Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 12, 2021 - Jim Fetzer

02:24:04

EXPOSED - The Persecution of Canadian Physicians by Organized Medicine During the Pandemic

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The views and opinions expressed in this interview are protected by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which affirms the freedom of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
	If you seek the official narrative on the COVID-19 pandemic, go to the Health Canada website.
	With that said, if you seek the repressed truth, stay tuned for our interview.
	Hello, my name is Dr. Sam Dubé and I'm a non-clinical physician.
	I'm also a retired faculty member in university for engineering mathematics and a strength and conditioning coach with some experience in sports broadcasting.
	I am here today with four Canadian physicians and their legal representations.
	Our purpose is to expose the atrocious treatment of these physicians by their medical governing bodies, that is their provincial medical governing bodies.
	And to show the public what's actually happening during this alleged pandemic with people who have your best interest at heart, that is your physicians, your physicians themselves.
	So I'm here today with Dr. Chris Milburn.
	Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Charles Hoff, and Dr. Roger Hodkinson.
	They are joined by their legal representation in these persecutions by a John Carpe Esquire.
	So I want to thank you gentlemen for joining us, and we have a job to do.
	So Chris, without further ado, could you please introduce yourself?
	Sure.
	So, my name is Chris Milburn.
	I'm born and bred Cape Redner with the typical story.
	I had a grandfather who was a coal miner.
	I actually live on the footprint of the hospital.
	I was born in Sydney.
	I had a long journey away from home for 17 years and drifted back after a master's degree in physics, medical degree training in family and emergency medicine.
	I have An interest in sports med and injury rehab.
	I've done an emergency family, but also relevant to this story, I have a fairly intense interest in public health.
	I was four years on a committee, it's called the CHCP, the Committee on Healthcare and Promotion, which dealt with issues of broader healthcare, i.e.
	public health at the Canadian Medical Association.
	For my last year, I was the chair of that committee and I believe it's been about six or seven years on the Doctors of Nova Scotia Public Health Committee and just finished my two-year tenure as a head of that committee.
	And that doesn't get into, I've been on numerous local community health boards, so I have a long interest in public health and it's given me a certain perspective on COVID planning.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you, Chris.
	Charles, could you please introduce yourself to our viewers?
	Yes, my name is Charles Hough.
	I'm a family physician and emergency room physician.
	I did my medical training in South Africa.
	I came to Canada in 1990.
	So, in Canada, I've been a dyed-in-the-wool rural GP and emerged physician for 31 years.
	And so, the last 28 of those have been in Lytton, British Columbia.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you, Charles.
	Francis, would you tell our viewers exactly who you are, please?
	Thanks, Sam.
	My name is Francis Christian.
	I've been a surgeon for more than 20 years.
	I have a fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and I have a fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada.
	Up until the 23rd of June, I was the Director of Quality Improvement and Patient Safety in the Department of Surgery in the University of Saskatchewan.
	My designation was also Clinical Professor.
	I was also the Director of our Surgical Humanities Program.
	I had actually started the Department of QI and Patient Safety several years ago.
	And amongst multiple other activities, I had started for the department the NSQIP program or the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.
	I also founded the Surgical Quality and Safety Committee, the SQSC, which I co-chaired with the department head.
	And together with our university's computer department, I developed an app.
	It's called the M&M app, which is still available on the Google Play Store and the App Store for Apple devices.
	And interestingly, the M&M app is now being used across the province of Saskatchewan.
	I co-founded the Surgical Humanities program for the department, and I'm the editor of the Journal of the Surgical Humanities, which I founded.
	The fall 2020 issue of the journal had much in it about the COVID-19 pandemic, actually, including my editorial.
	And if you go to the Department of Surgery website, they still have The PDF archive of issues right up to the Fall 2020 issue.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you, Francis.
	And Roger, could you please give us your background?
	Sure, yeah, very briefly.
	Cambridge graduate, came to Canada in 1970 when it was a very different place.
	I'm sure we'll talk about that.
	Being an assistant professor at the university here, I've done loads of teaching over the years.
	Being president of our provincial association of pathologists.
	I've done a lot of Royal College work, Chairman of the Examination Committee in General Pathology.
	I'm currently the CEO of a biotech company in North Carolina.
	I practice in the States, I practice in Britain, general practice in Canada and the States.
	But my biggest credential is none of the above.
	My biggest credential is I was the Honorary Chairman of Action on Smoking and Health for many years.
	Where I learned the smarts, you might say, of how to take on government, as taking on big tobacco, the predatory marketing practices, probably saved more lives in that role than I ever did as a pathologist.
	And I'm very proud of it.
	Thank you so much, Roger.
	And finally, John.
	I'm John Carpe.
	I'm a lawyer.
	I was born in the Netherlands.
	I came to Canada at the age of seven and grew up in British Columbia.
	I earned a political science degree at Université Laval in Quebec and thereafter did a law degree at the University of Calgary.
	And I've been working in public interest law, defending charter rights and freedoms on a full-time basis since 2005.
	And I head up the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
	We are public interest law firm.
	We have clients all over the country.
	We've got a what a dozen lawyers on staff and looking to hire more in these very dark times.
	We want to we need some more lawyers and feel very honored and privileged to represent courageous people.
	All of our clients without exception, including the doctors here today, but all of the people are displaying tremendous courage in standing up to Government tyranny and government violation of rights and freedoms.
	So that's that's me.
	Thank you so much, John.
	It's wonderful to have you here today and your your support, personal and professional.
	Just to contextualize, it is Canada Day today.
	So happy Canada Day, everyone.
	And I think it is strangely appropriate because we have representation of our physicians.
	Chris is broadcasting from Moncton, I believe.
	And Francis, you are coming to us from Saskatchewan, am I correct?
	Saskatoon, yeah.
	Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
	And Charles, now Charles has an interesting situation because he just evacuated from Lytton, British Columbia last night and his office has been burnt to a crisp, unfortunately.
	So he actually called me on a mountain road on the way to Kamloops to be with his family.
	So Charles, our hearts go out to you and so sorry about that and hopefully Lytton can recover from that.
	So we're, you know, we're doubly thankful for you being here with us today.
	And of course, Rogers and Edmonton.
	So we have multiple provinces represented.
	Spain and Canada.
	John, where are you exactly again?
	I'm in Calgary.
	You're in Calgary as well, okay.
	And I'm in Ottawa right now, so I guess we had to mention the capital somewhere there.
	So there certainly is an appropriateness to this in addressing this issue.
	So what I'd like to do is I would like to leave it to each physician to talk to us as to why they're here, what their story is, and how they ended up getting persecuted by the very governing body that was supposedly out to protect People, their patients, and that really the only thing that these physicians here, ladies and gentlemen, are guilty of is trying to protect you and expressing a discontent and a concern with the official narrative and the public health response to this pandemic.
	So, without further ado, I would like to ask Dr. Chris Mulburn to please tell us your story.
	Well, my story actually predates COVID.
	I first had a head-on with cancel culture back in late 2019 when I wrote an editorial piece for the Chronicle Herald, which is our biggest newspaper in Nova Scotia.
	And my editorial was just about the difficulty of dealing with violent patients in custody and how that was very fraught for physicians and other staff who had to deal with these patients.
	And where was the balance of individual rights and individual responsibility and all that.
	And my piece was overall very well received, except by what you probably call the left-wing fringe.
	And for my troubles, I got a complaint signed by a number of complainants whose names were kept anonymous.
	JCCF, thank you, John, helped me through the complaint process, and we eventually lobbied the college to make it
	public.
	But the basis of the complaint was I used such words as criminal, which was stigmatizing the patients.
	And I clearly wasn't compassionate enough to be a doctor, et cetera, et cetera.
	So it was a difficult time for me. And I went through that during COVID and in a time where I was bound to secrecy, so
	I couldn't actually seek support.
	I'm going to go ahead and close out the webinar.
	During COVID, as I mentioned, I have a strong interest in public health.
	I'm pretty good with numbers, you know, I have graduate level math.
	And I began, I started into the pandemic, like I think many of us, we saw what was happening in Bergamo, Italy, and then New York City, and we thought, Oh, my God, what is this?
	Is it the bubonic plague?
	And I was all for a precautionary approach when we started.
	But I think the difference for me was that quite quickly, I saw that the numbers were not what they originally seemed and that this was not that killer of all ages that we had to be really concerned about.
	And so I started to change my tune.
	I tried my best to follow the science, but it seemed like the more I followed the science, the more that put me at odds with our prevailing orthodoxy.
	It was pretty chilling for us.
	I'm going to read to you about it.
	Here in Nova Scotia in March, our Our college put out this following statement.
	They emailed it to all physicians.
	Physicians continue to meet their professional obligations of complying with public health COVID-19 guidance.
	As well, physicians on the front lines are providing important education to their patients regarding public health safety and vaccination information.
	This all sounds sort of benign, but then they get into the vast majority of the profession is modeling compliance and as such there has been little problem with anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers.
	So, I certainly don't like that statement because it suggests that someone like me who thinks that maybe the mask rules are a little bit draconian or that patients should have autonomy in choosing a vaccine, I could be considered either an anti-mask or an anti-vaxxer because those statements aren't scientific in nature, they're not well defined.
	But most chilling, the College wishes to recognize the leadership that physicians are playing in supporting this unanimity so key to our success in combating COVID.
	And that's where, to me, it went completely off the rails.
	I don't know about the other folks, but when I read my Hippocratic Oath, there was nothing about unanimity in it.
	And I never agreed to be unanimous with all my colleagues.
	They never agreed to be unanimous with me.
	As a matter of fact, I thought it was quite healthy and Necessary for scientific progress for us to disagree often and vigorously and to work those disagreements out and to figure out what's best for our patients.
	So I am quite sure with this recent, I spoke out against certain things, against mandatory vaccinations, and I spoke out against School closures on a radio program.
	For my troubles, I was removed as my job as the head of ER for our zone.
	And I'm quite sure at this point there's a Twitter mob that had been organizing as of a few weeks ago to organize everyone to send complaints to the college.
	So I'm quite sure I'm going to be dealing with more college complaints over my stance.
	I'm butting up for the second time in two years against cancel culture for speaking my mind.
	And I just, you know, as the other folks I'm sure will agree, I just think that's extremely unhealthy for science.
	It was somebody who disagreed that the earth was flat that proved it was round.
	It was somebody who disagreed that the earth was the center of the universe
	and proved that it wasn't. And we need to allow dissenters. Most of us won't be right by the nature
	of us. Most of us will be off the rails and proven wrong. That's fine, but that's science and we're
	shutting that down at this point.
	Well, you know, consensus, as I mentioned to Charles last night, was four out of five
	physicians prefer camels, right? So, I mean, some of us are welcome to remember that.
	And thalidomide, right?
	And what else out there?
	What else out there?
	I mean, the number of examples is almost endless.
	So, Chris, how did this affect you personally?
	And you alluded to some professionally here.
	If you can just elaborate on that a little bit for us, give our viewers some insight.
	Sure.
	So, I'm, you know, I'm a very kind of geeky guy.
	I read a lot.
	In my spare time, I ride my bike.
	I have cats.
	I have a great wife.
	But I also really, I really, really like my job.
	And I like looking after patients.
	And what happened to me last year in the midst of the complaint, it took a lot of my time away from patient care.
	The time that I could have been spending taking care of patients in a province that's really, really understaffed for doctors.
