Laval U Prof Gets Second Suspension for COVID Vax Comments, 4 Months No Pay

Laval University north entrance in Quebec City on Oct. 19, 2016. Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press

A professor at Laval University in Quebec City has been suspended for the second time by the institution for comments he made regarding the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination in children.

Patrick Provost, a full professor in the Department of Microbiology, Infectious diseases and Immunology at the Faculty of Medicine, said in a statement the suspension is effective from Jan. 23 to May 23 and will be without pay.

He says the decision was communicated to him on Jan. 23 in a letter that states he will get fired if found in contravention again.

“All that Laval University is putting me through is showing that a professor who doesn’t like you (first suspension) or anybody from the public who doesn’t understand or like what you’re saying (second suspension) or what you do can file a complaint against a professor and have him suspended without pay or even fired,” Provost says.

“Such working conditions will undoubtedly lead to professors self-censoring and will compromise the exercise of critical thinking.”

Provost had been suspended for eight weeks by the university last summer for comments on vaccination he made in December 2021, saying that the risks for children outweigh the benefits.

“Not only are there risks of myocarditis [heart inflammation] and other side effects, but there’s no real benefit to vaccinate children because they are not inclined to develop complications from COVID,” Provost told The Epoch Times in a previous interview.

While under suspension, Provost made similar comments to Quebec radio station CHOI 98.1 Radio X.

“The effectiveness of vaccines is negative in Quebec since December 2021 (the government deleted this data from its reporting not long after…). This means you have more risk to get infected if you’re vaccinated,” Provost wrote in a Facebook post commenting on his appearance on the show.

After his appearance on the radio show, complaints were made through the university’s security denunciation portal.

“Decidedly, your professor didn’t learn from his suspension, doubling down with a disinformation interview,” says a complaint obtained by The Epoch Times.

Patrick Provost, professor at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Laval University. Courtesy of Patrick Provost

“Especially when he says the vaccine is worse than the disease for children and that they’re not even a vector, among other things.”

Provost remarks the complainant made two typos in writing his last name, which he says casts doubts on his true identity.

Nevertheless the university deemed the complaint admissible on the grounds it contains an explanation of the accusations, the accusations are related to the teaching functions of the professor, the complaint was signed and dated, and it identifies the respondent.

Laval University said in an Aug. 4 letter that if the complaint is valid Provost would have broken policies related to “respecting academic freedom” or being rigorous.

The Epoch Times has not reviewed the Radio X interview, but Provost’s comments on COVID-19 risks in children are consistent with provincial data.

People under the age of 19 years old account for 0.0 percent of total deaths linked to COVID, whereas those over 60 account for 96.5 percent.

His Facebook post on Quebec vaccination data is also accurate.

For a number of months, Quebec public health published a dashboard indicating how the unvaccinated were more likely to get infected, until numbers started showing negative effectiveness for the vaccinated.

On a dashboard posted on Twitter dated Jan. 4, 2022, public health said the unvaccinated were 0.7 times more likely to get infected, meaning it was lower risk. This piece of data stopped being shared as of Jan. 5, 2022.

Supports

Provost says his union has filed a grievance on his behalf on Feb. 1 and backs him “100 percent.”

The Quebec’s government, which passed Bill 32 on academic freedom in June 2022, had not responded to a request for comment by publication time.

“Under no condition should we tolerate censorship in universities,” wrote Quebec’s Minister of Higher Learning Pascale Déry in a letter published in Le Devoir newspaper on Jan. 17.

Quebec’s Conservative Party Leader Éric Dumaine came out in support of Provost and sent a letter to Minister Déry on Feb. 2.

He pointed to the academic freedom bill and her recent letter addressed to universities.

“Your leadership is obviously being ignored and the spirit of Bill 32 derided,” he wrote.

Duhaime says that if the government doesn’t react, it will suggest its new law is just a facade.

“The individuals behind this academic censorship at University Laval must face the same sanctions they’re trying to currently impose on professor Provost.”

Laval University did not respond to a request for comment.

In comments provided to media Le Soleil, it says the complaint process was respected and that academic freedom is not being breached.

“Anybody at Laval University can conduct research which puts into question vaccination, express himself publicly on vaccination,” but this must be conducted “in conformity with ethical norms of scientific rigour generally recognized by in academia and in respecting the rights of other members in academia.”

Research

Provost’s position on COVID-19 vaccination has been elaborated in several articles published in a scientific journal.

His latest one pertains to the under-reporting of adverse events, which he identified was caused by clinical, systemic, political, and media factors.

“The relative prevalence of side effects following COVID-19 vaccination is largely underestimated and does not correspond to reality,” said Provost. The study was published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research on Jan. 12.

This under-reporting he says, caused in part by physicians who refuse to acknowledge potential harm from the injections due to biases or pressure from their colleges, has led to misguided recommendations from the authorities.

In another article published in the same journal last August, Provost argued that there is a valid conscientious objection to refusing an mRNA injection, due to the unknown dose and biodistribution of the product.

“Unlike a drug produced in a pharmaceutical factory and formulated at a known dose and a well-defined protein product profile, the mRNA vaccine acts as a pro-drug encoding for the viral Spike protein of the virus to be produced by our own cells; both the dose and the quality of the proteins produced are unknown,” wrote Provost and his co-authors.