Audrey Vanderhoek is a registered nurse in British Columbia, and a graduate of UBC. She has had Covid, is “unvaccinated,” and has been fired. Initially, protocols at her hospital were simple: a “mask,” and a temperature check. Then doctors stopped coming in. Then visitors were banned. When they had an outbreak, they could not contain it, and the Covid unit was shut down—then renovated. As a result, numerous workers came in to do renovations, who were not subjected to the same restrictions. She described her experience with Covid, which got progressively worse, and she suffers from long Covid, she said. Sixteen months later, she was on a gradual return to work, and was told that “vaccine” mandates would soon come into effect. She was told that a medical exemption, like a religious one, was next to impossible. Even early retirement was threatened. She was eventually sent home on a leave of absence, and then was terminated for cause, and was not entitled to severance or Employment Insurance payments. Over 20 years of experience was simply dismissed.
“Shameful” and “inhumane” is how she described the experience. She struggled to regain EI, and ultimately succeeded, and it was acknowledged that she had been wrongfully fired. She also learned that Covid infection was to be treated as two doses of the “vaccine”, following her appeals to the Government of BC, the Ministry of Health, and even the Prime Minister’s Office (I missed some of the details here, which were rushed). Her union promised action, but would not say what action that would be. She went from being a “hero” to being ostracized.
The moderator commented: “if it was really about immunity, they would be asking for Immunity Passports and not Vaccine Passports”.
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, she reflected how much of our behaviour was shaped by the media and the CDC. During her ordeal, she felt pretty much alone in her struggle. One occupational therapist was especially helpful, however.
Dr. Steven Pelech, also speaking from British Columbia, where he is a Professor at UBC, explained that he is conducting a clinical trial with those who have had Covid to identify any antibodies they may have that respond to the virus. He revealed that more than 90% of those they tested have natural immunity, and its a broad immunity against the whole of the virus, multiple proteins of the virus, rather than just the spike protein. In one northern community, 89% of those who had reportedly not been infected, still had antibodies against the spike protein. His argument is that natural immunity is very extensive across Canada. Those who have been “vaccinated” also had antibodies against the whole virus, which indicates infection either pre- or post-injection.
How does that natural immunity stand over time? The fact that we see much reduced numbers for hospitalization suggests that natural immunity is preventing more severe cases. The problem with “vaccination” is that it does not last, hence the repeated injections, each of which has limited duration. An Israeli study, exploring how “vaccines” affected natural immunity from prior infection, showed that they had a reduced number of nucleocapsid antibodies. Thus, continued injection may be reducing natural immunity, rendering individuals more exposed to infection. That is how we see much larger numbers of infection among those with a greater number of injections. Natural immunity’s additional benefit is that it produces cell memory to deal with subsequent infections, generating new antibodies when needed. The case of India, which has not again had severe waves, paints a picture of where natural immunity and/or the widespread use of Ivermectin account for the much reduced severity.
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, Dr. Pelech noted that we test if a person is infected, and instead we should have been testing for the level of antibodies. A high number of antibodies would have obviated the need for all the other tests. We should have let natural immunity take its course in the great majority of the population, in agreement with the 50,000+ doctors that signed the Great Barrington Declaration. “Vaccine” passports were really just immunity to go out and spread the virus. He ended by noting that the only scientific debate that is happening, is in the courts, between the experts brought in by the competing sides. Trish Wood noted how the WHO itself marginalized natural immunity from the outset. Pelech argues that there is nothing better than natural immunity against the virus itself, rather than just a component of the virus, and that it was astonishing how this basic recognition was sidelined.
Allan Rouben, a lawyer, discussed the economic measures in the Emergencies Act. He noted the basic questions that are required to be asked, one of which is whether they cast too wide a net. A protesting person or persons must be shown to represent a serious threat to public order. He then read a series of other provisions concerning cessation of use or lending of property to benefit those accused of destabilizing the security of the state. The freezing of bank accounts is seen as an extraordinary remedy, require extensive justification before a court. He quoted David Sacks who published an article in The National Post on February 22, 2022, showing how the use of the Emergencies Act created a class of economic “untouchables”. The economic measures used, Rouben argues, were extreme and unjustifiable—and that is likely why they were revoked, because they could not survive legal challenge. The individuals affected may well have claims for damages, he argued. (Unfortunately, there is a considerable mass of legal detail that I could not grasp, or could not follow quickly enough, and that does not appear in this summary.)
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, Rouben argued that the media ought to have been doing a much better job in critically examining the blunt use of the Act. Fortunately, there are many cases going before the courts. He is disturbed that the parliamentary inquiry is being sabotaged by the government invoking cabinet confidentiality. In his view, the problem is not with the current legislation, but that government went well beyond what legislation permitted—thus it’s not clear that legislation would fix that problem. And if banks went along with the government, it is because they believed the falsehoods that were published by the media, or were told by the RCMP to flag designated persons—and the RCMP too could be operating under the same falsehoods. Thus the media played a fundamental role in shaping the situation. The banks should have been yelling and screaming, Rouben remarked, about this going against all norms of their business, and there ought to have been checks and balances. (Interestingly, Preston Manning advocated as a resistance tactic, a mass, coordinated, targeted run on a specific bank to send a warning.)
Andrew MacGillivray, of the Canadian Armed Forces, outlined how the federal government is prepared to flush $800 million+ invested in training, and 2,000 years of combined service, for the 3.6% of the CAF which the government is prepared to terminate. There are, at a minimum, 3,200 armed forces personnel who have already said they will not get the “vaccine”, or will not disclose, and are slated to receive “5 Foxtrot” status (discharge). This is at a time when the Canadian Defence Minister has identified a serious and present danger to the country that requires maximum preparedness. (There was more to this presentation, and I have unfortunately had to abridge the material.)
Harold Ristau, a military chaplain, also spoke powerfully of the effects of mandating “vaccines” on the Canadian military. Military chaplains were forbidden from providing guidance on religious exemptions. This is an abuse of chaplain consciences, and is likely unlawful. No exemptions for religious, spiritual, or matters of conscience were allowed. Chaplains were forced to contradict their consciences, compelled to ignore the relationships between cells from aborted fetuses and the “vaccines,” by not advocating for exemptions. Chaplains were thus not expected to support religious accommodation requests. Eventually, they were provided with an assessment tool that precluded “sincerely held beliefs”. Applicants were to be challenged on their beliefs. If a church opposed the “vaccines,” and thus departed from the mainstream media narrative, then government decided that a religious exemption backed by such a church would not be valid. If a church lacked a “vaccine policy” (a formal statement against vaccines), then any exemptions supported by that church were deemed to be invalid. Very few received an exemption. Violating soldiers’ consciences, he argued, is probably the worst thing one could do spiritually and psychologically to these soldiers.
Preston Manning noted that this sounded like a violation of the fundamental right to the freedom of religion. David Ross remarked that there seems to be a widespread failure in the system of command. Padre Ristau said that morale is at an all time low, and the CAF is struggling with recruitment.
Sam Presvelos, a corporate commercial lawyer in Toronto, spoke more as a concerned citizen. The “quarantine hotel” issue in particular alarmed him: people commanded, against their will, to stay in a hotel, struck him as a fundamental breach of democracy. He notes that our rights are not absolute, but are limited—but the problem is that the limitation stated in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is legislatively weak and ambiguous (“1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”). Our rights mean the most when the threat is greatest, he emphasized. It is not reasonable to suggest that the seriousness of a “pandemic” means that our rights must kneel. The problem with the imprecision of the Charter’s Section 1…is that it is imprecise. The government must use the least restrictive measure in order to not overreach our rights.
Preston Manning said a bill that affected Canadians’ rights should have been presented to Parliament for debate—and not pushed through as an Order in Council. Presvelos says we have lost sight of who is serving whom. That travel rights, domestically, can be suspended by a single individual (Trudeau) is deeply disturbing and an indication of our problem.
Leslie Smith, a lawyer in Ontario for 34 years, and a judge for 17 years, took to task the bias of Chief Justice Richard Wagner against the protesting truckers. She militated for lodging a complaint in the Canadian Judicial Council, because he would be eventually ruling on cases related to the truckers and the invocation of the Emergencies Act, indicating that he has already reached a conclusion (a particularly severe one). Usually, such bias is a basis for appeal—but not when the top justice of the country is involved. This undermines public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. The complaint to the Judicial Council has in fact been filed.
Preston Manning noted that the Chief Justice is also the Chair of the Judicial Council itself. Smith noted that there are multiple procedures of investigation, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Manning said that if this happened in the US, there would have been a motion to impeach the judge. Smith is not sure that process exists for Canadians.