	Instead, I spent days and days and days working on letters and talking with lawyers from the JCCF and Sleepless nights about my future.
	Is this the right profession for me?
	If I can't have free speech, should I be a doctor?
	So it was a very, very hard time for me that took me away from the things that I really like to do.
	And it was very stressful.
	I'm an old hat at it now.
	So this time around, it's probably not quite as bad and I've learned not to take things very
	personally. So you know it's interesting and probably you know all the other
	doctors on this call will be having the same experience that on the one hand I have
	kind of what I'd say the left-wing fringe Twitter mob who want my head on a
	pike or run me out of town with pitchforks at minimum.
	But on the other hand, I've been contacted by hundreds and hundreds of people from across the country just saying, thank you for speaking out.
	Even people who actually said, I don't agree with you, but thank you for speaking out because I think we need to have a discussion about these things.
	And I think that's important.
	So I guess, Times like this, it shows you who your true friends are and who you can really have a real conversation and a meaningful discussion with.
	And, you know, I'm learning that bit by bit by bit.
	That's that's wonderful for sharing that with us, Chris.
	Thank you so much.
	And I'm going to ask John Carpe, who was your your legal representation, to comment on your cases and give us, you know, kind of a legal overview and any insights that he might have.
	And, you know, talk about about this response that you received and and look at it from a bigger picture.
	John, can you please address this?
	Well, the colleges of Surgeons and Physicians.
	The Colleges are government bodies and the supreme law of the land is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not any public health order.
	And the Colleges are actually required to comply with the Charter because they are a government body.
	So one of the things that Colleges must do is respect freedom of speech.
	And in various Supreme Court of Canada decisions, the rationale for free speech includes Uh, the, the, the search for truth and, uh, public discourse and finding a determination of good laws, which really cannot take place if there's one orthodoxy, there's no debate, uh, about laws and what the law ought to be.
	Um, so there there's, uh, free speech was one of the, uh, pillars of the free society.
	Uh, in fact, it's been said that if you lost all of your rights and freedoms, But retained your freedom of speech, you could use your freedom of speech to gain all the other ones back.
	But if you lose your freedom of speech, you're no longer even in a position to defend your religious freedom, your freedom of association, your freedom of conscience, your freedom not to be locked up in a prison hotel upon returning to Canada, etc, etc, etc.
	If there's no freedom of speech, the whole free society crumbles, democracy crumbles.
	Now, There is a place for colleges to uphold standards, standards of behavior, standards of professional conduct.
	You know, a doctor should not have sexual relations with a patient.
	A doctor has to ensure a patient has informed consent.
	So there's a whole code of ethics, and there's nothing wrong with having a formal body that promotes and enforces a code of ethics.
	And there could even be a place for the College to make some determinations about medical practices.
	I'm aware that the Ontario College, for example, has banned female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision, and a physician may not perform that service and may not refer for that service.
	So there can be there can be a time and a place for the College to step in and maybe shut down Debate on an extreme example like that.
	But to squelch debate on very unsettled matters, lockdowns are a brand new experiment.
	I've asked numerous pro-lockdown people, can you cite me one example in human history of any society, any country, any civilization that has succeeded in vanquishing a virus by destroying its economy and by shredding The fabric of civil society.
	And so, you know, the answer is none.
	So this is an experiment, and it's not scientific to insist on the correctness of the experiment and silence debate about the experiment.
	So I'll pause there and have more comments later on.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Because when we get to the other physicians cases here, and I mean, not even giving reasons why they're making statements against these, the physicians who are expressing their concern and questioning, not even giving any reasons.
	You know?
	So, thank you for that, John.
	I'd like to move on to Dr. Charles Hoff.
	So, Charles, can you tell us what happened to you?
	Yes.
	So, my story of persecution by the medical authorities all began in about mid-March, when the vaccine rollout was in about its third month, and there was There were significant evidence of harm and and at that point 12 countries in Europe had shut down the AstraZeneca vaccine because of serious evidence of life threatening plots.
	My problems all began because I sent an email to a group of co-workers, and they were doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in our area who were literally involved in this vaccine rollout.
	And basically I expressed my ethical concerns with continuing to roll out a vaccine that had clear evidence of harm.
	And basically, I mean, I was aware that this new gene-based vaccine idea had never been tried on human beings before this pandemic.
	And there had been no animal trials which are normally mandatory for any new vaccine.
	And there was no long-term safety data.
	So, this was clearly an experiment.
	And there's a foundational ethical principle in clinical trials when you're trying out a new experimental therapy.
	That you need to be monitoring your subjects carefully.
	And if there's any evidence of harm, you stop the experiment.
	It's on purely ethical grounds.
	And so I basically sent this email saying there's clear evidence of harm.
	Do you think we should be pausing this?
	It was literally just a question.
	Do you think we should be pausing this to take stock?
	So within 48 hours, I received quite a reprimand from the local medical authorities to tell me that I was seriously out of line and that I was guilty of causing vaccine hesitancy.
	And this was seen as a patient safety issue.
	And I said to them, but hang on, Giving an experimental vaccine that is clearly causing harm is also a patient safety issue.
	I mean, that is my motivation is patient safety.
	But obviously, we were looking at this from different ends, where their whole purpose was just vaccinate everybody.
	And my purpose was, hang on, if it's harming people, this is not the solution.
	And so I was told that firstly, I was not allowed to say anything negative about this vaccine in our emergency department where I've work as an emergency doctor. And I was told that if I had
	any questions about this, that I was not to address them to my colleagues, but to the medical health
	officer for our region in charge of the vaccine rollout, and that my crime of vaccine hesitancy
	would be reported to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC. So I accepted
	this. I said, okay, I won't say anything, and I will send my concerns to the MHO. So, and I had
	actually been, this was now nine or 10 weeks since these people, since my patients had got their vaccine,
	but I'd been away. I'd been away in South Africa and I just arrived back. And then, so it
	was my first week back at work. And then in the days that followed, patients started coming into my
	office that had very clear evidence of harm. And in other words, it wasn't just reports from
	Europe or from elsewhere, it was my own So at this point, I got even more concerned about patient safety because I could see the problems firsthand.
	This wasn't just other people's reports.
	This was my Patients.
	And so I sent a letter to our MHO as they had asked and I expressed all my concerns and got no answers.
	So then I drafted a letter to our provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and because I was told she doesn't reply to letters, colleagues had said, you know, there's no point in just sending her a letter.
	It's going to go nowhere.
	You need to send it as an open letter.
	So I sent it as an open letter and basically it was All around what my whole motivation is patient safety and medical ethics.
	And so I said to her, basically, there's clear evidence of harm in my patients.
	What is the mechanism of injury?
	This is a medically induced disease.
	What is it?
	What's happening?
	And how should I, as their doctor, be treating this?
	And of course, you know, I didn't didn't expect, but that was my, my question.
	And then I also put the question, you know, whenever, whenever an experimental treatment is being tried and there's clear evidence of harm, we're supposed to shut her down.
	Shouldn't we be doing that?
	So this was a huge Problem.
	So that letter has continued to go around the world and I get emails from Hong Kong and New Zealand and Europe and continuously, day by day, people reading that letter, which I sent in the beginning of April.
	That's three months ago.
	So anyway, I sent that letter off and it caused a bit of a stir, but our local health authority, who had told me I wasn't allowed to say anything I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I don't know Firstly, that I had encouraged a nurse to tell people to refuse the vaccine.
	And the second was that I had posted misinformation about COVID.
	And interestingly enough, so I'll tell you what these were, because it is just absolutely absurd.
	They were clearly desperate to find something to accuse me of.
	So, I had explained to one of our emergency room nurses that someone who has had a natural COVID infection does not need the vaccine because they're already immune to COVID.
	And in fact, there's very good evidence that natural immunity from natural infection is a robust and broad immunity that lasts a long time and is far superior from anything that you can get from a syringe.
	And so by explaining that to a nurse, and actually it was for a patient who had had COVID and literally her only symptom from the COVID was losing her appetite for 10 days.
	That was literally her only symptom.
	And then she had the vaccine and was quite significantly ill from it, and so she thought something must be desperately wrong, because why was the vaccine making her more sick than COVID?
	So she came in.
	So I just said to the nurse, and this was on the telephone, please just tell her she doesn't need her second dose.
	And I explained to the nurse the whole scientific rationale about she doesn't need a vaccination against something that she's already immune to.
	And on the basis of that, I was accused of encouraging nurses to tell patients to refuse the vaccine.
	And the misinformation that I was accused of was that I was accused of posting a printout from the JCCF of COVID mortality statistics according to age categories on the notice board, which they decided was misleading, because it basically showed that two thirds of All the people that have died of COVID in BC are over the age of 70 and they didn't like people to know that because they want children vaccinated as well and so this was seen as being
	Misinformation.
	So, on the basis of those two things, they suspended my clinical privileges to work as an emergency physician.
	So, for me, the personal and professional cost of that was because I do both jobs.
	I'm an emergency physician and a family physician, and I do them simultaneously.
	Actually, I'm a small town.
	You're looking after the same people in the ER as you are in the office.
	One is just urgent problems and the other isn't.
	So, I basically lost 50% of my income.
	Immediately, it was the effect of that.
	But it also means that because I now have this black mark against me in my professional record, if I decided to work somewhere else, I wouldn't be allowed to do that because I now have this charge against me and this suspension.
	So it significantly hampers all future employment opportunities for me.
	And so that's, but the motive, my primary motivation is patient safety and medical ethics.
	And so that's my story and that was the cost to me.
	Hasn't it been said about physicians?
	I mean, our adages are do no harm and informed consent, you know, and we need to talk about this more, you know.
	No, that is the foundation of why we do what we do.
	I mean, informed consent is is is mandatory by law.
	And there's no informed consent with this, these COVID shots, because people are not being told what the risks are at all.
	And they're not being told what the benefits are.
	Not at all.
	I mean, most people think they're going to be immune to COVID and then get told they still need to wear a mask, you know, which is, you know, obviously they're not.
	Otherwise, they wouldn't still have to wear a mask.
	You know, effectively, the antibodies are in the wrong place.
	You know, the antibodies you get from the vaccine are in your blood.
	But you get COVID through your respiratory tract and those two systems of immunity are independent of one another and you can only be, you'll only get immunity to COVID through natural infection because then you will have antibodies in the respiratory tract.
	You know, and this is what we were all taught in medical school, right?
	And this whole idea of natural immunity trumping vaccine immunity, it's almost a no-brainer for us.
	And yet, they're systematically removing references to natural immunity.
	It's now become a footnote.
	They mention it occasionally, and I'll talk about that a little bit later.
	But just before we digress with the medical aspect, John, could you please comment on Charles' cases here, please, and how the College responded?
	I'm very sorry to learn of these details.
	Maybe it's surprising to hear me say, you know, learn of them.
	I've got, there's 12 lawyers on staff that are, you know, intimately familiar.
	So I was generally familiar with Charles's story, but I'm, I'm deeply grieved.
	There's a bunch of new details here that I wasn't aware of and, you know, getting back to the free speech and free society angle.
	It's one of the one of the core characteristics of totalitarianism is this putting forward, you know, the government decides what the truth is, and then enforces that.
	And there's no more debate about what is truth, what is fact.
	It's all about promoting this, this ideology.
	So we have we have an ideology that in various columns that I've written, I've called it COVID-ism or lockdown-ism and it's just the ideology that lockdowns are not only the best solution but the only solution and everything else is off the table.
