval on March 28. A decision he intends to contest, in the hope of being reinstated within the institution.
“With all the harassment I've been the victim of with Université Laval over the past 26 months, I was surprised, but I expected it,” says the former professor in the institution's Department of Microbiology-Infectiology and Immunology in an interview about his dismissal. “But I never thought they'd go this far,” agrees Provost, who learned of his dismissal through a letter signed by André Darveau, Vice-Rector, Human Resources and Finance.
“Patrick Provost is no longer employed by Université Laval,” confirmed Andrée-Anne Stewart, a spokesperson for the university, in a letter. However, the University was unable to provide detailed reasons for the dismissal, due to the confidentiality rules governing this type of case.
That’s machine-translated, I should note, as (with a few corrections) is the letter itself as it now appears here in English, supplying those embargoed details…
Letter to colleagues from Professor Provost
24-04-23
Professor Patrick Provost has been dismissed by Laval University because of his internal and public criticism of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.
On the eve of the Paschal holiday, Thursday 28 March 2024, the Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval, André Darveau, informed me in writing of my dismissal. After an unblemished 35-year career in academic research in the biomedical field, including 22 years as a Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Université Laval and as a Researcher at the CHU de Québec Research Centre.
I am probably the first professor to be dismissed in the exercise of his academic freedom since the Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment, which is supposed to protect it, came into force on 7 June 2022.
My training and my interventions
This decision follows a series of warnings and disciplinary sanctions which, at source, concern a single, sensitive, even explosive issue: my public and internal criticism of Covid-19 mRNA 'vaccines'. Trained as a biochemist, my research work has led me to develop expertise in RNA (over the last 20 years) and lipid nanoparticles (over the last 10 years), which are the two active ingredients in these new 'vaccines'. I am therefore in a position to understand and explain the concepts behind how these 'vaccines' work and, above all, to appreciate the risks they pose to human health. Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA products are based on a completely new technology and are not "vaccines" - the definition of which was changed in September 2021 - in the traditional sense of the term as understood by the general public.
Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new"vaccines", I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognised concepts, solid scientific evidence and reasoning. The main purpose of my statements was to inform and alert the public, my colleagues, my superiors, government experts, doctors and those elected to represent us in the Quebec National Assembly. In a factual, analytical, thoughtful, well-sourced and respectful manner, but insistent (in the absence of a response), I appealed to my interlocutors to reason, prudence, transparency, collaboration, dialogue (or contradictory debates) and respect for the precautionary principle, the rules of ethics, oaths (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath) and medical codes of ethics (e.g. the Nuremberg Code), always with the avowed aim of wanting to 'ensure the protection of the public'.
Why is it that only the public were open, receptive and interested in what I had to say, but that Vice-Rector André Darveau ultimately relieved me of my duties?
The disappearance of debates
Throughout my 35-year career in research, I have been in competition with my peers and I have worked hard to eventually make my mark as a professor and remain competitive in research. I have constantly been challenged, confronted, questioned, criticised and called upon to debate my work, my ideas and my opinions by my peers. Why haven't I been so in the last year or two, when I've made so many public appearances? Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate? Why do academics prefer to lodge complaints with Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department rather than put their (counter-)arguments to the public or to the main person concerned?
Obtaining nearly 6 million dollars in government funding since the start of my career, training 60 highly qualified people, publishing around a hundred articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals (cited in over 16,000 other articles), and the recognition of my research work with 3 Discovery of the Year awards will not have been enough to be recognised as a valid or credible interlocutor and to open dialogue with my colleagues, my hierarchical superiors or the authorities, nor to resist the steamroller of a political narrative imposed without debate. Is this narrative so weak that it must be protected from criticism at all costs? At the cost of the career of a full professor and established researcher?
What does it take to gain the ear of those in positions of authority in Quebec?
My dismissal comes at the end of a saga that began 27 months ago with a complaint from a professor who disagreed with my comments. Rather than respecting the principle of collegiality and the academic freedom of its professors, allowing reconciliation, facilitating dialogue or debate, or offering mediation, Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department quickly ruled the complaint admissible, antagonized the professors involved, prohibited all exchange and discussion, and transported the debate behind closed doors. Is this a way for the human resources department of a university institution to properly manage interactions, disagreements and personal or opinion-based conflicts between the university's 4,075 teaching staff, including 1,665 professors (1,285 members of the SPUL)?
Why hasn't Rector Sophie D'Amours' Université Laval encouraged its professors to express themselves freely, as she claims, and held debates within its walls or in the public arena, as Quebec society would have had a right to expect from the oldest French-language university in North America? Is this not the best way, in a spirit of openness and collegiality, to advance ideas, knowledge and, by extension, society?