Dr. Chris Milburn (physician), in 2020 was the Chief of the ER for Eastern Nova Scotia, in charge of over a dozen ERs. Dr. Milburn questioned school closures and mandatory “vaccinations”. He questioned the application of a new technology with limited safety data. He was fired for “undermining the Medical Officer of Health” for questioning the policies, and for creating “vaccine hesitancy” (“the new blasphemy,” as he put it). He had always been outspoken, and he resisted the top-down command structure in the health system. Dr. Milburn was told to stay in his lane: focus on administering ERs, and leave health policy to the Chief Medical Officer, who seemed to have no interest in the side effects of the “vaccines” and lockdowns. The results of the lockdowns include cases of suicide, of people who suffered heart attacks at home and did not go to hospitals, and the side effects of the “vaccines” include known cases of myocarditis. Dr. Milburn’s legal trials in Nova Scotia are ongoing. He was not in the least bit intimidated, and has doubled down on his criticisms, and is ready to lose his job if that sacrifice is necessary. In his view, a large number of doctors, behind the scenes, are really uncomfortable with the dominant policies, and are too afraid to speak out.
Dr. Milburn, who in fact occupied numerous different “lanes” in the health system, having served on various review boards, was taken aback by the constant repetition of the “safe and effective” mantra, and that school closures did more good than harm, or that “masks” make a difference or “save lives”. By becoming mantra, most then do not look for data that calls that into question.
He also pointed out that there is no internal forum within the Nova Scotia health system to debate policy. When he asked questions about the “mask” policy, and the criteria for ending it, and sent those questions up the chain, he received either no reply, or a reply that simply affirmed “this is our policy” and his job was to enforce it. He felt that doctors were forced to play a game of “Simon Says,” and were treated as children. It was as if only Dr. Robert Strang, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Nova Scotia, was the only person qualified to do the thinking. He was also concerned that “when you mix politics with science, what you get is politics”.
Dr. Patrick Phillips, is currently suspended in Ontario for writing medical exemptions, prescribing Ivermectin, and reporting adverse events for “vaccine” injuries. He worked in the ER of his town, where he witnessed people coming in with adverse effects from the shots, within days or weeks of the shots. The effects included facial numbness; left arm weakness; abdominal pain and vomiting for weeks; palpitations; a large and growing rash on one arm; progression in dementia to the point of paralysis; severe fever, and arm weakness; and, severe vertigo and tinnitus which impaired the person’s ability to drive. Following his obligation under the law, he reported these events. After the first five reports, the Public Health Officer sent him a letter dated April 27, 2021, denying that any of the reports involved adverse events to the injections. He was provided with a document identifying what were the official criteria for determining an adverse event—one page, with strict time limits on when the reaction occurs. If one faints within 30 minutes of taking the shot, that is an adverse event…but not 31 minutes after the shot. Health Canada (PHAC) instead has a broader list of adverse reactions. PHAC has only four criteria to be met, but if they are met, then a report must be filed. Dr. Phillips thus worked under two contradictory criteria: those from Ontario, and those from the federal level. Dr. Phillips published his correspondence with the Ontario Health Officer, and then the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) subjected him to discipline. His patients were contacted by the Health Officer, and tutored on why their situations were not adverse reactions to the shots. (The details here multiply and become confusing.) The point is that the Office of the Chief Medical Officer denied that any of Dr. Phillips’ patients had suffered any adverse reactions, as they did not meet the limited conditions set out by his office. Dr. Phillips laments the lack of surveillance in the system for adverse reactions. He is being disciplined for “professional misconduct”. He noted how his “failure” to write in the lot number of a patient’s shot, was then used to claim that his charts were not properly filled out—but he had no access to that information to begin with, and patients did not come into the ER with that information. He was never asked by the Chief Medical Officer for more information about the patients’ actual condition.
There were very few Covid infections in his area, so his prescriptions for Ivermectin were few. Nonetheless, for each prescription, he is being charged with misconduct. His “failure” to submit properly completed charts (see above), is being used to claim he is not following “standards of the profession”. They also challenged his medical exemptions, which emphasized the autonomy of patients and the right to refuse an injection rather than be forced.
In response to questions from the panel, on a better system for defining, reporting, adjudicating, and responding to adverse events, and how we lack such a system, Dr. Phillips argues that the criteria should be broad and all events should be reportable—related or not. The reason for that is to see if, for example, the number of heart attacks overall rises after a vaccine rollout. Dr. Phillips does not specify a concrete structure, but calls for an open and transparent system, one that is publicly viewable. For Dr. Phillips the only criterion for exclusion of a reportable event, is one based on temporality: did the effects precede the shot, or did they only happen long after? If either of those, then the effects might be excluded as “vaccine” induced. He also pointed out that any questions of the “safe and effective vaccines” were ruled out, and became a basis for challenging one’s right to a medical license. He is being charged for reporting adverse events—and he says, “no wonder then that no one is reporting them”. Dr. Phillips reflected that, “the culture of medicine has always been highly conformist, but that became more severe after Covid when any questioning of the status quo became taboo”. He consciously went against the grain, so he expected a backlash.
His comments underscore the fact that doctors are not a cushioning buffer between patients and the public health system; patients are basically on their own.
Dr. Chong Wong, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, also faced problems with the “safe and effective mantra”. He met patients who had been subjected to abusive treatment, or who simply discussed nothing Covid-related with their doctors. He attempted to give his patients some guidance, so that their choices would be informed. His patients were often stressed, to the point of tears, for having been told by their employers that it was either the jab or their job. He also reflected on how Covid was being used to drive a wedge between patients and their doctors. Dr. Wong’s remarks were very brief.
In response to questions from the panel, he argued for empowering patients with knowledge so they know how to respond to these issues, that they do not have to take abuse from anybody, and have the right to speak up.
Having prescribed Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, he was reported to the provincial college. One of his patients ended up in hospital and revealed his prescription, which launched one of the complaints, regardless of whether those medications caused the person to be hospitalized. He is thus under prosecution from the provincial medical college.
Dr. Francis Christian, also in Saskatchewan, commented that about this time last year he was a surgeon, in the University of Saskatchewan hospitals, and was a clinical professor of surgery, and director of two departments he founded or cofounded within the Dept. of Surgery, and was the founding editor-in-chief of a medical journal with worldwide circulation. He did in fact support some of the early measures, including lockdowns, but by April of 2020 he started asking his own questions. He began to see too many similarities between the government’s response and the measures imposed by totalitarianism regimes. “The pandemic” was being used in the same way that the Soviet Union treated its citizens, especially regarding “misinformation”. People were de-platformed and persecuted; the media became an arm of the government. Also, none of the data made any sense, in light of what the government was asserting. Discussions with colleagues were not very fruitful.
When it came to the rollout of the “vaccines” for teens and children, he had to speak out. He called for informed consent, on the part of parents and children. He stands by his original press statement, which can be found on the JCCF website. A week later, on this very date, he was called in for a “meeting,” and he was fired (the recording is also available via the JCCF site). He never claimed to speak for anyone, or any institution, other than himself.
Dr. Christian, speaking on the “baffling silence” of his colleagues, recalled how he pleaded with them to put their patients first. How, he asked, can they remain silent “during the greatest abuse of science and medicine that we have witnessed in centuries?” How have they gone along with fiction from bureaucrats who have never seen a patient in their lives? Do they accept that a drug is “safe and effective” because its manufacturer, and corrupt officials say so? How have they not realized that there is massive online censorship? When politicians punish people for personal health choices, why have they not spoken out? How could they stay silent as young children are subjected to these shots, when there was no emergency for children, and there are more harms than benefits? How do you remain silent as eminent colleagues are persecuted? These were just some of the powerful questions he put to colleagues in his presentation. He quoted Mark 8:36: “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”
He asks his colleagues to help turn the tide.
The panel praised his questions (there was applause). Those are the questions that must be put to the medical profession in formal, public hearings. They thanked him warmly for his presentation.
Dr. Julie Ponesse came to speak about how for the last two years Canada has not had a functioning democracy. There has been no interaction, discussion, debate, response, and representation. She sees no engagement with evidence that does not come from the pharmaceutical companies. Rather than reasoned debates, ad hominem attacks reign, where dissenting individuals are stigmatized. This is not how a democracy operates. She then recapitulated the details of her well known firing from Huron College: as a professor of ethics, she was fired for defending the ethics of informed consent, that is, her right to refuse the injection.
We are systematically removing people who question, who do not comply with the narrative, who refuse to follow the ideology. What we are being taught is that to be part of this society, we must follow the dominant ideology. You are not allowed to have any emotions. We thus end up with a society of automatons.
When a mandate is imposed, three groups are created, she explains: those who comply willingly; those who refuse; and those who are coerced. A mandate renders a human being non-rational, and therefore non-human. For a mandate to be ethically justified, it must meet a very high threshold: a seriously virulent disease; no available alternative treatments, or a treatment that is proven beyond doubt to be safe.
