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.