The judicialization of opinions and science
The Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval has advocated the judicialization of opinions and science, and the prohibition of adversarial debates, whether public or scientific, throughout the last 27 months of the handling of my case, including the last 22 months under the direction of Vice-Rector Darveau, who took office in July 2022. With the help of lawyers, he applied a cumbersome administrative disciplinary process to deal with a total of eleven complaints (two of which were anonymous), all of which he deemed admissible. The first seven complaints led to four suspensions without pay for a total of six months, one week and one day. All are being challenged by way of grievance before the Labour Court.
Why was I never given the chance to meet, discuss, explain or debate with Vice-Rector Darveau, who has a background in microbiology (BSc), virology (MSc) and biochemistry (PhD), and is therefore in a position to understand my arguments and scientific reasoning?
Why judicialize what we can and should be debating between academics?
A first suspension of 8 weeks without pay was imposed on 13 June 2022 following a complaint from a professor, followed by a second suspension of four months without pay on 23 January 2023 after a complaint from a citizen. The sixth complaint, which was to have led to my dismissal, was dropped on 14 February 2023, after Rector Sophie D'Amours received a letter from 280 colleagues supporting me, denouncing my treatment as "abusive" and asking that the disciplinary measures imposed on me be suspended.
Dismissal contested
The "culminating incident" that led to the dismissal was the lodging of (i) an anonymous complaint, the eighth, by a professor colleague for sharing, with colleagues in my department and my Research Axis, an e-mail with scientific content sent to the 125 Members of the National Assembly, and (ii) three complaints (including one anonymous), the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, among the 25,200 doctors in Quebec who received by post a letter intended to inform them more fully about the Covid-19 modified mRNA "vaccines". Following receipt of the letter, three other doctors, including one in public health, wrote to me for further information and clarification, which I was happy to provide.
With regard to the grounds for my dismissal, I would like to make it clear that there is no question of scientific fraud, fabrication, falsification or destruction of research data, plagiarism, republication, inappropriate attribution of authorship, failure to disclose a conflict of interest, misrepresentation, mismanagement or misappropriation of research funds, undermining the integrity of a scientific peer review process and the awarding of funding, breach of ethics, threats, verbal or physical abuse, sexual assault, or a proven breach of the Act.
The Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de l'Université Laval (SPUL) is contesting my dismissal by filing a grievance with the employer, which will be added to the grievances already before arbitrator Rosaire Houde of the Labour Tribunal.
My dismissal comes at a time when the sanctions on which Vice-Rector Darveau bases his decision are still being contested through grievances before arbitrator Rosaire Houde. The sanctions imposed on the professors remain on their files for a period of two years, which in this case covers the exceptional period of crisis at Covid-19. Does this explain, at least in part, the Vice-Rector's eagerness to dismiss me?
Without being able to be heard or even to discuss with the recipients of my correspondence, i.e. my fellow professors (who are experts in their field), my hierarchical superiors, government experts and elected members of the National Assembly who occupy positions of authority or decision-making. What then is the point of the relevant expertise that I have developed and the scientific knowledge that I have accumulated over the course of my career, thanks to the ongoing funding of my salary and research work by the government, if, when the time comes, I can't put it to the right people?
Why do they turn a deaf ear or refuse to hear my well-founded and reasonable arguments? Why are they trying to silence me, without discussion or debate, and destroy my career as a teacher-researcher? Why am I being prevented from using my expertise and knowledge to help protect the public who pay my salary? Why was I dismissed for wanting to protect the public?
More than nineteen of the twenty-seven scheduled hearing days have taken place so far since 22 March 2023. The next hearing days are scheduled for 29 and 30 April 2024, and 2 May 2024, followed by 28 May and 5 June 2024. Pleadings have already been scheduled for 20, 23 and 30 August 2024, and the arbitrator's decision on the first eight-week suspension without pay is expected towards the end of 2024 or early 2025, i.e. more than three years after the alleged offences. The arbitrator's decision will be decisive for the continuation of my professional career: a favourable ruling could mean the cancellation of the first suspension and influence the subsequent settlement of the other contested sanctions, which could pave the way for possible reinstatement. However, an unfavourable decision could put an end to my career as a research professor at Université Laval.
The professorial function
Academic freedom is the basis of the professorial function and what distinguishes it from other professions.