In response to questions from the panel, on what could be done to get more people to run for public office in such a toxic environment, she questions the point of recruiting political representatives from universities, for example, which are a very closed and unrepresentative environment. Is the challenge one of recruitment, or of fixing the system into which they are to be recruited. What inhibits open discussion in universities and academia? She admits she did not realize at first how much of a culture of silence prevails on campuses. More and more universities are becoming and acting like corporations, which influences what kind of administrators and academics are hired, and what kinds of courses are developed. She condemns universities for not serving anyone: they train students for a workplace that does not exist; they have banished reason, among other problems. There are many in the university right now who are deeply troubled, but lack the confidence to speak up. What is being done to students is devastating: anxiety is rampant; they are prisoners to reputation on social media. She urges students not to think that post-secondary education is their only option. Our education system is not serving our students. What are students getting out of it? They are sacrificing their lives, maybe their health. There are many other ways to become educated in the world—she emphasizes self-education, and endorses the Canadian Centre for Learning. She predicts the rise of a number of other, alternative post-secondary education avenues opening in the coming years.
Jenn Gilbert, in Alberta, spoke of her and her partner’s previous marriages, on seeking natural health remedies, and seeking alternatives for their health. Jenn’s ex-husband objected to her natural treatments for their daughter. When Covid struck, she paid increasing attention to those who were not being heard, and questioned how the “vaccines” were being rushed, and had no long-term testing. She also questioned the masking of her daughter in school. Her ex-husband is very much pro-vax, and considers Jenn to be “paranoid” for thinking that there are aspects to be questioned, and told her he thought she was being “a little nuts”. Jenn’s new partner, Jesse, prefers natural health like Jenn, and is attracted to holistic and natural practices. He works in Occupational Health and Safety. Clean food and exercise are powerful solutions to many health problems, he learned. Jenn and her ex-husband disagreed on the “vaccination” of their daughter. He wanted their parent coordinator, who has arbitration rights, to make a final decision. Jenn threatened to go to the courts, as did the husband, which is where the case ended up. Jenn’s lawyer was pessimistic about their chances, and pressed Jenn to find reasons why her daughter specifically should not be “vaccinated”. Specialists they visited encouraged “vaccination”. Dr. Eric Payne, whom she met eventually via the CCCA, wrote an affidavit. In the end, the judge sided with the government, that her child should get the short because the government says so, as her daughter might be that one in a million children who could die from Covid.
In response to questions from the panel, she urged concerned parents not to give up. She resolves to continue trying to get the truth out there. She does not regret going to court, and notes there have been some successful cases in Ontario—which her Alberta judge asserted were not relevant to her case in Alberta.
Dr. Eric Payne, who heard Jenn Gilbert speak before him, brought up some slides for his presentation (see attached). His children are 3, 5, and 8 years of age, and he could see what was coming in terms of shots for children. He objected to how the definition of vaccines has been changed. He also noted how the “vaccinated” have fared poorly—see the slides. (The presentation was spoken very quickly, with an emphasis on the slides, and keeping up with the slides prevented my taking detailed notes). He ended by noting that he has lost his medical position.
In response to questions from the panel, on whether there is a forum or regulatory arena where he could formally present his data for adjudication, he noted that most of it is already publicly available. Otherwise, there is no such regulatory arena in Canada. Those who present such data are publicly attacked. He was personally targeted in the media in Alberta. Invitations to debate have gone unanswered. The creation of a permanent forum would be beneficial.
Given the fact the spike protein circulates for months, he answered that the temporal range for considering adverse events needs to be extended—in reference to the presentation made earlier by Dr. Phillips (above). Why is Canada missing the signals unlike the US or EU? Because Canadians tend to believe their own narrative—the “vaccines” are safe—there is no way of tracking adverse events that, by definition almost, do not happen, and where reporting processes are restrictive and are denied up front.
About his letter to the Alberta CPSO, it was emailed in September of 2021, and was then leaked—different version were leaked, so in the interest of accuracy he uploaded the true copy to the JCCF website. One CPSO member thanked him for his letter, did not call any of it “misinformation,” and then recommended he take an AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson shot (both of which were pulled from the Canadian market). We are seeing evidence of higher deaths among the “vaccinated,” he correctly noted, as well as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).
Deanna McLeod, spoke on Covid “vaccines” for children. She outlined her background. (This presentation was also based on slides, and the information was thus presented very quickly.) She is attuned to how Big Pharma markets products for their benefits alone, and skew away from the harms. There are three basic questions to be asked—see the slide—and if the answer is “no” to any of them, one does not use that product. The current Covid “vaccines” are not like traditional vaccines at all. Pharmaceutical companies were crafty in calling this genetic material “vaccines,” they thus misled the public, and created a bias in how people approach the data. Big Pharma and the government spent millions ($50 million on the part of the Canadian government), on a pre-marketing campaign, setting the stage also for identifying opposing questions as “misinformation”. There is no need to treat asymptomatic children, she pointed out. Most US children are already immune, so there is no basis for “treatment”. McLeod also argued, based on evidence presented, that the “vaccines” simply do not work to any significant extent—there is no large benefit. The principle of minimal intervention is being ignored; the burden of care is placed on a wide group. The trials show more cases of infection happening among those children who got the shots. “Safety” is being manipulated; instead what we have is “declared safety,” in the absence of rigorous long-term testing. (She is compelled to bring her presentation to a close, due to time limits.)
There was no time for questions. She did mention that much of the funding for her company’s research in fact comes from pharmaceutical companies themselves.
Keren Epstein Gilboa is a specialist in childhood development psychology. Her presentation was of an academic nature, which synthesized a great deal of interesting research. She questioned the doctrine that children are “resilient,” and thus seemingly capable of dealing with any disturbance, disruption, or even trauma. Instead, current research shows that during the past two years, childrens’ cognitive development has been severely affected. Even the CDC has updated its data to show that children are walking and talking later than children in previous years. She proceeds to explain how stress and anxiety affect pregnancy, and child-parent relationships after birth. During the past two years, many birthing mothers suffered from isolation, and thus inadequate support. In clinical environments, expectant mothers are “masked,” which interferes with their breathing. An accumulation of stresses for mothers has served to mute parenting. This can likely have long-term effects on a child’s development. The quality of attachment also affects the child’s brain development. The imposition of “masks” on children results in sensory deprivation, and impacts learning from interaction and understanding visual cues—this creates insecure attachments, and creates a sense of the world as an unsafe place. Separation from parents when first placed in daycare settings can be emotionally traumatic enough, but now children are placed with adults without faces. Children have been forced to endure multiple risk factors for their development, which can impair their brain development. It is time to let go of the myth that all children are resilient, and are unaffected by the restrictions.
Gail Davidson addressed Canada’s commitments under international human rights law. Covid mandates restricted many rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, torture, and rights to education, work, and freedom of choice, and rights to dissent and to engage in free speech. Canada is bound by its commitments to numerous human rights charters and treaties, those at the core of the United Nations. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Canadian law must provide at least as much protection as that provided by international human rights law and jurisprudence. Rights that can never be legally restricted or suspended, are freedom from non-consensual medical experimentation or treatment, and freedom from torture. Any law that mandates injections without informed consent is unlawful. Consent must be provided voluntarily, must be informed (there must be discussion about risks, and alternatives), and the principle for respect for autonomy underpins the right to informed consent. Propaganda, lack of information, and severe punishments for failure to submit to injection or to promote the pharmaceutical products, all worked to violate informed consent. Freedom of movement and assembly were also restricted. Canada’s emergency measures were unlawful, she concluded.
(This presentation was heavily loaded, extremely dense, spoken quickly, and my note-taking could not keep up—also, the material is already available in a paper which she has published via the CCCA).
In response to questions from the panel, on why would Canada hold itself to account to international law if it does not hold itself accountable to Canadian laws, she nonetheless advises Canadians to submit complaints to UN committees on human rights, torture, and to a variety of special rapporteurs who monitor freedom of expression, movement, assembly, and so on. Each body will note the violation, and make a recommendation to Canada—and they can be embarrassing because they get international attention. Attempts by Gail Davidson to inform provincial and federal governments about their duties under international law and treaties, received no reply, not even an automated one.
Max Daigle, president of CAERS, nearly died from the H1N1 vaccination, and is still suffering from it. He has built an adverse event monitoring system, for Canadians to voluntarily self-report. He explained the meaning of Vanessa’s Law (The “Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act” [Vanessa’s Law] amends the Food and Drugs Act. It includes new rules that strengthen the regulation of therapeutic products, and improves the reporting of adverse reactions by healthcare institutions. As well, these measures are intended to improve Health Canada’s ability to collect post-market safety information, and take appropriate action when a serious health risk is identified. The law is named after Vanessa Young, daughter of the Member of Parliament from Oakville.) He resents how injured Canadians have been marginalized and stigmatized.