	You know, whether vitamin D is a good preventative or a good aid or ivermectin or anything else, that's off the table.
	Whether we would have achieved the same results without lockdowns based on Voluntary changes in people's behavior.
	And even the death stats, you know, I'm very grateful for the fact that in Alberta and other provinces, the government does list the stats.
	The information on the Justice Centre website, we all get, we use government statistics.
	We don't go to some conspiracy website, but you know, Alberta Health Services tells us that on its website that three quarters of the People dying with COVID are elderly and have three or more serious health conditions, uh, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, et cetera.
	75% of the deaths involve people with three or more serious conditions.
	This is a relevant fact.
	And yet, uh, a totalitarian government will shut things down, but of course they need a pretext.
	They need a justification.
	So they say misinformation.
	And that's just a very convenient way to shut down speech.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, John.
	I'd like to move on to Francis.
	Francis, your story is, I think, among our most recent.
	And I have to admit, when I heard the recording that we're going to allude to, and that will be attached to the end of this video for our viewers to listen to, my stomach turned.
	My stomach turned at what you had to endure.
	It was so Orwellian.
	It was gaslighting.
	And I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
	I just have to say that, okay?
	Like, honestly, I don't know how you dealt with that.
	But could you please tell us what happened?
	Thank you, Sam.
	So what happened was on the 23rd of June, just over a week ago, I was called into what was termed a Webex meeting with the Dean of the Medical College here, the Chief Medical Officer, and the interim head of the department.
	I was stripped of my university faculty position.
	And fired from my roles as Director of QI, Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, and fired from my role as the Director of Surgical Humanities Program.
	Now, my offense or crime was supposedly asking for informed consent from parents and children.
	The rollout of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to our children in Saskatchewan.
	You know, many of us in the medical profession have a similar journey to what Chris was alluding to.
	Initially, and I'm talking about March of last year, I did believe Some of the official narratives, at least.
	I thought, this is a new virus.
	We need some time to take stock, to see what's happening.
	And I was a little bit skeptical about the way lockdowns were implemented.
	And then in May, I started asking questions.
	You know why, Sam?
	It's because they were, for the first time ever that I can remember, in my professional career, Major world-class scientific voices were being censored, were being suppressed.
	To give you an example, there were some very early voices that argued against lockdowns, and they came out with what is called the Great Barrington Declaration.
	It included people of great eminence, Martin Kulldorff, who has since become a friend.
	But not only does Kulldorff hold a professorship in Harvard, He is an epidemiologist whose software is actually being used on the field in epidemiology programs around the world.
	He's a leader in his field.
	He's somebody who, before this COVID thing started, was the fellow who set vaccine policy together with some other experts.
	And then it had Sunitra Gupta from Oxford and a fellow called Jay Bhattacharya from From Stanford, and they were censoring them.
	So, and the pattern of the censorship was very interesting.
	For those of us who have studied Soviet history which I have, and which, and I've studied the Nazi system, a little less.
	But the Soviets, you were very good in weaponizing words.
	So misinformation, disinformation, and the media started using those words.
	And then they would always follow with not what the Soviet Commissar said, but what experts say.
	And they would never define who these experts were, or how they matched the experts on the other side.
	They were always inferior to these world leading voices, but they were given the prominence and everything that the experts said was misinformation or disinformation.
	So I started asking questions and becoming skeptical of the official narratives.
	I was trying to influence the system from within.
	Here in Saskatoon, and then they started earlier this year, rolling out the vaccines at literally warp speed to our kids, to our kids without parental and Children having informed consent and informed consent is not a controversial topic at all.
	It's something that the profession has held dear, has held as a basic tenet in medicine for hundreds of years.
	What it means very simply is you tell the patient or the person what are the risks of the intervention, what are the benefits and are there any alternatives?
	And I gave a press conference which miraculously was covered by the mainstream press here and essentially asked the government to pause the whole program because children and parents were not being given informed consent.
	And I read in my statement Exactly what informed consent should look like at a very basic level.
	For example, that this is an experimental technology.
	It hasn't been tried in humans before.
	How many parents know that and how many children know that?
	Shouldn't children and parents know that?
	And then that this vaccine has only interim authorization in Canada and what is called emergency use authorization in the United States.
	And I pointed out that full authorization takes several years and includes multiple safety considerations.
	I pointed out the fact that in the VAERS system, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in the United States, there were at that time more than 6,000 deaths.
	I pointed out this is an association and not a causation, but it's a strong signal.
	And it cannot be ignored.
	And then I said that this particular vaccine for kids is already showing harm.
	It's showing a condition called myocarditis.
	And as we were discussing this, various bodies around the world, the Swedish vaccine agency, the German agency had already said that The the German vaccine agency had made very clear recommendations that it you know only very otherwise sick somebody with leukemia or somebody a kid with immunocompromised should be vaccinated with this vaccine and otherwise it should be not not given to kids.
	The UK vaccine agency was poised to make a recommendation like that and and and I thought that's very basic too and then I pointed out that for a kid This is not an emergency.
	The risk of dying of COVID is less than the risk of dying of the annual flu.
	It's 0.003%.
	It's been shown statistically, that's really a statistically zero, immeasurable risk.
	In statistics, it's very difficult to measure that kind of risk.
	So for a disease that does not pose A threat to kids.
	They are using an emergency use authorization vaccine, which hasn't been tested, which is already showing problems.
	And all this is not really being being disclosed to both parents and the kids.
	And I basically read out very few basic things.
	And I said the province is not is not achieving this very basic requirement in medicine, which is the taking of informed consent from parents and the kids.
	And on the 23rd of June, I was called into this WebEx meeting, and I was fired of all these positions.
	I was stripped of my university faculty position.
	My offense crime was supposedly asking for informed consent from parents and children in the rollout of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
	So You know, it's very interesting because the local press, the so-called mainstream media, who have now become arms of government.
	By the way, that happened in the Soviet Union too.
	I don't know whether Canadians know even their recent history adequately to realize the creeping totalitarianism that is coming upon us.
	So in the Soviet Union, arms of the media were co-opted to serve the purposes of the communist regime.
	Same thing happened in Nazi Germany.
	And the compliant local mainstream media, they covered my story.
	With largely negative attempted hit pieces, you know, CTV and the local post media newspaper.
	I must say, Global News was the exception.
	They carried a fair story about me.
	I was in the evening news and so on.
	And then this tribunal who spoke to me believed it would all end there.
	And they were basking in some sort of a borrowed limelight.
	But they were wrong.
	First of all, John Carpe and the JCCF deserve all the credit for this, because they saw in this, as I did, something much bigger than the terrible dystopian treatment that I had received at the hands of this tribunal.
	And they saw, as I did, that this was a fundamental assault on everything we took for granted.
	Free speech, the free debate of scientific ideas, and the very thing that has made humanity's existence on Earth so much better, and that is a scientific method.
	All this was under assault.
	But with friends and supporters and well-wishers all over the world, including very good doctor friends, you know, Patrick Phillips and Kulwinda, my story has been carried all over the world, in major media, in Zero Hedge and Off Guardian and in alternate media, in Twitter, in Telegram feeds and Facebook.
	And I've been getting messages of support from Canada, of course, from across the USA, As far as a field as Australia, the Netherlands, the UK, JCCF, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Twitter feed had something like more than 3000 retweets within a few days.
	And all over the world, and this is sad for me, because, you know, I don't want the University of Saskatchewan, its Dean, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, to get all this negative attention, but the eyes of the world, are turned in a very negative manner to Saskatchewan, to the university, to Canada, unfortunately.
	And this is the state we are in.
	Hundreds of other internet sites are broadcasting this totalitarian control and dystopia.
	And very valued friends, colleagues from academia have written in letters of support for me to the President of the University, to the Dean, to the CMO, to the Deputy Minister of Health.
	And I got to tell you, any of these authorities contemplating action against world-class academics, Byron Bridle, for example, anybody contemplating so-called disciplinary dystopian action, let me put out a warning there, okay?
	You may be able to get away with it in the short term.
	And you may think, ah, the mainstream media is going to report very, very well on this dystopian tyranny.
	But there will be another very notorious publicity that will evade you.
	And within a few hours, your totalitarian tyranny will definitely be known.
	It'll be known around the world.
	Independent of the mainstream media.
	I really hope so, Frances.
	Thank you so much for your words.
	It's very moving what you went through and you summarized a lot of what I think many of us wanted to say.
	So thank you for that.
	John, could you please comment on Frances' case?
	And you did hear the audio of that meeting, the tribunal.
	The audio, which I believe is going to be added on to the end of this, it's just appalling.
	They called it a meeting, but it wasn't a meeting.
	It was more just, we're going to read you this letter telling you that you are fired and terminated from several different positions, and there was no dialogue at all.
	I admire For how Francis kept his cool.
	I wouldn't have come close to being on that level at all.
	And so that was very dystopian.
	You know, it's interesting, Francis, and I believe one of the other physicians mentioned that, you know, when lockdowns are first brought down, it seemed like a good idea.
	And the Justice Centre has had the same slow evolution of thought It can be quite justified and appropriate under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a government to impose temporary measures in the face of either a real crisis or a perceived crisis where you have reason to believe that this may be.
	And I remember Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in London actually compared COVID to the Spanish Flu of 1918.
	He did.
	And of course, as many of the viewers will know, that killed between 20 and 50 million people around the world.
	Some historians say 100 million, at a time when the world population was only a quarter of what it is today.
	So if COVID was as deadly as the Spanish flu of 1918, we would now be looking at 80 to 100 to 200 million deaths.
	And, uh, we're at, you know, three or 4 million.
	So we have something that's, that's in line with perhaps the, uh, the Asian flu of 1957, uh, the Hong Kong flu of 1968.
	Those are very bad fluids that killed a million or 2 million people when the world's population was less than half of what it is today.
	Uh, so that's, that's what COVID arguably is in line with, but, uh, we were put into a state of fear, uh, with this prediction.
	If we had gone, if the Justice Centre had tried to go to court in March of 2020, there's a 100% chance we would have lost because the court would have said, look, we don't know how deadly this is.
	It could be very deadly.
	Therefore, all of these restrictions on our rights and freedoms are justified.
	But for myself, in April, I started asking tough questions a month later.
	I wrote to all the health ministers and said, can you tell me about the Lockdown consequences on in terms of cancelled surgeries, cancelled diagnoses, suicide rates, alcoholism, domestic abuse, mental health issues resulting from loneliness and isolation, etc, etc, etc, etc.
	And the worst thing, one of the worst things in the whole situation is that there's not a single government in Canada that has done a proper and thorough costs, benefits analysis of The lockdowns.
	Now, I support free speech for pro-lockdown people.
	If somebody wants to argue that these are good measures and they're scientific and they're saving lives, bring on the debate.
	But it is utterly irresponsible for governments not to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis.
	And that involves, necessarily, to make a deliberate effort to monitor and analyze and explore all the different lockdown harms.
	And they're not doing that.
	I'll comment briefly on the media.
	It has turned into an arm of government.
	This is very likely influenced by the fact that the mainstream media or the so-called legacy media are government funded.
	They get substantial government funding.
	And we had the court action that is the most advanced in terms of going through the whole litigation procedure.
	We had Eight days of trial in Manitoba in the month of May.