The repeated attacks, the relentlessness and, ultimately, the dismissal to which I have fallen victim at Université Laval, following internal or public communications aimed at ensuring the protection of the public, in particular children aged 5 to 11, from the imposition of an experimental 'vaccine', raise many questions about the exercise of academic freedom. Clearly, debates between professors, the right to speak publicly, academic freedom, the role of professors in public debate and the mission of the university are all at stake.
Can professors still claim academic freedom, which is the freedom to question and criticize society, government and even their own institution, without doctrinal, moral or ideological constraints or the risk of reprisals, always with the aim of protecting and improving the common good?
Will professors have to submit to conditional academic freedom under strict supervision?
For the academic freedom guaranteed by the conventions and protected by the law to be truly exercised, it must be free of institutional constraints and take precedence over any arbitrary process aimed at restricting it, and not be subordinated or subject to them.
What use is a law, however carefully formulated, if it can be circumvented (e.g. by hijacking an administrative process) with impunity?
Are we witnessing institutions interfering in the academic freedom of their professors?
Are we witnessing a redefinition of the role of professors?
At the same time, since the freedom of university professors is the very foundation of the defence of public interests, in the face of the growing power of private interests, are we witnessing a redefinition of the way in which our free and democratic society functions?
How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?
It is difficult to see how professors who censor themselves and remain in their ivory towers can serve the interests of the society they are supposed to serve.
The mission of universities and our society
I've worked at Université Laval, the leading French-language university in North America, and at the Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, the largest French-language health research centre in North America, but these institutions have been incapable of allowing debate between its professors and researchers. Why is this?
Are we witnessing a redefinition of the mission of universities?
If adversarial debate is banned in our higher education institutions, where will it take place?
If teachers can no longer express themselves freely within their institution or in the public arena, who will be able to express themselves freely in society?
Are we witnessing the re-engineering of society, where we will no longer be able to freely express or debate our ideas or certain subjects, and where professors will censor themselves, rather than intervene in public debate or debate with their colleagues, in order to preserve their privileges?
If there is to be a re-engineering of society, would it not be wise for university professors to initiate and participate in public debates? Otherwise, what use are professors?
Why are professors who refuse or are incapable of engaging in dialogue or debate in a collegial spirit not summoned to explain themselves by Vice-Rector Darveau? Why do these professors remain employed by the university when they do not respect its values or mission?
Finally, there may be reason to wonder about possible conflicts or links of interest in the management of finance and human resources at Université Laval. These two departments were merged in July 2022 and placed under the leadership of a single person, Vice-Rector André Darveau. When Mr Darveau arrived, the Vice-Rector for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Human Resources (VREDIRH) was renamed Vice-Rector for Human Resources and Finance (VRRHF). Do Université Laval's financial backers have any influence on the management of teaching staff by the VRRHF?
Extract from the grievance contesting my dismissal
Statement of grievance: I contest the content, allegations, conclusions and decision set out in the letter of 28 March 2024 signed by André Darveau, Vice-Rector, Human Resources and Finance, in which he dismissed me.
I contest the termination of my employment relationship, which I denounce as having been made without just and sufficient cause, as well as the reasons and arguments submitted by the decision of 28 March 2024. This decision is illegal, unjust, unreasonable and abusive in the context of the events of the past several months and the Employer's relentlessness, conduct and actions towards me. I denounce the numerous and serious prejudices caused on a personal and professional level, in particular those targeting my research activities and the sustainability of my laboratory, the attack on my reputation, my integrity, my dignity, and my mental and physical health.
Claim: The professor asks the arbitrator
annul the dismissal and reinstate my employment relationship without delay;
order the Employer to reinstate me to my position;
order the Employer to cease its relentless, unreasonable and abusive behaviour towards me...
I’ve left off the final lines, but I want to repeat one of the key questions he puts to us: “How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?”
It is not clear any more that we can claim that. The firing of Patrick Provost by Laval, like the firing of Martin Kulldorff by Harvard, testifies to the capture of our institutions of higher learning by the aforementioned vested interests. And if the universities are falling, or have fallen, what remains to fall?
Whatever is left—unless we also, like these scientific gentlemen, courageously contest.
UPDATE 1: Please see the letter in support of Patrick Provost that a number of us have published at the Brownstone Institute.
UPDATE 2: Laval University receives 42 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation to set up a centre to help prepare for future “pandemics.”
So I’m guessing they didn’t fire Professor Provost for want of money. Perhaps for love of money? But I think we already suspected that.
The five-part quodlibet interrupted to bring you this announcement will resume shortly.
Speaking of vested interests: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/can-anyone-halt-the-mrna-juggernaut/ and, in that context, let's not forget https://douglasfarrow.substack.com/p/mcgill-joins-team-moderna.