CAERS has so far accumulated about a thousand reports, and the initiative is entirely run by volunteers. They lack resources to disseminate the existence of CAERS to people who might want to report, but do not know how. For now, he estimates, the reports they have are a mere tip of the iceberg. CAERS was launched nationally after December of 2021. Given the restricted resources, they have not yet been able to perform any meaningful statistical analysis of the data they have. When they receive the reports, they have no means of submitting them to Health Canada or any other governmental, regulatory body. He doubts whether a government, focused on divisive communication, would be receptive to these reports. No government agency has called CAERS out of an interest for the impacts on Canadians of products that have an accelerated/truncated path of development.
Those who have used the system have been very grateful to have someone who listens to them and cares about their situation. It is a challenge for the volunteers, who are all healthcare practitioners, and some have left because the stories have proven to be too much for them to bear.
Annabelle Edge filed a report in CAERS, and was invited to the panel by Max Daigle. Understandably, as a “vaccine”-injured person, she was sometimes emotional when speaking, and on occasion had to stop. Her two children in elementary school have also been affected, because she is a single provider. In 2015 she came down with Ramsay Hunt Syndrome; she previously underwent extensive mandibular surgery. She contracted Covid which impacted her previous conditions, and had to go on anti-seizure medications until January of 2021 (they also have side effects, and for her they had particularly severe ones). Her story is one she has told many times to doctors, but did not get much of a hearing. She decided to take the “vaccine” in June of 2021, and within four to five days she experienced severe nerve pain in the cranium, which she had not felt since she first contracted RHS. The pain was so excessive and constant, that it pushed her to think dark thoughts about continuing to live. The pain eventually subsided after about four weeks.
She felt the pressure to get back to work, since she was unemployed during the lockdowns. She got the “vaccine” to regain employment—she knew she did not need it, because she already had Covid—and she knew that employers required it. She got the second shot in August of 2021, and again the severe nerve pains returned. She had to go to the ER because of the pain, and she was initially diagnosed with having a swollen lymph node that could be aggravating the nerve in her neck. She had to return to the ER later in the month—ERs at the time were over capacity. In September, she had to return to the ER yet again. A different anti-seizure medication was recommended. She has been struggling for 10 months straight—she broke down in sobs when relating this. Doctors do not make a connection between her problem and the “vaccine”; some have been completely dismissive.
Did anyone in the healthcare system recognize her problem as an adverse event? Her family doctor did report her case as an adverse event, and was listed under “other severe and unusual side effects” as a “neuralgia flare”. The doctors are apparently at a loss as to what they could do for her, apart from prescribing the off-label use of anti-seizure medications to treat the pain. Was she informed this could be a complication when she was being injected? No. She informed the staff at the “vaccination” centre of her condition, and was told it was “safe and effective”. She did ask them to note that she had a previous reaction. She has no coverage for the medications she has been prescribed.
Gordon Polevoy, also from Toronto, has been appalled from his experience. He is a developmental geneticist and project manager. During the summer of 2021 it became clear that Ontario was heading toward mandatory injections, and he had concerns about the safety. In other countries, were most of the populace was injected, the Delta variant was nonetheless raging. He had also heard of the many diverse adverse reactions. The level of the language from the government, from the Prime Minister, against the non-compliant “was borderline hate speech”. He felt coerced to get the shots. He realized that natural immunity from prior infection was dismissed. After the second dose, of the Moderna shot, he developed a severe adverse reaction and was advised to go to the ER by his occupational health and safety department. The ER would not file an adverse event report. He had to return to the ER again the week after. The ER had a legal requirement to file, and they did not; he filed an individual report. He also lodged a complaint against the two doctors who refused to file a report. Given his injuries, his work duties were limited. He then went on medical leave, and is now on disability leave, because his condition is worsening. He has constant pain and burning sensations throughout his body, and constant weakness, constant pain in his back, and cannot walk more than half a mile without assistance. He spends much of his time in bed. He has been diagnosed with “functional neurological disorder,” which doctors told him was the result of his prior “vaccine hesitancy”. A doctor at the NIH instead diagnosed his condition as a “vaccine” injury. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD, given the trauma of being injected and injured, and then the humiliation of the derisive treatment that ensued. He met others once he donated to the Freedom Convoy and his information was leaked online, which facilitated his connection with others like him—and that eventually led him to participate in this hearing. He is obviously physically distressed when sitting.
Kelly-Sue Overley, from London, Ontario, is also “vaccine” injured. She has suffered cognitive impairment and blindness in one eye. She was 68 in 2021, and was very active physically, with an active social life and a busy work schedule. She was looking forward to retirement. She initially took the shot as an employer and manager of volunteers, to stay open. After her first Pfizer shot she experienced pains in her calf and foot, and did not realize it was a blood clot. After a massage therapist advised her, she went to a vascular surgeon who informed her she had blood clots in her femoral artery. By then she had the second Pfizer shot, and then suffered a chain of several strokes and Transient Ischemic Attacks (TIAs)—she lists all the dates, and she broke down in tears as she spoke. What ensued were a series of visits to specialists, endless tests, numerous medications prescribed—and she described some of the doctors as impatient and gruff with her, one advising her not to return unless she suffered a catastrophic stroke. Doctors are still looking for the cause, she said. She continues to suffer from retinal migraines, and has been on large doses of Tylenol for several months. She also contracted Covid. She is now 70. She thought the “vaccine” was developed to protect us from getting Covid—reality proved otherwise. People treat her as someone who is making up her case. “Correlation is not causation,” she has been told ad nauseam. Instead, she insists, that’s all we have. She refuses to be a casualty.
One night, after sleeping on the couch, she had a stroke. When she awoke, she did not know who she was, or where she was. A neighbor had to tell her. She now goes to bed every night with a slip of paper under her pillow that states: “I am a Kelly-Sue Overly. I live at [address]. I belong to someone, and I matter”.
While recommending Canadian Covid TeleHealth, David Ross also noted that it is currently under investigation from the regulatory bodies.
Arlene Dato called herself living proof of the neurological damage caused by the Pfizer shot. Her doctor thought she had Lupus, but continued testing. A few days before her second shot, her levels eased, and the doctor eagerly recommended a second Pfizer shot—which she got. Then more severe problems emerged, preventing her from walking. Her doctor noted the motor neuron problems; tests confirmed damage in both her legs. Results of tests were held back for months. She had to re-do the tests, and it was found that the condition had worsened. She was referred to a clinic at McMaster University, an ALS clinic to be exact. They diagnosed her with ALS. Doctors were fixated on ALS, though the test results showed multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). The doctor at McMaster is funded for ALS, and slotted all of her symptoms under ALS. The medications he gave her for ALS, performed poorly and created worse conditions. She is under Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy (IVIg). Her doctors remain oblivious to the fact that motor neuropathy is one of the adverse effects listed by Pfizer itself.
Her sister, a viral immunologist who worked on vaccines for zoonotic viruses, advised her that the safety data for Pfizer was all off. Arlene did not want the shot, but took it because as a college professor it was mandated. She was a professor of English, and taught five courses. As part-time faculty, her disability nullifies her contract as the college cannot provide facilities to support her. Right now she is no longer able to work—she broke down in tears when speaking about this, wracked by inconsolable sadness. It took her some time to recompose herself.
Arlene cannot go anywhere alone any longer. She cannot stand for longer than 30 minutes; she cannot sit for long, or her legs cramp. She fell at a gas station and a stranger had to help her into her car.
Kayla Jones, got the “vaccine” due to her employment as a law clerk, and had to work in multiple environments that demanded the “vaccine”. She got Pfizer. Three days after the second dose she experienced left-hand numbness, confusion, and displayed signs of strokes or possibly a heart attack. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance, and was cleared. Later, her doctor referred her to a neurologist. They could not find a problem from the tests they ran. Before all tests were completed, she drove into another car. Eventually they found some “abnormalities” from an MRI scan. Before her next MRI, she suffered a seizure at work. Again she was cleared—no explanation, no medication. For her follow-up MRI, they found several lesions all over her brain and told her to get to Sunnybrook Hospital right away. By the time she was discharged, they agreed to file a report that she suffered a “vaccine” injury. She only has telephone appointments with her neurologist at Sunnybrook. She has been diagnosed with Central Nervous System Vasculitis, and the doctors have no idea of how to treat it, apart from cycling her through a variety of medications to see what might work.
She has daily symptoms and still cannot lift her arm. She cannot work. Employment Insurance having expired, she now lives on Social Assistance—which barely covers rent, so she depends on food banks (some of the food is moldy, she says). Much of her EI income went to pay for medication. She has essentially been reduced to a pauper, added to her physical disability, and she is a single mother of two.
The head of the CCCA, David Ross, recommends that she go back to her employer, who demanded the shots, and ask them what they will do for her.
When she mentions that her problems are “vaccine” related, reactions are varied: “you’re stupid for getting the shot” or “how can you even blame the vaccine?” Support has been minimal to nonexistent.