	And at one point, Dr. Jared Bullard, who is an expert witness for the Manitoba government, in charge of the Winnipeg labs, admitted in court, under oath, that 56% of the so-called positive results, positive on the PCR test, 56% of those people do not have COVID.
	Do you think the media reported on this?
	You know, even if you were pro-lockdown, but if you were committed to truth and to telling the truth to the public, you would report on the fact that a government witness in court admitted that 56%, and there's reason to believe it could be much higher, but that's secondary.
	The government official admitted that 56% of the PCR test results are false positives, and these people, 56% at least, do not have COVID.
	So when the government is engaging in the daily fearmongering and saying, well, we have another 2000 cases in the past week, well, at least 56% minimum of those cases are people that the government knows do not have COVID.
	So fortunately, we do have other avenues of getting the word out.
	The Justice Centre, I now take it for granted that our news releases get boycotted by mainstream media.
	I'm no longer bothered by it.
	But it gets out on Twitter and Facebook and by way of our website.
	And we have the Rebel Media, we have True North, we have all kinds of independent media that are getting the word out.
	Well, this is really important because, you know, I interviewed Ivory Hecker, who was the young reporter based in Houston, who blew the whistle on Fox News suppressing stories on hydroxychloroquine.
	In fact, took her off a story and gave her an alternate one.
	And she had been biding her time for months recording her bosses and such at Fox and finding out where the money was coming from and such.
	And interestingly enough, I've been in touch with her since our interview, and she said so many reporters have come to her.
	and told their stories of how they've been and are continuing to be suppressed in their quest for the truth having to do with the the supposed pandemic and the vaccines and the I mean the list goes on and on and on we can specify so um it's very very interesting how this is happening in the states but I think here in Canada we really need a shot in the arm We really need a shot in the arm because our culture is a little different.
	We tend to be a bit more accepting.
	We tend to be a bit more trusting of authority.
	Roger might even say we just need to wake up, you know, but we really do.
	We really do.
	And I love being Canadian.
	And on this day here, Canada Day, I think it's appropriate that we have physicians and a lawyer from across this great country of ours fighting for what makes Canada, Canada, right?
	And, you know, Frances put it so aptly, and it's been referred to as this totalitarian TikTok.
	I mean, God, what other term is there to describe this?
	Look at what's happening.
	That's the bigger picture that Frances was so determined to talk about today.
	And really, this is the beginning of something very, very insidious.
	Very bad.
	And it snuck up on us.
	During a time of alleged crisis, you know, and this is what we're dealing with I'm sorry I'm rambling on here because I really want Roger to talk to this and Roger and I become friends.
	I interviewed him twice.
	He, he gave some very wonderful information and as an esteemed and renowned pathologist.
	He comes from another side you know much as you know, you guys all have your specialties.
	And I actually want to address something that Charles told me last night, as well, when we go into a roundtable discussion.
	But, you know, I've had some wonderful chats with Roger, and I would like to hand off to him now and tell us his story and his perspective, what's going on, having heard everything everyone else said.
	So, Roger, please, would you take it away for us?
	Unmute yourself, Roger.
	Yes, thank you Sam.
	A lot of my feelings have already been expressed and I'll use the bulk of my time to give your viewers more of an overview, you might say, of what's going on with the colleges and the consequences.
	But so far as me personally, I'm practicing what you might call administrative medicine in companies and I'm not seeing patients.
	So I'm rather privileged in that respect, given the ultimate threat of removing my license, because I don't actually need it to do what I do.
	And that's a very privileged position to be in.
	But the ways that you can be got at, let's put it that way.
	It started off with me with death threats, after I made a presentation to the Edmonton City Council.
	Internet warriors.
	Are they real?
	Are they just psycho?
	It's a crapshoot.
	You take precautions.
	Those have, I could use the pun, those have died down now.
	Then there's the college that gets at you.
	You get, for your viewers, we get in the profession what we call the letter.
	Have I got your attention yet, Dr. X?
	There's been a complaint about you.
	Well, that's not the standard of normal practice in law.
	You are expected to know the nature of the complaint.
	You're expected to see your accuser.
	And that was never stated in my case.
	My lawyer was absolutely brilliant in figuring out that there was no complaint.
	It was just the college itself that had created the concern.
	The consequences of that, of course, can be profound, as Francis has found out.
	You may not just lose your ability to build a system and earn a living.
	You may have your faculty position taken away from you.
	You may have your hospital privileges taken away from you.
	And those are all a bit different, because at least there's some kind of a process at the colleges, although it is the star chamber, in essence.
	You know, you're expected to say, yes, the earth is flat, can I go now?
	That's the essence of, otherwise we'll bankrupt you.
	Have I got your attention yet?
	You know, there go all kinds of ways of getting at you.
	But there are other ways too.
	You can be discredited.
	AP actually sent me an email and it actually said, Dear Mr. Hodkinson, we want to debunk you.
	They actually used those precise words.
	We want to debunk you.
	And then there's the final indignity that We as physicians in certain institutions are being forced, essentially, to be vaccinated.
	Otherwise, we will lose our privileges.
	We won't be able to operate or whatever, particularly in the States.
	Rampant, rampant in the States.
	So that's how they can get at you.
	The net result of that is fear.
	The general public should know that when you get that letter, It certainly gets your attention, because we all know the consequences of what they could do to you.
	And it's very expensive to challenge it.
	So, physicians are basically being forced into a decision.
	Is it income or is it ethics?
	Which goes first?
	Do I stand by my traditional ethics or do I follow the new ethics that government are imposing on me?
	What a terrible choice.
	First do no harm, inform consent.
	Am I going to stand up and be counted like we've done, the four merry men here?
	Or are we just gonna go with the flow?
	And sadly, sadly, most of my colleagues are going with the flow.
	They're simply shutting up.
	They've been silenced.
	And what's the consequence of that?
	For society, it's tragic.
	Because we, as physicians, with that respected title that comes with it, huge responsibility of not just following those ethics, But representing our patience above anyone else, we put society first.
	The result of that has been that the general public have been denied any counter-narrative to support their gut feelings that this is something unreasonable, unsupported, not very clever, whatever.
	you know, not very clever, whatever.
	So that's been the consequence of that general oppression is radio silence for the general population.
	And it's resulted in a very Orwellian world.
	That word's been mentioned, I think, by Francis.
	By the way, I have a T-shirt that says COVID-19-84.
	I think that says it all.
	Chris had a great T-shirt, too.
	Something about being one year into the two-week lockdown or something, Chris?
	I think, yeah.
	Because in this Orwellian world, this upside-down world, Where what the colleges call facts are actually hearsay.
	Where cases are no such thing.
	Cases in medicine, for people that are listening, are people that are sick in front of you.
	We don't call someone who has a strand of mRNA in their snot a case.
	No.
	Those are not cases.
	Those are simply, 99% of the time in many provinces of this country, they're false positive results.
	The word safe is being grotesquely misused.
	A single word with four letters, without any qualifications whatsoever, on every billboard, telling everyone this is safe.
	And if that's not the grossest distortion of the whole thing, Everyone in the game knows that this is an experimental vaccine that is totally unsafe, that was introduced under the predicate of this being an emergency, a global emergency, which it certainly was not.
	I would agree with John that initially there was concerns that this may be true.
	But there again, you see, Neil Ferguson's Armageddon projections, which had been wrong serially by orders of magnitude in the past, The first job of any serious medical officer of health worth the title, which is highly questionable, should be to do due diligence on the projections.
	That was never done anywhere internationally, and it could have been done very quickly.
	And if they'd done it quickly, which was their obligation, they would have realized that there was no justification for all these mandates.
	Another abuse of language.
	Imbalance.
	Those of you that have been following the CDC and the incidents of myocarditis following vaccination in young men, the CBC have called that an imbalance.
	Well, you're damn right it's an imbalance.
	It's the CDC that's imbalanced.
	They've been imbalanced from the get-go.
	There's nothing imbalanced about myocarditis in young men.
	It can destroy your cardiac reserve and give you cardiac failure decades later.
	Oh, how convenient!
	Decades later, when Fauci will be dead and buried.
	God bless him!
	So that distortion of facts and language has been going on knowingly, culpably.
	Oh, we have just an internet issue here.
	Roger, if you can hear me, you've frozen.
	Hopefully it'll come back in a moment.
	Yes, John.
	I can just interject on one or two points while we wait for Roger's technology thing to resolve itself.
	You mentioned myocarditis in children and young adults.
	Last night, I had dinner with a Calgary physician, and in respect of distorting language, he told me that now some of the media and certain people in the medical establishment are talking about a mild case of myocarditis.
	And this physician told me, and I take it to be true that I'm the only non-doctor on the panel, but he said there is no such thing as a mild case.
	It's a destruction of heart tissue.
	It's going to have a lifelong negative impact, right?
	But they're dressing that up that, well, some people are experiencing a mild case of myocarditis and the abuse of safety.
	There's this presupposition that lockdowns are safe.
	You know, it is not.
	And I don't think you need to be a doctor to recognize it is not safe to force people into loneliness and isolation.
	And on pain of a $2,000 ticket, tell them it's illegal to celebrate Christmas or Thanksgiving or another family or a birthday with family members.
	Even before lockdowns, there's abundant medical and scientific literature on the harmful effects of loneliness and isolation on people.
	You know, safety is a singular, you've got to agree with lockdowns, because I would argue that lockdowns are not safe.
	And I think this became apparent already in the month of May of, by May of 2020, two months into this, it was very clear from the death stats that this is in line with a bad annual flu.
	Again, I mentioned the Asian flu of 1957, Hong Kong flu of 1968.
	Absolutely, it's serious.
	It should be taken seriously.
	We should try to protect the vulnerable, take proper precautions to help people in the nursing homes.
	But to continue with locking down the entire population is just not warranted.
	And I'll close briefly by saying there's a test under the Charter.
	Section 1 of the Charter says that Governments may violate charter rights and freedoms as long as those violations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
	And the onus is on the government to justify the infringement.
	It's not up to the citizen, the way it's supposed to be under the charter, it's not up to the citizen that has to walk into court cap in hand and have to explain why it's bad for charter rights and freedoms to be violated.
	The onus is on the government to justify the violations.
	And in Alberta and other provinces, the governments try very, very hard to not be in the situation of having to put evidence before the courts.
	Certainly in B.C.
	and in Alberta, governments have not put evidence before the court.
	In one of our B.C.
	cases, the judge accepted at face value everything that Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C.' 's Chief Medical Officer says.
	And the judge just accepted that, and there was no consideration of the evidence.
	In Alberta, the Kenny government, we sued them in December of 2020 for an end to the lockdowns.
	They succeeded in getting the court's permission to delay presenting medical and scientific evidence until July of 2021.
	Which tells you they don't have the medical and scientific evidence.
	If they did, they would be delighted to go into court and put all of us so-called unhinged conspiracy theorists, as Jason Kenney has referred to lockdown opponents, they would relish the opportunity to put us in our place and put the evidence in court and really show the whole world why and how these lockdown measures are scientific.
	And they're not doing that.
	Yes, Chris, please.
	Actually, I wanted you to comment, Chris, because you went first earlier.
	Yeah, I just to kind of a few things that John and Roger talked about, maybe tweak me to talk about something.
	I was asked to speak on a podcast Recently, there was a high-profile case which you guys can read about.
	A young man died of meningitis.
	He was 19.
	He was fit.
	He was healthy.
	He died of meningitis in Halifax.