Thank you for this, and, just to let you know, I used this article in a thread of comments in the online version of my local newspaper: https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2024/04/27/canadian-press-story-on-ivermectin-shows-ignorance-or-bias/. I don’t think my comment will have much reach, but I made it anyway. I won’t reiterate the entire thread, but here’s my comment:
Thank you Sophie for this reference to a fact checking site that assesses https://c19ivm.org/. I will add it to my tracking of claims and counter-claims surrounding the Covid-19 vaccination issue.
According to the link you provide, “The CovidAnalysis Network [i.e. https://c19ivm.org/] promotes misinformation regarding alternative treatments for Covid-19 by cherry-picking and misrepresenting studies with favorable outcomes. In this way, they are promoting anti-vaccination propaganda without stating it for unknown reasons.”
I do not endorse this assessment, but I do agree that the promotion of ivermectin as a possible treatment for Covid is one strand in a string of attempts to warn the public about the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccines.
In an attempt to sort out what is true from false in the massive welter of claims and counter-claims surrounding Covid-19 vaccines I have gathered literally thousands of links and arguments. There is a very consistent pattern in this data. Those who favour the mRNA vaccines refuse to engage with those who call them into question. They treat the questioners with contempt. In contrast, those who call the vaccines into question beg to be heard and to be engaged with.
Just this morning I was reading yet another article about one of those questioners, Dr. Patrick Provost. Chances are, unless you go looking for this type of material, you’ve never heard of him, but here’s the article: https://douglasfarrow.substack.com/p/dissent-equals-iniquity. It illustrates the pattern I just mentioned. Here are a few excerpts from a letter that Provost wrote to his colleagues:
“Trained as a biochemist, my research work has led me to develop expertise in RNA (over the last 20 years) and lipid nanoparticles (over the last 10 years), which are the two active ingredients in these new ‘vaccines’. I am therefore in a position to understand and explain the concepts behind how these ‘vaccines’ work and, above all, to appreciate the risks they pose to human health. …
“Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new”vaccines”, I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognised concepts, solid scientific evidence and reasoning. The main purpose of my statements was to inform and alert the public, my colleagues, my superiors, government experts, doctors and those elected to represent us in the Quebec National Assembly. In a factual, analytical, thoughtful, well-sourced and respectful manner, but insistent (in the absence of a response), I appealed to my interlocutors to reason, prudence, transparency, collaboration, dialogue (or contradictory debates) and respect for the precautionary principle, the rules of ethics, oaths (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath) and medical codes of ethics (e.g. the Nuremberg Code), always with the avowed aim of wanting to ‘ensure the protection of the public’. …
“Throughout my 35-year career in research, I have been in competition with my peers and I have worked hard to eventually make my mark as a professor and remain competitive in research. I have constantly been challenged, confronted, questioned, criticised and called upon to debate my work, my ideas and my opinions by my peers. Why haven’t I been so in the last year or two, when I’ve made so many public appearances? Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate?”
My guess, Sophie, is that you have accepted what the medical establishment has been saying and that, as a good citizen, you want to protect the public from misinformation. However, it appears to me that you have not done a lot of investigation of what the dissenters have to say. The fact that you said in your initial response to Dave’s letter that there were no clinical trials supporting ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 indicates that you were unaware of them. I could have referenced several other sources that support ivermectin, but I thought that that one would be enough.
I do not fault you for not knowing about these clinical trials. You, and the public in general, has been shielded from a great deal of information on the grounds that the average person will not be able to make sense of a genuine scientific debate. It is feared that the public will draw the wrong conclusions from stories of harm done by the vaccines, so the mainstream media refuses to publish such stories.
For example, you may not have heard about the story about Carrie Sakamoto, a woman from the Lethbridge area who was grievously injured by the vaccines: https://thecanadianindependent.substack.com/p/watch-a-young-alberta-woman-who-suffered. She is pursuing a lawsuit against the provincial and federal governments alleging deceptive practices in promoting the vaccines. Included in the lawsuit are charges that the CBC would not carry her story. If you want the details, here is the statement of claim: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eohi6U-x5n0cx9zBOwy35PmoZ-VotnlN/view.
There are thousands of stories like Carrie’s which are being hidden from the public. Maybe in the beginning, when the stories of adverse events first arose, there was a plausible case to be made for suppressing them so as not to encourage vaccine hesitancy. But now, as I see it, we have a situation in which mass illusion prevails, a situation in which many people recoil in horror when they get a glimmer of what the real truth of it is. The harms will continue to be perpetrated until more of us begin to face up to this horror.