April Crocker from Alberta, was injured from two Moderna shots—but her account spans a range of serious problems with her experience with the so-called healthcare system. A couple of weeks after her Moderna shot (not clear which shot is referenced), she developed weakness in the legs, and her walk changed as one of her legs began to drag. Until then she did not know what a “vaccine-injury” even was, and had not heard of VAERS. After she reported her symptoms, all her tests reported “normal” and she was told that Moderna is “100% safe”. A specialist recommended some stretching and other exercises—which cause such a massive buildup of lactic acid in her leg, that she needs days to recover.
She also discussed the use of Ivermectin with her doctor, who told her she had no time to study the randomized-control trials about the successful use of Ivermectin—and this during “such a dangerous global pandemic” as she remarked to her doctor who made no time to review the studies.
She felt pressured to get a third shot to keep her job, but her doctor refused to write an exemption. She also refused to prescribe Ivermectin. When she told her doctor she might go and get it on the black market, not knowing really what she could get (it could be poison), her doctor merely remarked: “Let me know how it goes”. Her doctor also dragged her feet about filing an Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) report with Health Canada. Her doctor then recorded the wrong symptoms, and tried to convince April that her symptoms were the result of anxiety from “vaccine hesitancy”.
April was subsequently told that regardless of what a neurologist might find, she would not get a medical exemption, period. She would have to get another shot.
A nurse who injected her confirmed that “natural immunity is best”. April asked her: “So why didn’t you ask me if I had Covid? I did have it”. Regardless, the injection proceeded.
Her GP confided she was sad that April had such a bad experience with Moderna—and then recommended Pfizer instead. On subsequent visits she was asked if she had her flu shot, a tetanus shot, a HPV shot, as if she had reported no problems at all with the Moderna shot, when she was still dealing with symptoms from it.
“I’m going to live the best life I can”.
Maria Gutschi, a pharmacist based in Ontario, made a scientific and technical presentation on the Covid “vaccine” approval process. She corrected “vaccine” to explain that what we are dealing with is a drug with a payload. This mRNA product meets the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy product. However, if used for vaccinal purposes, it does not have to go through the gene therapy approval process, which can last 15 years. Most other gene therapy drugs are given on a chronic or continuing basis, rather than one or two doses (we are already being told to take even more), hence it was slotted into the vaccine review process. General toxicity testing was not done, nor was it analyzed for any carcinogenic properties, and we do not know the underlying pharmacology (which cells are affected, for how long the spike protein is produced, how long it lasts). It is not considered necessary to do these tests for the vaccine approval process, because normally vaccines do not diffuse throughout the body. There were no drug interaction studies. However, people on Clozaril have significant toxic reactions, and that is known because they are tested every two weeks. When the clinical trials were done, the product made for the clinical trials was almost purified, virtually made by hand—but after production had to be scaled up, processes had to be automated, large volumes of ingredients had to be managed, etc., the quality of the product changed. The new samples were substandard compared to the what was submitted for trial, containing contaminants, 60% of the mRNA, double-stranded DNA, and particulate of various kinds.
The product on the market does not meet the pharmaceutical standard. Issues with impurities, toxicity, and safety continue. “The quality of the product is probably the worst I have ever seen”. For that reason, she and her husband refused the “vaccine”.
In response to questions, Gutschi says there may be problems with batches, or even with vials, and in some cases contents have started to coagulate. The process for extracting the contents to prepare an injection are also complex, and there are many steps during which mistakes could be made. What justified the accelerated process for approving the product? She was not sure, and deferred to others. “What constitutes a health emergency,” is a question the panel wants to plant as a central one to ask.
Deanna McLeod appeared again to speak of the co-opting of medicine by government and Big Pharma. She emphasized that informed consent is at the heart of our healthcare system. “Do the benefits outweigh the risks for me?” is the central question. Guidelines have to be developed by specialists concerning different treatments for particular groups of people. Conflict of interest is highlighted as a key problem—anyone paid for by a pharmaceutical company, must disclose that fact. Medical legal conflicts are central to the minds of doctors and clinicians—they have to follow guidelines, for insurance purposes, and therefore cannot veer from the guidelines to meet the personalized needs of a patient. Sometimes guidelines are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, as well as clinical research. Sometimes pharmaceutical companies launder money through not-for-profit research units. In Canada, direct to patient communication by pharmaceutical companies is prohibited, but they can communicate to doctors. Vaccines in particular are super profitable and a huge market. However, if you can convince customers that you are selling prevention, what you end up selling in fact is fear. Pharmaceutical companies can also communicate via a public health system, whose collaboration they have to win. To minimize costs, governments may buy into the idea that a vaccine will prevent sickness, and thus collaborate. Public health has become the marketing arm of Big Pharma. She reminds us also of the fact that “vaccination” was held out as the only possible solution, almost from the start, and it was a one size fits all policy. The illusory lack of dissent, through censorship, is meant to create in patients’ minds that there is a consensus, and the shots are safe. Our system has been totally co-opted by pharmaceutical corporations.
This notion that an injured person is “taking one for the team” is a new principle, when previously the presence of a harm was considered unacceptable, that no one was to be risked for “global” others. There is also no logic in expanding minimal medical intervention to a wider group, like children, except as one of seeking greater profit. Otherwise interventions had to be minimal and personalized—not maximal and generalized. There have also been many political conflicts of interest during this “pandemic”. Politics have entered medical decision-making, as with mandates.
Shawn Buckley, a regulatory lawyer from Alberta, reviewed the Pfizer safety and efficacy data. Every single one of us has been coerced and pressured to participate in a massive human experiment, he stated. Government and employers both required the shots. The public messaging was intense that created fear and hatred. The “unvaccinated” were to be put in camps, or denied essential services, if the wishes of some had been fulfilled. Meanwhile, long-term safety data is not available. Health Canada, in what reads like propaganda in a police state, declares the “vaccines” have been proven to be totally safe and effective. Pfizer has to meet a mandatory test produced by Health Canada, and if it meets that test, Health Canada must approve Pfizer’s product, and has no discretion. Buckley reads out the test: “The Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks”. In other words, Pfizer does not have to prove that the “vaccine” is safe, or that it works, or even that the benefits outweigh the risks. All Pfizer has to do is cherry-pick data to support the conclusion—and that constitutes “sufficient evidence”. The second part of the test even allows for uncertainties about safety and efficacy: “…having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the urgent public health need”. In other words, Buckley argues, Pfizer has not had to prove either safety or efficacy.
Preston Manning observes that the government came to a conclusion first—that “vaccines” were the solution to the Covid crisis—and then everything was bent around that. Buckley says it’s worse: it was about Health Canada just approving something.
Buckley says this is a fraud on the Canadian people. None of the coercive measures can be justified. Doctors are forced to follow the party line. The police have not investigated this. The courts have not done their duty. The media have been totally captured. How many kids have to be killed or disabled before our society wakes up?
Louis Browne, in Regina, Saskatchewan, a lawyer, speaks on informed consent and bodily autonomy. In particular, he detailed the process of submitting freedom of information requests on the questions pertinent to these hearings, which he has done.
Tania, mother of Deana and Nicole Minnikin, from Alberta. Deana, her 19-year-old daughter, passed away after being “vaccinated” seven months ago. The official cause of death has not been released, and the authorities say it could be several months more. Deana got the shot to protect others, and out of the belief she would not get Covid, and that it was safe. Less than 24 hours after her first dose, she was taken to the hospital after suffering a seizure. A month after her first dose, she contracted Covid. Nobody warned her she could be at risk for getting a second shot—she was encouraged to do so. Indeed, the Government of Alberta gave her a $100 Visa card as a reward to do so. Again, 24 hours after her second shot, she had a seizure, was confused and did not go to hospital. She had a third seizure subsequently, she hit her head and did substantial damage to her tongue. She had serious side effects from the medication that she received. Her work was interrupted. After her fourth and final seizure, she was found unresponsive in her bathtub. Deana had died. Deana had little knowledge of how to navigate the healthcare system.
Her sister, Nicole, spoke next about her experience with the “vaccine”. She is 25 and lives in Ontario. In February of 2021 she was pregnant. She was encouraged to get the Covid “vaccine” because getting Covid would be a greater danger to her and the baby than the “vaccine,” she was told by her doctor. In June of 2021 she received her first shot of Pfizer. Two days after, abdominal cramping began; six or seven days later, bleeding began—she was still pregnant. She went to the ER. She asked if the “vaccine” could have caused any of those issues, and was told it was impossible. Eleven days after her shot, she began to feel pain, similar to contractions. Her water broke. She had a brown discharge. She called an ambulance, was taken to hospital, and was taken to the maternity ward. Nothing was given to her to stop the contractions. Her baby was stillborn. Nicole broke down at this point in her presentation and simply could not continue, so her mother continued reading her statement.