	It was tragic and truly, for me, you get a pretty hard heart when you see people die all the time in ER, but boy, I was in tears listening.
	It was pretty tough.
	And it was pretty clear what happened was the docs, the nurses, everybody who
	dealt with this young man had COVID blinders on, that was how his dad described it.
	They seemed to only care if we had COVID or not.
	He was discharged very often.
	They emerged despite his parents' best efforts to describe him how ill he was.
	But part of the problem, they weren't allowed in because of COVID regulation.
	He got sent home, ended up coming back the next morning and sent out again.
	At that time, the dad ran and talked to a nurse.
	He was brought in, but it was too late.
	He died of meningitis.
	And I made a strong statement in discussing this on the podcast, and I actually kind of hinted that.
	I think, you know, I've been accused of spreading COVID misinformation, but what I tried to spread is actual data.
	Our medical officer of health in Nova Scotia was quoted as saying, these new variants don't discriminate by age.
	That was his quote.
	And COVID discriminates by age a thousand times.
	It's a thousand times more dangerous for an elderly person than for a young person.
	So the truth of it is that a 19-year-old healthy athlete, this guy was a Canada Games athlete.
	He was that healthy, slim, fit.
	His risk of dying of COVID is probably 100, 200, 300 times less than the risk of dying in a car accident.
	So The problem, I think, when we have a medical officer of health who's saying that COVID is extremely dangerous and it doesn't discriminate by age, which is the first statement is debatable at best, probably true for older folks, probably not true for younger folks.
	But the second statement is just not true.
	It's actually false.
	It's misinforming physicians.
	And I believe that was what probably led to this, what was a real cognitive error.
	They were so intent on Finding out if his child had COVID or not and so intent on all these COVID rules, keeping his parents out that they never diagnosed him properly.
	And he died as a result of our medical errors.
	And I say our, because I'm a physician.
	We all make them, but this was one that I think was aided and abetted by public health.
	And then this hysteria really that's developed around this disease.
	Thank you so much for sharing that, Chris.
	And having heard everyone already speak and you having gone first, is there anything else you'd like to add right now?
	Because I'd like to open it up for discussion.
	A couple of other things.
	I won't talk too long, but I'll say something just general, which I'll throw out because I think the other folks might want to discuss it.
	Dr. Christian Francis was mentioning about Soviet history and medical Lysenkoism is one of the terms that's being used for our current situation.
	So Lysenkoism, for anybody listening who doesn't know what it was, Kind of scientific conclusions got imposed by the government and they did such brilliant things as they decided that plants were communist and planting them close together, planting the seeds close together would help grow more because they would cooperate and get more nutrients from the soil.
	And of course, they had lots of crop failures and people starved.
	That's just one example of medical lysenkoism.
	So anytime you try to impose science from the top, there's a real problem.
	Just back to my own specific situation, I won't go through the gory detail, but my comments that I talked about on this discussion on the radio got kind of hyperbolized and mischaracterized by a reporter who asked Dr. Strang, our medical officer of health, what he thought of my comments.
	At a press conference, Press Scrum, and Dr. Strang kind of retorted, he said, he should stick to emergency medicine, and I'll stick to public health.
	And that was a deeply disturbing statement, because to me, it was symptomatic of everything that's wrong with our approach and our lack of discussion.
	I, you know, as I say, I have an interest in public health.
	I'm not brilliant at it.
	And I don't have a degree in it.
	But boy, I've been reading intensely for 15 years.
	And what I can tell you is that Where you see the results of public health policies and primary care it's in an emergency room in a family practice and for the chief medical officer of health of our province to seemingly have no interest in connecting with us on the front lines and not understanding that
	Boy, what we're seeing right now is really important.
	It's the first time we locked down society.
	We have some theories on what might happen, but we don't really know yet.
	It might be a really good idea to listen to emergency docs, family docs, other specialists who are seeing certain conditions that they may not have seen otherwise.
	And I think that, so again, that statement that he made was so fundamentally flawed and shows, this may be a strong word, but maybe an arrogance that somehow he can sit in his office and make pronouncements and we can have no input, and I thought was very disturbing.
	Yeah, no input is right, as Francis found out.
	Unfortunately, but Charles, you and I had a rather long discussion on your road to Kamloops, and you said some things to me that I really think we need to air.
	One thing, just to contextualize, I'm trained in family and sport medicine, but I don't do clinical, so I do consultations in industry, medical devices, this sort of thing.
	I work with a lot of athletes.
	But some of my rural family preceptors, my goodness, they didn't just know something about everything.
	They knew a lot about everything.
	And you have a very unique perspective.
	You go out there, you're rural, you're the only medical authority there.
	You're the only clinician there.
	So in my experience, I found that rural family physicians and rural emergency docs, often one and the same, as Chris would attest to as well, Charles, they see everything.
	And they somehow they can make connections between things in ways that we don't see normally.
	They're very good at interconnecting things.
	And you spoke to A potential mechanism of action of the injury.
	And you mentioned to me the use of a D-dimer test, which we all know what it's for, but we're going to have to explain a little bit.
	Could you please speak to this a little bit and give the relevant context and introduction, please?
	Because I think this is really groundbreaking and important.
	Yes, yeah, thank you.
	So one of the One of the key things that really bothered me when I started to see serious vaccine injuries in my own patients is that I had no idea what the mechanism of injury was, and therefore, as their doctor, I had no idea how to treat it.
	Because, you know, as their family doctor, they would come to me for help and I needed to help them and I was clueless.
	I mean, this is an experiment and I was aware that there was literally what we call iatrogenic disease, a medically induced disease being produced by this vaccine.
	And so I had asked this in my open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, our Provincial Health Officer, What is the mechanism of injury and how do I treat this as these people's doctor?
	And of course, nobody knew.
	And the vaccine manufacturers had told us that the COVID spike protein does not go intravenous.
	It stays in the arm, the antibodies to the spike protein are produced in the arm, And that's what we had been found.
	But scientists now, and Dr. Brody has actually very clearly revealed this, that only 25% of the vaccine actually stays in the arm.
	And the rest of it, so these vaccines are a A vast number of little messenger RNA strands.
	The Moderna vaccine has 40 trillion messenger RNA molecules per vaccine dose.
	40 trillion!
	So, these are wrapped in a little lipid capsule.
	The lipid capsule is to enable them to be absorbed into the cells.
	So, this is injected into the person's arm and their deltoid muscle of the shoulder.
	From there, as I mentioned, only 25% actually stays there.
	The rest is taken up, collected through the lymphatic system, and fed into the general circulation.
	And so, it circulates around the entire body, And I think every doctor knows that absorption from the circulation occurs in capillary networks because that's where the blood slows right down.
	It's going through tiny, tiny vessels.
	So these little nano capsules containing these trillions of messenger RNA molecules are absorbed into the lining around the capillaries, what medically we call the vascular endothelium.
	So these little packages are absorbed into the cells around the vessels, the package is open, the body recognizes these messenger RNA strands as As a gene and gets to work making COVID spike proteins.
	So in a virus, those COVID spike proteins form part of the viral capsule.
	But the problem is they're not in a virus, they're in, they're in the cells around blood vessels.
	So as a result, they become part of the cell wall of That cell.
	So, normally, the cells that surround your blood vessels have to be very, very smooth to enable good and unimpeded flow of blood.
	But as soon as you've got all these little spike proteins that become part of the cell wall, it's now a rough surface.
	It's going to be like a very coarse sandpaper.
	It's now What the platelets are going to interpret as a damaged vessel.
	It's no longer smooth.
	It's rough.
	So clotting is inevitable because the platelets that come down that vessel are going to hit a rough spot and assume this must be a damaged vessel.
	This vessel needs to be blocked to stop the bleeding.
	That's how our clotting works.
	So clots are, because of this and because of the nature of this, clots are inevitable because of these These spike proteins in the capillary networks.
	So I set out to then try and prove this.
	Could this theory be correct?
	And so the problem is these little clots in the capillary networks are microscopic and they are scattered.
	So they're not going to show on any scan.
	They're just too small and too scattered.
	It's not like the big clots that cause strokes or heart attacks.
	They're too small and they're too scattered.
	So how on earth can we know if the person clotted?
	And the only way is with a blood test called a D-dimer.
	So the D-dimer is a blood test that will show up a recent clot.
	It won't show up an old clot, it shows up a new clot.
	And it doesn't tell you where the clot is, it just tells you that the clotting mechanism has been activated.
	So I have now been recruiting patients from my practice, people that have come into my office and others that have that have heard me speak about this and have asked people to do this D-dimer within one week of their COVID shot.
	And so far, and the study is ongoing, these are preliminary results, so far I've got 62% positive elevated D-dimer, which means that the blood clots are not rare.
	That's what the so-called experts keep telling us.
	The clots are rare, the big ones are rare, but the small ones are clearly happening in the majority of people, 62%.
	Now, I'll tell you what the real concern with this is.
	is that a clotted vessel is permanently damaged.
	That vessel never, ever goes back to normal.
	So, if this theory is correct, which it really looks like by these d-dimer results, and I'm told it has been done in Australia, and it's been done in the UK, and they also found elevated d-dimers, and they sort of discarded the information because they said there's no clinical evidence of clots.
	Well, the clinical reading is because they're microscopic, and they're scattered, and so you're not going to see clinical evidence.
	But in fact, all of the frequent side effects of the shot, which are headache, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, could all be signs of cerebral thrombosis on a capillary level.
	I mean, those literally, you could be having thousands and thousands of tiny, tiny little clots in your brain that won't show on a scan, but they will give you those exact symptoms.
	So the concern is I have now got six people in my medical practice that cannot exert themselves the way they used to be.
	What medically we call reduced effort tolerance.
	Six people who now get out of breath doing things that they could previously do without any problem.
	So I believe that these people blocked up thousands and thousands of capillaries in their lungs, in these six people.
	So I believe these people now have permanently damaged lungs because they have got, I mean, and that's why they get out of breath.
	I have one fellow that used to walk two miles to my office every week for a shot for his arthritis.
	And he says, after a quarter of a mile, he's done.
	In other words, his effort tolerance is reduced to one eighth of what it used to be.
	And so I've sent some of these people for chest x-rays and CT scans to see what it shows.
	And all it shows is distorted architecture.
	What the radiologists record is described as increased reticulation.
	It's a very nonspecific thing.
	And it's because it's microscopic.
	It's just, but the concern is because these vessels are now permanently damaged in a person's lungs, when the heart tries to pump blood through all those damaged vessels, there's increased resistance trying to pump the blood through those lungs.
	So, those people are going to develop something called pulmonary artery hypertension, high blood pressure in their lungs.
	And the concern with that is that those people will probably all develop Right-sided heart failure within three years and die because they now have increased vascular resistance through their lungs and lung tissue and heart tissue and brain and spinal tissue and all of that does not regenerate.
	In other tissues it can regenerate, liver and kidneys and muscle and other, but there's some tissues that cannot and so this absolutely explains what I've seen in my patients and that's what I'm doing to prove it and my study is ongoing.
	I'll just throw in that there's just a journal in JAMA Cardiology or journal article in JAMA Cardiology about that issue that you're talking about of reduced exercise tolerance.
	It just came out.
	I'm not sure if you've seen it.
	Right.
	And I should also mention that finally an autopsy has been done on a vaccine death, which showed COVID spike proteins in almost every organ in their body.