Nicole, who reacted severely to the loss and suspected the “vaccine”, was told by her family doctor that her “aggressive” behaviour counted as a strike against her, and in any case she would need a second shot to retain her as her family doctor. She got her second shot, and again cramping resumed and changes to her menstruation occurred. Her doctor said there was no point being Nicole’s doctor anymore, since she had lost her trust. Nicole now relies on an after hours clinic, as she is pregnant again.
[It is important for the reader to know that there were severe interruptions to the stream from the family, and some key details were either lost or garbled. Others who listened believed they heard that Nicole also lost her second baby after her second shot.]
Ryan Gassner from Alberta, represented his 19-year-old daughter. She was diagnosed with a learning disability. She also had a history of autoimmune disorder. She was sent to a local college to prepare her for the workplace. She got “vaccinated” with Pfizer at a pharmacy, without consent as she was confused that she was instead getting a test. She had multiple seizures thereafter. She came back to live at home. After another seizure, she hit her head in the shower, and was rushed to the ER. She has now had probably more than a hundred seizures of various sorts. Doctors says she has a condition of progressive myoclonic epilepsy. She had not had seizures since she was a small child—these last ones began only after her one and only shot. She is only able to handle being out of the house for an hour a day; she sleeps about 18-19 hours a day; her cognitive function has been cut in half. Medical professionals refuse to recognize it as a “vaccine” injury, preferring to chase other leads instead.
In response to questions, Ryan said they contacted the RCMP to press charges of the “vaccination” being given without consent, to no avail. He seems to have been dissuaded from pursuing legal options. His family has no financial assistance for obtaining specialized care for his daughter.
Dan Hartman, in Ontario, spoke of his son, Sean, who loved hockey. To continue to play hockey he had to get the shot. He also loved movies, and had to get a shot to enter the cinema to be with his friends. After the shot, he was hospitalized with a severe reaction, with brown circles under his eyes among other striking symptoms, but was sent home only with Advil. He died soon after, and was found dead beside his bed. The autopsy has not ascertained an official cause of death.
He is convinced that his son’s death was caused by the shot, because only 2% of autopsies cannot find a cause of death. What is needed is people who know how to do autopsies in these cases, like those specializing in “vaccine” injuries. The doctors cannot tell him, 100%, that it was not caused by the “vaccine”. This was a sudden death.
A second pathologist looked at the autopsy report, and is of the opinion that it was the “vaccine” that caused the death, but is not 100% certain.
Dan has received numerous messages from people, who learned the story of his son, thanking Sean for saving their lives: they changed their minds about getting the shots.
Myriam Bohemier, the only Quebec participant in the hearings, is a Montreal lawyer, who spoke in English but was aided when necessary by the translation assistance offered by Richard Girgis of Fearless Canada. Bohemier spoke on family law issues of relevance. She discussed parents who disagree with each other, where one does not want their children to be jabbed. The parents who do not want the injections have “less rights than a serial killer” in a legal proceeding, and they have no defense. Parents who protest against the jabbing of their children, in family law courts, are formally treated as “conspiracy theorists,” and their arguments are dismissed. Only a single Ontario judgment was favorable to dissenting parents—but in Quebec, all judgments have ordered “vaccinations” and have humiliated dissenting parents as “conspiracy theorists”. February, which was likely the darkest month of these two years in Quebec, saw three judgments that prohibited parents from relying on experts to challenge public “recommendations” on “vaccination”. Judges decided to ensure 100% adherence to “public health recommendations”. Bohemier tried to gain a full hearing on the merits of this decision, but the courts treated the injections as an urgent matter in an “emergency”. Judges rely on affidavits, public policy documents, and the Facebook pages of the “conspiracy theorist” parents, in devising their rulings. The only exemption would be for children where the family doctor swears that the injection would be contraindicated. Otherwise, anti-injection parents have zero defense. When Bohemier tried to introduce documents produced by experts critical of the “vaccines,” the judge assured the opposing lawyer that he would disregard all documents coming from outside Canada; in other cases, judges have called into question the expertise of opposing doctors, thus dismissing their reports from submitted files. In some cases judges barked at dissident experts, “tell me ‘yes’ or ‘no’: is it safe?”. The unfairness of judges has also been shielded from appeals. Parents supporting injection, were relieved of any duty to provide scientific support for their choice.
In response to questions from the panel, on parental rights, Bohemier said it is an established right for parents to exercise vigilance and care of their children, and have parental authority. But on questions that affect “the nation,” some parents are clearly robbed of their authority. Is there any public movement protesting the bias of the courts? Richard Girgis noted that Quebec probably had the biggest protest movement in Canada, from the spring of 2020 onward, and the Conservative Party of Quebec gained enormous ground by challenging the pandemic policies; there were massive protests, on every issue of relevance—masks, lockdowns, jab mandates, etc. Despite this, the media and the National Assembly of Quebec were effectively locked in step behind the government. Quebec media in particular were viciously slanderous against protesters and dissidents. Bohemier is a member of Reinfo Covid, which has 10,000 members.
Bohemier has tried to use freedom of speech rights on the part of protesting parents, to defend them against their inputs being nullified. Bohemier has decided to make a documentary of the procedures to be followed by protesting parents. “We are not ‘complotistes’ (conspiracy theorists), but rather ‘questionistes’ (questioners)”. Bohemier has even been assailed as a “complotiste” by rival lawyers in cases. Judges have dismissed basic facts—such as the mRNA “vaccines” being experimental—or have (ironically) accused her of being melodramatic by describing “vaccination” as an issue with life or death consequences. Bohemier is also preparing a letter of protest on how Chief Justice Richard Wagner who, since September of 2021, imposed a policy requiring “vaccination” of all his fellow judges, plus making disparaging comments about the Freedom Convoy. She asks: “do we still have a right to a fair trial?”. Judges in Quebec argue that they cannot substitute for executive decisions, says Girgis, which means that right out of the gate they have sworn themselves against exercising any kind of independence. In the end, Bohemier says, children are losing their rights to their parents.
Myriam Bohemier, the only Quebec participant in the hearings, is a Montreal lawyer, who spoke in English but was aided when necessary by the translation assistance offered by Richard Girgis of Fearless Canada. Bohemier spoke on family law issues of relevance. She discussed parents who disagree with each other, where one does not want their children to be jabbed. The parents who do not want the injections have “less rights than a serial killer” in a legal proceeding, and they have no defense. Parents who protest against the jabbing of their children, in family law courts, are formally treated as “conspiracy theorists,” and their arguments are dismissed. Only a single Ontario judgment was favorable to dissenting parents—but in Quebec, all judgments have ordered “vaccinations” and have humiliated dissenting parents as “conspiracy theorists”. February, which was likely the darkest month of these two years in Quebec, saw three judgments that prohibited parents from relying on experts to challenge public “recommendations” on “vaccination”. Judges decided to ensure 100% adherence to “public health recommendations”. Bohemier tried to gain a full hearing on the merits of this decision, but the courts treated the injections as an urgent matter in an “emergency”. Judges rely on affidavits, public policy documents, and the Facebook pages of the “conspiracy theorist” parents, in devising their rulings. The only exemption would be for children where the family doctor swears that the injection would be contraindicated. Otherwise, anti-injection parents have zero defense. When Bohemier tried to introduce documents produced by experts critical of the “vaccines,” the judge assured the opposing lawyer that he would disregard all documents coming from outside Canada; in other cases, judges have called into question the expertise of opposing doctors, thus dismissing their reports from submitted files. In some cases judges barked at dissident experts, “tell me ‘yes’ or ‘no’: is it safe?”. The unfairness of judges has also been shielded from appeals. Parents supporting injection, were relieved of any duty to provide scientific support for their choice.
In response to questions from the panel, on parental rights, Bohemier said it is an established right for parents to exercise vigilance and care of their children, and have parental authority. But on questions that affect “the nation,” some parents are clearly robbed of their authority. Is there any public movement protesting the bias of the courts? Richard Girgis noted that Quebec probably had the biggest protest movement in Canada, from the spring of 2020 onward, and the Conservative Party of Quebec gained enormous ground by challenging the pandemic policies; there were massive protests, on every issue of relevance—masks, lockdowns, jab mandates, etc. Despite this, the media and the National Assembly of Quebec were effectively locked in step behind the government. Quebec media in particular were viciously slanderous against protesters and dissidents. Bohemier is a member of Reinfo Covid, which has 10,000 members.
Bohemier has tried to use freedom of speech rights on the part of protesting parents, to defend them against their inputs being nullified. Bohemier has decided to make a documentary of the procedures to be followed by protesting parents. “We are not ‘complotistes’ (conspiracy theorists), but rather ‘questionistes’ (questioners)”. Bohemier has even been assailed as a “complotiste” by rival lawyers in cases. Judges have dismissed basic facts—such as the mRNA “vaccines” being experimental—or have (ironically) accused her of being melodramatic by describing “vaccination” as an issue with life or death consequences. Bohemier is also preparing a letter of protest on how Chief Justice Richard Wagner who, since September of 2021, imposed a policy requiring “vaccination” of all his fellow judges, plus making disparaging comments about the Freedom Convoy. She asks: “do we still have a right to a fair trial?”. Judges in Quebec argue that they cannot substitute for executive decisions, says Girgis, which means that right out of the gate they have sworn themselves against exercising any kind of independence. In the end, Bohemier says, children are losing their rights to their parents.
Josh Shulman, also in BC, was the owner of the Smugglers’ Smokehouse restaurant until he had to close it. “As a country we deserve some answers as to why all this went down the way it did….this has been extremely traumatic for us, as a country”. He refused to continue taking government loans and grants, “digging into government coffers,” which also meant losing direction over his business. Mandates were imposed; goalposts were constantly shifted; and there seemed to be no end in sight. He and his wife opted to sell, and cover their debts. He now has nothing left. And it has nothing to do with any business failure on his part; his catering events grew enormously up to 2020, he had seen growth year after year until “the pandemic”; they had expanded to a second location—and then the switch was turned off. He is not sure how to even calculate his losses. They were hit from every direction: total shutdown (with delivery only), to capacity limits. The media had individuals so frightened, that all of his employees asked to be laid off so they could collect CERB. He was unable to get his employees back when slight reopenings were allowed. Being a small business, he never qualified for any wage subsidy.
It was all stressful, so much work, and all decisions were taken out of his hands. There was also no daycare facility for his children. He tolerated the initial “two weeks” of lockdown—but the restrictions then continued. With the capacity limits that ensued, it was impossible to make money. The “vaccine passport,” which required him to ask about—to police—people’s private health status, was unacceptable. We now live in a world where anything can happen, he said, “and the government can swoop in and say that everything is closed”.
In response to questions from the panel, he noted that his surveillance of events in other countries alerted him to what was coming in Canada, and were excellent indicators. The BC government has never asked him for any sort of impact statement. He knows of other restaurant owners in his same situation, and had to shut down permanently. Fellow restaurateurs who protested the “vaccine passports,” paid for it dearly. His decision was simply to close down rather than enforce segregation, which was utterly pointless from a health perspective, and created nothing but hatred for the “unvaccinated”. His distrust of government has now reached a zenith.
Lyndie Hill, in Penticton, BC, has a business focused on adventure tourism and a gym camp. After years of forest fires and floods, 2020 was due to be her best year yet—but it all came to a crashing halt. Within the first three days of the lockdown, she lost $60,000 worth of business, and a 95% loss of business through the first quarter of the following year, and overall a 60% loss of business to date. So many of the rules were utterly nonsensical. She saw mental health in her community crumble. Parents had no place for their children, since her summer camp was restricted. She had to work under capacity limits, social distancing, and then “vaccine passports” for her indoor gym. She was instructed she would not be allowed to host a planned festival (which was just skills courses and events), so she changed the name to “Skills Courses and Events,” and it was then allowed. She took wage subsidies, loans, etc., and still had to mortgage her house to continue. The “vaccine passport” issue was particularly loathsome, especially when having to turn away kids. As a member of the Penticton Chamber of Commerce, she has seen the damaging impacts on many businesses from the entire region. In her field of tourism, the impacts have been severe.
The segregation, the isolation, the 100% fear “in your face, all the time,” the “daily terror tally” of how many people have Covid, everyone walking around in masks—there was no way of getting away from it all. She observed how this had an awful impact on everyone.
In response to questions from the panel, on whether the government asked for any impact assessment from her, she said simply: “No”. In the various school boards and community bodies to which she belongs, she regularly asked if anything was being done to redress all the negative impacts of the restrictions—and essentially nothing is being done. Now that “it’s all over,” as many seem to think, “everything is just being brushed under the rug” and the damage is being ignored. Her business was a kind of hybrid gym and tourism business, and government one-size-fits-all approaches, the blanket policies, placed an undue burden. They are expected to immediately repay government loans, and no private banks will touch them, especially now in this financial crisis. “No one was looking ‘big picture’ and planning for the health of our community, holistically”.
Richard Schabas, a retired public health physician who served as Chief Medical Officer of Ontario (1987-1997), declared himself a strong advocate for vaccines, in general, and, specifically, Covid “vaccines” having received three shots. He said this to clarify that nothing he is saying should be confused with “anti-vaccine” sentiment—but he is against mandates. He then outlined his extensive academic and professional background, one with extensive and lengthy experience in medical panels and public health bodies. Schabas stated, “I have looked on in horror” at what has been done in the name of public health. Covid mortality was mostly an issue for the frail elderly, but the biggest burden of the crisis has been borne by the young and healthy. Public health in the past was more holistic—it included physical, mental, and social well-being. That has been reduced to a matter of Covid “case” counts. The public health he practiced in the past in Canada was based on persuasion, not coercion—now, any public health measure immediately becomes a mandate. The irony is things such as “vaccine passports” have backfired. Those who did not want to be forced, became hardened by such measures, and the passports had no impact on preventing surges. In March of 2020 we uncritically accepted speculative mathematical models. Models, until then, were always understood to be imperfect at best, but suddenly they were taken as definitive: there would be four million deaths in the summer of 2020, we were told. That was false, as were all major modelling predictions for the past outbreaks of the last 20 years or so. Public health measures induced panic.
In 2019, the WHO’s document on non-pharmaceutical interventions should have been the basis for our response—but it was not. Our lockdowns were not based on any evidence. Mask wearing by asymptomatic persons—no evidence this was effective, said the WHO in 2019. Active contract tracing was not recommended. Surface cleaning was not deemed effective. Quarantining those who are assumed to have been exposed, made no sense—a wasteful and punitive measure, this was also not recommended by the WHO. In Ontario, the belief was that home quarantine quelled the 2003 SARS outbreak—false. Border closures, testing travelers, etc.—none of these were recommended by the WHO.
We panicked, imposed lockdown measures, and there was no clear goal. Our hospitals were largely empty in April and May of 2020. Then we had to lockdown to wait for the “vaccines”. Then we had to lockdown to wait until everyone was jabbed. Then we had to lockdown because of variants. We never had a clear idea of what we were trying to accomplish.
The Canadian plan for influenza emphasized not just minimizing deaths, but also minimizing disruptions. We used fear as a tool of public health policy, which was fundamentally wrong and destructive. We invoked fear deliberately. We cancelled dissenting views, at a time when there were so many uncertainties. A long-time contributor and frequent guest, he was personally cancelled by the CBC because his views were “akin to a climate change denier”. Colleges of physicians and surgeons shut down any doctor who questions the dominant policy. There has been no commitment to finding out if the measures work, or to develop a better science.
We have done great damage to ourselves. The worst is what we have done to our children, the group at lowest risk from Covid 19. Ten or twenty years from now, people may look back with horror. We have terrorized the elderly. We have deprived many of them of family contact during their final years. We have denied basic human rights, such as the freedom to protest, to practice religion, freedom of speech has been suppressed, and the right to bodily autonomy has been denied.
We need to make a real effort to learn the lessons of what has happened. We need to review our public health institutions.
In response to questions from the panel, he noted how British Columbia had the least stringent lockdown, and Quebec the most stringent—and BC had one third the mortality of Quebec. He also said that the debate here is not much different from the debate about influenza vaccination, where the frail and elderly and targeted. Why didn’t we take that approach? Instead we became obsessed with the notion that we could stop and control this virus, bordering on Zero Covid, if not being explicitly that kind of policy in the minds of some. We would have had less mortality, with less disruption to our society, if we had taken that approach. If a national investigation were to occur, it cannot be led by one person, nor can we promote group-think. He advocates for panels of credentialed experts rather than “mavericks with crazy ideas”. Politicians and public health officials have not done a good job in public messaging; there was no need for more fear-mongering and panic. Our job should have been to promote the idea of, “keep calm and carry on”. If leaders were not panicky, then they were criticized in these past two years: “Don’t they realize that everybody is going to die?!” Ridiculous and absurd predictions were made. There needs to be a reckoning. Many cried “fire” in a crowded theatre. David Ross applauded the presentation.
Schabas said that fear and intimidation won over common sense. There has been no admission of mistakes. He hopes that people have had enough with lockdowns and will not do it again. He is glad for the example of Sweden, which stuck to basic principles, whose Covid mortality is in the bottom third of European countries—and it is false that Sweden was some sort of Covid disaster. Sweden’s chief public health officer is also wholly independent of government, unlike the heavily politicized CDC in the US, which has now become the source of some of the worst, the sketchiest “research”. Public Health Canada is also an agency of government, and is federal rather than national.
Dean Allison, Colin Carrie, Nadine Wilson, and Steve VanLeeuwen, are all elected representatives. Dean Allison an MP from the Niagara area, reflected on cross-border realities. One of his constituents is married to someone across the border, and the multiple barriers (tests, quarantines) were both ineffective and needlessly obstructive. He also described some of the failures that occurred in hospitals in his region, where individuals died needlessly from things such as sepsis, and were denied any advocacy from family members.