	So that supports this theory Of the widespread damage caused by these spike proteins.
	These spike proteins are toxic to our bodies.
	And that's why people with COVID infections get higher risk of clotting.
	The same reason as people with the vaccination get higher risk of clotting.
	The common factor is the COVID spike proteins.
	They are toxic.
	And yet the CBC...
	issued a publication on June 13th to combat vaccine hesitancy where they state that there's almost no evidence for long-term side effects of the vaccine, that that spike protein is harmless, completely harmless to the Canadian people.
	My take on that is just to say that I think the answer is we don't know the long-term side effects yet.
	I think there's this war that we want to decide if there is or there isn't.
	I think there's lots and lots of reason to be concerned.
	And there's no reason to say that there's not going to be or there shouldn't be other than and faith and, you know, science shouldn't be a religion and it should be a process of, you know, deduction, reason, Hypothesis generation, which is speculating.
	So, I got in trouble with some people for speculating that there could be long-term side effects.
	But that's actually science to say, boy, this drug works in this way.
	I wonder if this might happen.
	We should look for it.
	That's actually the first step of science is to speculate.
	And if we can't even speculate or get shut down, then we're never going to find these things out.
	We're never going to know.
	Absolutely.
	Francis, John, please, we'd love to hear your thoughts.
	Sam, I, you know, I just keep coming back to totalitarianism and the Soviet Union because I've studied the Soviet Union and its control really, really well and in detail.
	And, you know, some of the things that Charles said makes intuitive pathophysiological sense and many of the great advances in
	surgery in medicine have come from from from people like Charles. I mean, whether you agree
	with him or not, should he not get a hearing by mainstream media?
	By, you know, CBC science program.
	By, you know, here's a guy who comes up with a novel theory which he's actually proving to be true.
	I mean, it's not, you know, peer-reviewed.
	That's one of the most abused terms nowadays.
	But many of the great advances in science and medicine have been from small series of patients like Charles is describing.
	So what we're saying is you don't have to agree with us, but give Charles a chance to put this out there.
	It might save lives and that's not happening.
	And I got to tell you, you know, and, and, and your viewers, Sam, you know, people say, oh, okay, this is a temporary phase and you know, it'll pass.
	But that's not the experience of totalitarian regimes.
	There was, and I'm reading this now, from the Council of the People's Commissars after the revolution, the communist revolution in Soviet Union.
	Decree on the Press, November 9, 1917.
	So it says here, publications can be proscribed temporarily or permanently.
	Only by the decision of the Council of People's Commissars.
	That's exactly what's happening now.
	The commissars are now the mainstream media, the people who run CDC, and the big Silicon Valley giants.
	So, you know, it's only by the decision of these guys that you can actually publish what you're saying.
	And then it says in the same ordinance, the present ordinance is of a temporary nature and will be repealed by a special decree as soon as normal conditions of social life set in.
	And we all know, Sam, that The Soviet system of tyranny lasted not a little time, but 70 years.
	70 years.
	And you know, this whole thing they're doing now with dividing society.
	With the vaccine certificates, it's been called passports, whatever you call them.
	That was a very good tactic of the Soviet Union too.
	I mean, the human heart hasn't really changed.
	Okay, we can slip into tyranny without us even knowing it.
	And in the Soviet Union, it was children who were the easiest Uh, targets for propaganda, uh, since they had to, you know, attend, uh, state run schools where teachers were far fired if they didn't tow the party line.
	If they were, for example, telling kids about, uh, about Christianity or Judaism or, or, or any religion.
	Uh, and then, you know, this is all on record.
	People can actually check this out.
	Schools had outings on Sunday mornings.
	And children who admitted to attending church received poorer marks.
	Because of the anti-religious tone of education in the Soviet Union, frequently students mocked other students for believing religious things.
	So what the government is doing now is dividing people and saying, oh, you are unvaccinated, so you don't need to come near me.
	They're turning also children against parents.
	And that is an old tactic too.
	It was used in the Soviet Union.
	And this creeping tyranny will be upon us soon.
	If we don't wake up.
	And again, you know, we physicians, we scientists, we know and we continue to believe that throughout history, it's opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas.
	These have been the bedrock of scientific progress, and any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners, you know, not toeing the line, but vigorously questioning official narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.
	And these have always been the methods of science.
	All this is under assault.
	And, you know, your show, Sam, is, you know, I was reminded again from the Soviet era, in 1946, the BBC, which now, unfortunately, is another arm of government.
	But in 1946, the BBC started broadcasting Radio service to Soviet citizens.
	Messages of freedom.
	The Voice of America did that.
	The Deutsche Wille did that.
	Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin was not happy with Western media beaming messages of liberty, and they started blocking Radio frequencies.
	I mean, if Canadians don't recognize that there are not just similarities, but really frightening similarities to what is going on now, the totalitarianism will be upon them before they know it.
	And again, from Soviet history and Nazi history, it is not the practice of tyrannical regimes to take away all your freedoms in one fell sweep.
	They take a little bit at a time and a little bit at a time.
	And then by the time the people wake up, and people do wake up because the quest for human freedom and liberty can never be suppressed forever.
	But if at the time they wake up, it may be too late.
	And Charles's little scientific study is a perfect example.
	He would have been he would have been in the Soviet Union.
	He would have probably been sent to the Gulag or something for opposing the official Soviet narrative.
	What we are saying is give all voices a chance.
	Hear all voices.
	It might actually save some lives.
	I'd just like to add there's a there's a great quote from Thomas Paine who said, he who dares not offend cannot speak the truth.
	And I think that is a true message with with all of the things we discuss in society.
	But it's been brought now into the scientific realm where the colleges have Sort of defined stepping out of the narrative, and as our Nova Scotia College has said, anything but unanimity will be considered an offense.
	And we cannot speak the truth if we're constantly worried about stepping on someone's toes, hurting their feelings, or making them feel bad that they might be wrong.
	That's just necessary with everything in society, but particularly with science.
	It's actually the basis of science.
	I could comment.
	Yes, I'd like to give Roger a chance.
	I'm sorry, when I was frozen, I saw the look on my face.
	It looked like something that, you know, Fox News might have put on about, you know, Hillary Clinton, you know.
	I wasn't going to comment, but you went there.
	You went there, Roger.
	I tried calling you.
	I tried calling you three times, so at least we could get you on speakerphone with my microphone.
	But you were so busy coming back, so we're so glad to have you back.
	Charles, I completely concur.
	I've been saying that myself.
	There's no way of checking on microvascular thromboses.
	And the true incidence of these events, I think you're demonstrating quite clearly.
	It's much more prevalent than we could initially think.
	Those results are also being replicated in Germany, by the way, Charles, with doctors for COVID ethics.
	Sukharit Bhakti is doing a similar study.
	So that's one point.
	What I wanted to end with with my soliloquy was this is the most sinister thing to me.
	These medical officers of health are practicing medicine on society.
	They are governed by the same ethics that the four of us are.
	And the colleges are supposed to be managing how individual physicians live up to those ethics.
	We're not allowed to do more harm than good.
	We can't cut off the wrong leg.
	We can't give people pills without telling them about the complications.
	We can't do any of that.
	And yet that is precisely what government is doing.
	And it is the role of the College, not to protect us just from doctors who are pedophiles, it's the role of the College to protect the public from doctors in general.
	And if they see government doing terrible things to the population, which is strictly medical malpractice, I call the Colleges out right here and now.
	Instead of protecting the public good, you are killing the public.
	Because by suppressing information, you are contributing to the absence of informed consent.
	You're contributing to the protests.
	You're obstructing protests about lockdowns, all of which have serious medical consequences, including death.
	And so I call every college across this country out right here on this program.
	You are despicable.
	You are doing exactly what you're supposed not to do.
	You wouldn't tolerate it from the four of us.
	And so you should not tolerate it from government.
	You should be banging the table.
	What what are you doing?
	Why are you doing this?
	It is unconscionable and it's medical malpractice of the most grotesque scale sanctioned by the state.
	Colleges have become the enforcers of government.
	They forced us as physicians to put income Ahead of ethics.
	Despicable choices they've been presenting to us.
	And I call them all out.
	Do to me as you will.
	But you've lost your way, and I despise the lot of you.
	Can I add on to that?
	And what I've been disturbed by is I think the college has suffered from The mission creep of the woke and they have, they are responsible and John can correct me on this, but I think they're tasked with
	Enforcing the safe and reasonable practice of medicine, right?
	That's their mandate.
	But what they've now done has gone beyond that.
	And like I say, in that chilling statement they sent out to us in Nova Scotia, they're there to enforce unanimity and to make sure that nobody argues with public health and to make sure that no physician can use any drug off-label.
	All these things which The pre-COVID seemed perfectly acceptable.
	The colleges just felt that it's there to mandate unanimity of view, and it is a very communist idea, as Francis has already said.
	Let me comment on that, if I may, Chris.
	The hypocrisy of that.
	If out of one side of their mouths, these colleges and governments are saying, This is an emergency, therefore we need an emergency vaccine, etc., etc.
	We know it's not an emergency, but let's take that at face value for a minute.
	Let's say it really was an emergency, which is glaringly not.
	If you're saying that out of one side of your mouth, you can't say out of the other side of your mouth that I'm going to specifically prohibit physicians from prescribing agents that are safe Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, demonstrably safe, and which probably, in the opinion of many physicians, will save lives.
	They're wanting it both ways.
	You can't have it both ways.
	If it's that big an emergency, you've got to take the dogs off physicians and let us practice medicine.
	Stick to your knitting and let us practice medicine, because we've got people dying in front of us.
	What are they saying to those people that appear at an emergency department who don't have a P.O.
	too low enough?
	They're saying, come back when you're blue.
	Well, that may be too late.
	That could have been stopped by Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine.
	And to a substantial degree, Peter McCullough believes that of the 600,000 deaths in the United States, that maybe half a million of them could have been saved by people being given Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, or some cocktail thereof, to go home with instead of coming back when you're blue.
	That's like New York sending COVID-positive patients back to nursing homes.
	Massively culpable.
	You see, at every level, anyone listening to this, I want to get across to you all, at every single level, there's been culpability, whether it's from Fauci at the get-go, to the colleges now, to vaccine passports, a two-class society.
	Do we ever Demand that HIV patients have a tattoo on their forehead?
	No, we don't.
	It's against human rights.
	And one other thing, the letter, it's called The Messenger actually, the communication that came out from my college, didn't just say, Dr. Hodkinson, your opinions are hearsay and we have the facts, if that's not Orwellian itself, but they also went on to say in the same communication, and we suggest that you do not discuss this with your neighbours, in print, in print, How Orwellian can that be?
	Are they going to, you know, determine what we're thinking next?
	Well, you know, I received, and John may not be aware of this because it was dealt with by one of his other lawyers, but when I was looked into for my editorial a year and a half ago, where I committed the crime of calling people criminals if they'd done something against the law, The college trolled my Facebook and I had written a strongly worded but I thought reasonable argument against Bill M-103, the anti-Islamophobia bill, on the grounds that criminalizing the
	The criticism of religion in Canada is anti-democratic and, you know, just a terrible thing to do.
	And I had actually gotten a note from the college saying, and the actual note said, we just wanted to check your thinking on this.
	So we're already there.
	We're already there.
	The colleges are already the thought police, apparently.
	And they're about to send Francis off to Gulag.
	Because, Francis, you're really not well, are you?