Nadine Wilson, a Saskatchewan independent MLA, had disagreements with her government; she said was told by her constituents that their communities had effectively been killed by the lockdowns. People lost respect for and trust in their menacing government, which threatened to “hurt” them for resisting the “vaccines”. People were isolated, segregated, blocked from travel in their own country. Some of her constituents simply fled the country, for Nicaragua, Montana, and elsewhere.
Steve VanLeeuwen, a municipal councillor, one-time acting Mayor and owner of a boat dealership, said the biggest frustration was with the fear that was promoted in communities, and citizens not having anyone to advocate for them. Municipal councils resisted any questioning of the mandates and restrictions coming down from higher levels of government. He was removed as deputy Mayor for questioning, and was taken to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario—a nine-month proceeding that cost the community tens of thousands of dollars. All his communications were scrutinized. The final report absolved him, and even noted that the information he was sharing was correct.
Colin Carrie heard mostly from suffering constituents, especially those who exercised their personal choices. He bemoaned the loss of democracy. More and more people are distrusting governments and courts. Canadians are being treated as if they were stupid. He decried the media cancelling those who do not espouse the dominant agenda. We are losing our democracy, trust in our institutions, even increased divisions in families, and doctors being stripped of their licenses, he noted.
What could be done to acknowledge the pain and difficulty experienced by Canadians? Colin Carrie said his office stayed open 24/7 to answer constituents’ questions. The despair and suffering the hearings have aired, are real. Governments have not listened to what people needed. Dean Allison conducted Zoom meetings with chambers of commerce, especially during the early period when people most feared Covid, and made sure to stay in touch. Nadine Wilson also tried to assist those in distress with the malfunctioning of the healthcare system, whose surgeries had been cancelled and so forth, as well as helping students who suffered discrimination by advocating for them and hiring lawyers, and she also introduced bills. Steve VanLeeuwen, as a business owner as well, noted that many citizens did not really understand what was legal—the government changed the rules affecting businesses 76 times in Ontario. The number one thing people are looking for is protection from this ever happening again in the future, and that it must be prevented from recurring.
In terms of a national investigation, what terms of reference should it follow? Colin Carrie wants to see accountability. He denounces the misleading fear-mongering, and nudging, to get people to conform to “vaccination”. We need to look at negligence, even criminal negligence, for those officials who did not do their due diligence. Dean Allison wants to see the pandemic plans that were in place before 2020 (and were then tossed aside), restored and respected, and he wants to know why they were thrown out. Nadine Wilson focused on the media and its misinformation—there needs to be a list published in a prominent place of all propaganda pieces published by the media, that can be accessed by the public. There should be serious consequences for health agencies, and for doctors who failed to advocate for patients. Steve VanLeeuwen agrees with the principle of accountability. “What did you know about the harms caused by your policy, and what did you do?” He presented pages of documentation and videos from CCCA to his council—so now they cannot say, “I did not know”.
How many of your colleagues were approachable and accessible to their constituents? Colin Carrie repeats that the best thing that could have been done was to stay open, but cannot really comment on other MPs. Most want to turn the page, and just say that this is all over. Nadine Wilson noted that because of the official propaganda, she was the only one of the 61 MLAs who questioned the dominant policy. Steve VanLeeuwen found hopelessness and helplessness among municipal councilors. One councilor who voted to have him investigated has completely changed his mind and told him that he will forever live in shame knowing what he did, and is now questioning everything. Dean Allison noted how much peer pressure is a reality, well past adolescence. He has been ridiculed nationally and locally for quoting Dr. Pierre Kory and advocating for Ivermectin, and most elected representatives will not want to be exposed to such treatment. Let us just debate using the data, he urged.
Brook Jackson, worked at Ventavia which conducted clinical trials for the Pfizer “vaccine”. She was hired as their regional director in 2020. She oversaw the research staff and ensured that data integrity and quality assurance were maintained. The “vaccine” trial was two months into enrolment when she joined. This study was observer-blind, meaning the person that was injecting was the only one aware of whether the patient was receiving the product or a placebo (saline injection). Thus the observing doctor would not affected by such knowledge in devising a treatment for the patient or diagnosing a patient. Ventavia lacked the infrastructure for enrolling more patients, as per Pfizer’s urging, and she knew they could not be safely overseen—but Pfizer pressed for more because it was in a hurry. She shadowed one of the research staff to ensure informed consent, that standard operating procedures were being followed, but what she witnessed was not full informed consent—the form was rushed through, to hasten injection. It was not a thorough process.
She was at Ventavia only 18 days before she was fired. She had documented misconduct. Much of what she documented was sloppy work, and breaches of data integrity, as well as lack of concern for patients’ welfare. She found informed consent forms that were apparently forged. She found fabrication of data. Some adverse events were not reported at all. There was an insufficient number of research staff. Staff were unsure about what to capture as adverse events. Thus the numbers on adverse events, which would be needed to prove safety to obtain Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, were incorrect. She also found that the product was not being stored at the required temperature as detailed by Pfizer. Pfizer was in a rush, to be first to market, and tolerated these deficiencies—“money was a driving factor”. She filed a complaint with the FDA, and was then fired.
On September 25, 2020, she listed 14 problems in her FDA complaint which was then filed online. Six hours later, the Ventavia COO terminated her on the spot. From the FDA she first received a canned response. On September 29, she spoke with a FDA inspector. The inspector seemed attentive. No FDA inspectors ever went to Ventavia’s site, however. In total, the FDA only inspected six of 154 sites. She plans to raise this fact in a court case. She has a large volume of documents and audio tapes to support her case.
If she had not taken the steps she had, did Ventavia have any safeguards in place? She answers essentially in the negative—it depended on whistle blowers existing, or the FDA doing its job, or Pfizer doing its own internal audits. The FDA never investigated her allegations. To fix this system, she advocates for more oversight. The FDA failed to do its duty.
Regarding the training of staff, Jackson affirmed it was insufficient. There was also an insufficient number of staff. Making sure that the product was prepared properly, diluted, and so forth, was not attended to—staff only had retail and restaurant experience, no medical experience.
Staff were also grossly overworked; one had worked 70 hours of overtime in a two-week period. Chaos reigned.
With only six of 154 sites visited, the results of the Pfizer safety study are not reliable. Even in the inspection reports of the sites that were visited, FDA officials state they could not complete their investigations due to Covid restrictions, and the trials had not yet finished. Data integrity did not matter to Ventavia or Pfizer. Why did Pfizer include that data knowing that it was flawed?
Jackson has over two decades of experience in clinical research, and management of clinical trial sites. She has never seen misconduct like she witnessed at Ventavia. She urges for more regulatory oversight. In one example she specified how Pfizer asked for the adverse event information to be changed, so that the adverse event (heart attack leading to pneumonia) was instead blamed on Covid, which was contracted after the event.
Jackson’s lawsuit, a false claims act, was filed in January of 2021, when she realized that her claims would not be investigated. This allows her to file suit on behalf of the government, against those defrauding the government. In January of 2022, the Dept. of Justice refused to take over the case or get involved. While the explanation that followed was a bit complicated, the fact remained that the lawsuit is proceeding. Defendants were served in April of this year. August 6 is the due date for her amended complaint.
The panel was comprised of lawyer Shawn Buckley and Fearless Canada’s Richard Girgis.
Preston Manning affirms that the intent is to follow up on these meetings. The first step is to share the videos and testimony of this hearing. The second step is to continue these hearings to examine more areas of impact, and to expand the current Hearings website, and perhaps host monthly one-day hearings. Those who wish to participate would register through that website. The third step is to promote the need for an independent, non-government, national investigation. Fourth, we must compile, review, and assess suggestions for next steps.
Buckley identifies a cultural problem: the culture of fear, of silence, of total conformity. One of the things that has facilitated the capture of people on the front lines, and our institutions, is this Canadian cultural problem. Our cultural move to total conformity has undermined our institutions. Girgis says that since Covid there has been a silencing, and perhaps it exacerbated an underlying cultural weakness. Daigle says fear must be removed from the equation.
Girgis notes how with regulatory agencies, and courts (especially in Quebec), there is a complete lack of independence from executive or legislative power; instead, what we see is uniformity in response, and in thought. The media have created this atmosphere of uniformity of thought. Manning argues for the Judicial Council to be flooded with complaints on the lack of independence of the judiciary—even if the Chair of that Council, the Chief Justice, is notably biased. Buckley notes that as much as two thirds of Health Canada’s budget comes from revenue in the form of fees paid by pharmaceutical companies.
David Ross says that these hearings have been a good first start. We need to get dialogue going and to maintain the dialogue. We need to collect stories, and also hold elected officials accountable.