	Yeah.
	You need help.
	We have a special psychiatric hospital for you, Dr. Christian.
	Well, I gotta tell you that, you know, in the comments, and there are hundreds of thousands of comments in the thousands of thing where the recording is now available, There are many comments that talk about those words being, you know, bone-chilling or, you know, stomach-turning and so on.
	I got to tell you, when I was there, the words, those words were very disturbing,
	but they were not bone chilling because I knew, actually, you can actually check this out because
	you can see the transcripts of the tribunals that the Nazi and the Soviet regimes set up for
	academics.
	They went after academics first, because... My apologies.
	My apologies.
	I had a video ready for us.
	Sorry about that, guys.
	Can you hear me OK?
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	Did I cut off?
	No, no, it's OK.
	It's just I had a video prepared to use and it started playing spontaneously.
	So I apologize for that.
	Oh, that's all right.
	Well, I was just saying that, you know, there are comments that call that Exchange with me, anything from bone chilling to stomach turning and so on.
	And because I had studied the transcripts of the Soviet tribunals that were set up for academics, I was very disturbed when I heard those, but it wasn't bone chilling because you can check it out.
	In fact, there are even some videos of these tribunals Uh, that are basically, uh, you know, uh, this, this, this talking down to academics, de-platforming them, smearing them, and then, and finally sending them to, uh, to the Gulag or, uh, to concentration camps.
	Uh, I make the point in that recording that I'm not accusing The people there are being Nazis or Soviet agents.
	But if you look at the proceedings of how they went off to the academics, the parallels are very, very, very close.
	You know, things like Francis You're an intelligent man, but you are using your intelligence for wrong things.
	You're getting together with the wrong people.
	You know, these are directly, I mean, these transcripts can be found almost word for word from those Nazi tribunals that went after the academics because they knew that if they capture the ideas in the academy, they could Propagate, promulgate their totalitarian rule much more easily.
	And so they went after the academics first.
	They went after physicians.
	But I have to tell you, Sam, that freedom and liberty can never be suppressed forever.
	And when the people wake up from this Orwellian nightmare, And science is once more restored to its rightful place in our academies.
	There will be a reckoning.
	There will be a reckoning based on whether, you know, there have been criminal acts committed.
	Now, this is not, you know, I'm not being rhetorical or dramatic.
	I'm just taking from history.
	The Nuremberg trials were basically a very broad set of trials, but the Nuremberg The Nuremberg Code was a set of rules drafted in the aftermath of the atrocities perpetrated within the Nazi concentration camps.
	In these camps, horrific medical experiments were performed on inmates without consent.
	The Nuremberg Code expressly forbids the imposition of any kind of intervention without informed consent.
	In Trialsite News had a very scholarly article on how every one of those 10 Nuremberg codes are now being violated now.
	So when the reckoning comes, you, the colleges, the authorities may be found guilty of crimes against humanity.
	Do you really want to be on that side of history?
	I mean, so I make this appeal to my colleagues to, you know, physicians, scientists, surgeons, specialists everywhere.
	If you think there's something going on that is wrong, but are just going with the flow, that cannot be an excuse.
	The Nuremberg trials actually ruled on that, that you can't say that you're just following orders.
	It's not an excuse.
	And of course, John is the scholar here, and he can tell you a little bit more on this.
	But just following orders is not an excuse.
	Blocking ivermectin, which is actually being done now.
	You know, I wanted to get ivermectin for close friends of mine.
	And there is no ivermectin available in all of Saskatchewan.
	The government, Big Pharma, is blocking ivermectin.
	So that, like you said, Sam, if you have good early treatment, as Roger pointed out so eloquently, if you have good early treatment, there is no emergency.
	It takes out the wind from their sails.
	They cannot then push the vaccine.
	And the blocking of ivermectin is another potential crime against humanity.
	Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
	I mean, what are these people thinking?
	So, my colleagues, this is my appeal to you.
	Come on the right side of history.
	If there's something, if the voice of conscience within you is saying, I'm doing something wrong.
	I have to question this narrative.
	Now's the time to do it.
	Another few months, maybe too late.
	Especially as children are now in the swing.
	Exactly.
	It could be the most horrendous consequence of this madness, if in fact, I hope I'm wrong, everyone obviously does, but if there are fertility issues as a consequence of this, it could be the most grotesque mistake ever made in medical history.
	And we don't know, anyone listening, Medical trials are done for one reason, and one reason only.
	Because you don't know what you don't know.
	If we knew what could happen, we wouldn't do them.
	It's to find out the unexpected.
	And lo and behold, six months into this game, we're finding all kinds of complications coming out of the woodwork.
	Totally predictable.
	The trials should have been extended.
	For a significant period of time, typically five to seven years for a vaccine, especially a vaccine that's introduced with new technology.
	That was not done.
	I don't want this to be too much of a love in, so I'll push back a little bit.
	I'll say that I don't have a big problem with people putting a vaccine out into a big trial like this.
	I think this is a significant disease for older people, and if people were informed and chose to be vaccinated, That's okay by me.
	I'm fine with that.
	My problem is it wasn't presented as a, we haven't studied this well yet, and we don't quite, we don't know the long term consequence because this has no long term.
	So, by definition, we don't know.
	It wasn't presented that way to people.
	It was presented as a, this is being well studied, well tested.
	We know it's good and everybody should get it.
	Boom.
	Done.
	And so, yeah, I don't.
	Look at it as a bad thing that this was attempted.
	I look at it as a bad thing of how it was rolled out, how it was described, what I would consider a complete lack of... Let me address that, Chris.
	If they are saying that this is an emergency of such grotesque proportion that it warrants the introduction of a warp speed vaccine that's not being tested anywhere close to what it should be, then here's another exposure that they have.
	If you're going to do that, with such potential for horrible things happening, then you are obligated as government to put in place right from the very get go, a very efficient monitoring system for what is going wrong.
	And that was not done.
	It's not even done now.
	And if I was really struck by hearing Dr. Patrick say a few days ago, that here we have A very caring physician who's aware of the adverse reactions and all the rest of it.
	He had six.
	He submitted six adverse reactions.
	Five of them were rejected.
	They were rejected because he didn't have the lot number of the vaccine vial.
	Well, hello, bureaucrats!
	That was a few days, a couple of weeks ago.
	Of course he doesn't have it.
	But the net result was that those events didn't get in the database.
	I totally agree.
	And so as a physician in active clinical practice, and I, you know, I have to be careful, I don't want to violate any patient confidentiality, but I've seen a couple of, you know, certainly what looked like serious vaccine reactions just recently.
	And it's very onerous.
	So a few things.
	So firstly, it wasn't at all clear to My group, our physician group, what should be reported and what shouldn't.
	My understanding is that anything that could potentially be a vaccine side effect should be reported because the whole point is to generate data.
	Yes, sure, it might be coincidence.
	A person got vaccinated, walked out of the building, a meteor fell on their head.
	It's probably coincidence.
	There are many of these things, you know, when it's only through the viewing statistical trends that we'll find out.
	So my understanding was we should pretty much report everything, but we had seen a lady who had A blood clotting issue several days after the vaccine.
	Now, that could have been coincidental because we see them every day in eMERGE, but it wasn't reported because the doctors discussed and said, no, she was probably high risk anyway and probably would have happened anyway.
	It wasn't reported.
	And I think, I do believe it was in the end because I suggested it probably should be for data keeping purposes.
	But just recently, just two days ago, I had a very serious, what looked like a vaccine reaction.
	And I went to report it, it's my second one.
	And I was reminded how onerous the form is.
	It's incredible, it's a five-page form.
	It's got all this fine print.
	It would be enough to put anyone who wasn't very serious about reporting off doing it.
	And many of the questions they asked, like I say, were completely irrelevant to what I wanted to report
	and would have just taken me huge amounts of time.
	And in the end, I did a kind of a messed up job of filling it in best I could in the midst of a busy clinic day.
	And I sent it off and I will follow up on it, make sure that it got filed properly.
	But boy, you have to be very You have to be very focused and determined to get that reported.
	It should be easy.
	This should have been set up well ahead of time, should have been well explained, and should be easy for doctors if we're going to get good reporting.
	For people listening who are not familiar with this reporting system, Canada is in the Dark Ages.
	It's an abysmal system.
	The ones in the States and Britain are somewhat better, but even in the States, look, Anyone listening?
	We've had 6,000 deaths in the States over three months, because they're three months behind in reporting the data.
	We've had 6,000 deaths in the States attributed to the vaccine.
	Now, not validated, but that number is vastly greater than all the deaths that have ever been recorded as due to vaccinations over the last 30 years.
	It's at that scale of death And a lot of those deaths are occurring in old people.
	Look, they can't have it both ways.
	That scale of death after vaccination in a normal clinical trial would have shut it down within weeks.
	And yet it's still going on.
	The biggest experiment in medical history is currently underway.
	One aspect that I found interesting when, with the discussion of vaccine deaths, It's like the pro-lockdown forces, so to speak, are now using a similar argument to what anti-lockdown people have been saying in the past year, which is that COVID is not having a big impact on life expectancy, population life expectancy.
	From years of life lost analysis.
	This is, you know, another thing that distinguishes it from the Spanish flu of 1918, where people in their 20s, 30s and 40s were dying in huge numbers.
	So the impact on life expectancy is not huge.
	I read a column in the National Post by one of the mainstream media, you know, pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine, and interesting passage.
	It refers to a study in Norway And, and says, well, um, you know, but all these vaccine deaths are taking place in nursing homes and, you know, people die in nursing homes all the time.
	And so this is not really having a big impact on the life expectancy, uh, because most of these vaccine deaths are in, uh, elderly people who are in poor health, who are going to die pretty soon anyways.
	And it was, it was just interesting to see that flip.
	Where, where I see the whole thing going just to move briefly into the legal political aspect of it.
	I think what we're very likely to see is a lifting of most of the eventually, I mean today, July 1st in Alberta, we've got, you know, supposedly this great reopening taking place.
	But what I foresee is a lifting of some of the lockdown measures.
	So, you know, relaxing or repeal of the masking bylaws and social distancing and Limits on numbers of people permitted into houses of worship, etc, etc, etc.
	The big scary thing is the vaccine passport.
	It's already there in Manitoba, where there is an immunization card and immediately with the rollout of the immunization card, the government already announced that those who have it, those who have the immunization card, will have greater privileges to be able to visit their loved ones in a nursing home or to visit their loved ones in a hospital.
	Trudeau announced within the past two weeks that come this fall, international travel will only be available to those who are immunized.
	So that's already an announcement of intention.
	There has been no law passed, to my knowledge, to that effect.
	So what we are rapidly heading towards is two classes of citizens, first class citizens, who've got their proof that they've had two vaccines, and the second class citizens who may very well be denied their right to go to a movie theatre or a shopping mall or send their kids to a public school or it's very rapidly moving towards two classes of citizenship with a de facto persecution against the non-vaccinated in the same way that in a totalitarian regime
	You know, you've got the bad guys, like in the Soviet Union, the bad guys are the capitalists, the bourgeoisie.
	In Nazi Germany, the bad guys were the Jews.
	And this is what we're heading towards with totalitarianism, because there is one truth, and there's one villain, and there's one solution, and everybody has to get with the program.
	I want to conclude my remarks briefly on a positive note, which is that we still have a lot of free speech.
	Uh, Sam, I would say don't, don't post this to YouTube, but post it to, uh, to Rumble, you know, somewhere else.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to try, uh, uh, BitChute and Rumble.
	Yeah.
	YouTube would take this down within seconds.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	So we still have our free speech rights.
	We still have the ability to organize, to create organizations.
	There's various doctors groups, which I think is wonderful.
	It is in this particular time in human history.
	In resisting totalitarianism, it is the voices of the medical doctors that are the most important, because you have a credibility that non-doctors do not have.
	I could say things that are medically true and medically accurate, but nobody cares.
	I'm not a doctor.
	If you say things that are medically true and medically accurate, people sit up and take notice, and this is what's so upsetting to the To the authorities is they know that when a doctor questions lockdowns or just raises questions about the vaccines, they know how powerful that is because people look up to doctors, you know, and rightfully so.
	And so I think the good news is if we continue to speak truth and continue to organize and be involved in various organizations.
	I there are so many doctors groups.
	I couldn't even Listen with accuracy, but they're out there, Canadian wide and internationally.
	So we just have to speak truth to power, keep on fighting, keep on displaying courage and don't give up.
	And that's the way to resist the tyranny is to continue to speak the truth.
	Just a comment to back up to, you know, I do worry about this two-tiered citizenship that we're heading into.
	That's a great concern.
	The other concern that I have is sort of a broader concern that we've now kind of made it, it's become okay for one unelected, unaccountable public health official to mandate All kinds of things in our lives, the details of our lives, and I picture this dystopian future where we wake up in the morning and before we do anything, before we get out of bed, step in the bathtub, take any risk, we have to look and say, go to our government app and say, how full are the hospitals today?
	What am I allowed to do?
	Well, you know, I was going to go on a bike ride with my friends, but the ICU is full.
	I can't do that.
	I was going to Take a bath today, but if I fell and hit my head, you know, it kind of, of course, I'm using an extreme version of it, but we've kind of okayed that kind of thinking in our head.
	The health care system is there to serve Canadians, but it's not the health care system being full, which it is all the time.
	It was never meant to give governments a mandate to shut down our lives and shut down our choices and we've kind of, as a collective, I think we've accepted that and we've thought that somehow that's okay.
	I'm really just deeply disturbed by the fundamental shift in thinking that I've felt over the last year or more.
	Huge, huge red flag too.
	So guys, we can definitely continue talking, but I think it's time to try to wrap this up.
	Would you be amenable to doing this again sometime?
	Because there's many more questions that I would like to address with your distinguished company.
	John, of course, included.
	We need your legal expertise.
	We need your insight, my friend.
	So any final thoughts, Charles, Francis, and Roger?
	Charles?
	No, I don't think I have any.
	I mean, I just absolutely agree with what everybody said.
	I think we've highlighted very many critical red flags and so no, I don't think I have anything else to add.
	Okay, Francis?
	I don't either.
	I just want to reiterate my appeal to the public and to my colleagues.
	Wake up from the creeping dystopian darkness that is approaching.
	If you don't, it may be too late.
	Thank you, Francis.
	Roger?
	Believe nothing you're being told.
	It's all a pack of lies.
	They're distorting the truth at every juncture.
	Rely upon your own good head.
	Because you've got it straight.
	There's something smelly in the state of Denmark.
	You've got it dead right.
	Hug people.
	Shake hands.
	Let your children see your faces.
	Try and live life normally.
	Because when the truth of this comes out in what are called books, they can't get rid of those.
	Heads will roll.
	There'll be blood in the gutter, and hopefully we'll have learnt great lessons from this.
	On that note, gentlemen, I want to thank you so much for your participation.
	Dr. Chris Milburn, Dr. Charles Hoff, Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Roger Hodgkinson, and of course, John Carpe, Esquire.
	Your participation in this is so appreciated, and I want to thank our viewers for tuning in, and we will do this again sometime, so spread the word, ladies and gentlemen.
	Please spread the word, and be eternally vigilant, and be safe.
	So I want to thank you so much, and on behalf of all of us here, Happy Canada Day!
	Thanks Sam.
	Thank you Sam.
	Thank you guys.
	Thank you.
	Bye.
	m Good morning, good morning.
	Thank you for attending.
	I just wanted to let you know who was all at the meeting.
	I'm sure you know Dr. Susan Shaw.
	Yes, I do.
	Hello, Francis.
	Hello, hello.
	And we also have Dr. Dean Preston Smith, obviously the Dean of Medicine, and myself.
	And we'd like to thank you for attending this meeting.
	And this meeting is to inform you of a number of issues that have arisen regarding your recent engagement as it relates to COVID-19 response in In Saskatchewan.
	I am in my role as provincial head.
	I would I'm going to inform you of a letter that will be sent and the contents of a letter that will be sent to you immediately following the meeting, not only by email, but I'll do by registered mail as well.
	And so we'll also have response from Dr. Susan Shaw and Dean Smith.
	So without any further ado, Frances, in my role as Provincial Head of the Department of Surgery, I'm notifying you that the College of Medicine has received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving COVID-19 vaccination.
	Contrary to the recommendations and pandemic response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.
	In addition to questions regarding your media and social media activity relating to vaccination, it is of significant concern that your activity, you actively participated in recent demonstration at Saskatoon High School and that this demonstration was designed to persuade youth to decline vaccination.
	This information raises serious questions as to whether you are engaging in unprofessional conduct contrary to individual and public safety.
	In light of this information, an investigation by the College of Medicine will proceed under the Procedures Manual for Medical Faculty.
	I will be sending you a copy by email with the letter of the Procedures Manual to enclose that in a package.
	But due to the serious nature of these concerns, your academic responsibilities are temporarily and immediately suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.
	That also means that there will be no involvement clinically or academically with any learners, whether it be students or residents.
	This also includes suspension of your academic responsibilities as Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Director and Director of Surgical Humanities.
	You are entitled to an appeal to the Academic Clinical Relations Committee Complaints and Appeals Subcommittee for review of this decision to suspend your academic responsibilities.
	You should note that the College of Medicine is not suspending the payment for services you would otherwise have received under your ACFP during this investigation period.
	And the College of Medicine will be in touch with you regarding next steps in this investigation.
	Maybe at this point, just to reiterate, so at this point in time, your academic responsibilities are temporarily and immediately suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.
	I will be speaking with Dr. John Shaw, the ADL and Division Head of General Surgery
	on how this affects your current duties.
	I'm fully aware of the issues regarding a learner involvement with the ACS and trauma service
	and we'll work through this.
	Obviously, you'll be looking after your own personal elective patients,
	but from a learner perspective, both clinical and academic activities are suspended
	and as mentioned, your responsibilities as Director for Quality Improvement, Patient Safety
	and Surgical Humanities.
	I'll maybe stop there and ask Dr. Susan Shaw to make further comments.
	Good morning, Francis.
	Can I just say something here, please?
	Can I say something?
	Yeah.
	On what basis are you essentially not allowing me to work?
	It's because you're allowed to work, Francis.
	You're not allowed to use your academic faculty appointment based on the suspension.
	That's all within the letter and that will be part of the investigation and the review.
	Yeah, my role in the hospital is an academic role.
	It is and it's suspended at this time.
	So what you're saying is I don't, basically you're not letting me work.
	No, that is not true.
	That is not correct.
	And I will let you know the outcome of the next part, which is for me to share with you.
	We are not impacting your privileges.
	We have not impacted your license.
	We have not impacted your ability to work.
	But I do need to let you know that based on the letter within your language, I'm giving you 90 days notice of termination without cause of the contractual relationship between the Health Authority and yourself under your language of Clause 5.2 of the signed agreement between us.
	Notice that the agreement will terminate on September 21st, 2021.
	We will terminate on September 21st, 2021.
	Your privileges at this time are not impacted.
	However, this notice is given without prejudice and we remain all of the rights, powers, privileges,
	remedies and or defenses which the SHA currently has within the privilege system outlined within
	the bylaws.
	These are all at this time expressly reserved.
	You remain able to practice as a surgeon after September 21st, but not in a contractual relationship with the health authority.
	So, two of you...
	I want to see a written copy of this by email and by registered mail immediately following this meeting.
	So, is this... what is this? Am I allowed... why are you meeting with me if you don't allow me to speak?
	This is to give you the information.
	You can send me a letter.
	I mean, I know your faces really well.
	So, I mean, there's no need.
	If you don't let me speak, I mean, this is... You can speak now.
	This is exactly the problem, isn't it?
	You're censoring people, not allowing people to speak.
	You're not allowing people to protect the vulnerable.
	It is not only a very unprofessional thing, it is also contrary to informed consent and the basic principles of medicine.
	You are violating all of those principles.
	Did you know, by the way, did you know, any of you, that the WHO has asked that children do not be vaccinated?
	That is not accurate, and that is certainly not accurate, Francis.
	Well, in that case... We are not here to debate the merits of your position.
	We're here to inform you of the decisions that the Health Authority... Again, you're not letting me speak.
	...are required to take at this time based on the current situation that you have entered into, based on the... The WHO has... ...language of our policies and procedures.
	The WHO has suspended We're not here to debate that.
	There is a place for that debate.
	It's not a debate.
	I'm just telling you the statement.
	You're not, you're not, you're not, there is a place for that debate.
	It is not a debate.
	It's not a debate.
	I'm just telling you the statement.
	The statement was put out on Monday morning and the WHO has stated that children should
	not be vaccinated from 12 to 18.
	And anybody less than 18 should not be vaccinated.
	You guys claim that you listen to the WHO.
	I would like to speak.
	Well, you've spoken now for like, you know, 90% of the time.
	So it's only fair that I can speak as well.
	So Francis, I would like to speak.
	I haven't spoken yet.
	Yeah, but can I just... I mean, you've basically read out some indictments against me.
	This was exactly the sort of panels that were set up in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany against academics.
	Anybody... These are the type of panels, anyway.
	I'm not saying that you're Nazis or Soviets, but it's really disturbing, isn't it?
	I mean, because I call for informed consent, Informed consent from parents and children.
	I am essentially not being allowed to practice and to teach residents and to teach students.
	This is disturbing, dystopian, and it's just not acceptable.
	So Francis, as I said, I'd like to speak.
	The purpose of this meeting is to inform you of the actions that the College of Medicine has taken at this time and Likewise, the SHA has taken, and certainly the Provincial Head is here because he represents both organizations to the Department of Surgery.
	I am here, as is Susan, to support the Provincial Head.
	The decision with regards to the suspension of your faculty appointment is temporary, pending an investigation, and you will have your opportunity to make your arguments.
	That is not the purpose of this meeting.
	this meeting is simply to inform you of the decision made for due consideration by the College of Medicine
	and the SHA.
	I recognize this decision may be distressing to you
	and want to emphasize to you the need to, first of all, look to the contract
	and look to the policy and procedures on medical faculty appointment
	to see the avenues that are available to you as this process unfolds.
	That will likely include the need for your own Uh, advice in determining best paths.
	And there are people including legal representation that can advise you as you follow your way through these procedures.
	And the second thing that is really important to me is that you do take care of yourself through this process.
	This is a stressful process and an unfortunate process that has been made necessary by by the actions to date but it is still stressful and
	difficult. So in that realm there are many supports available to you and particularly the
	physician health program.
	I just have to...
	I just have to say something.
	I'm speaking and I will finish speaking and then you can speak.
	I have to say that I'm not distressed at all.
	I will finish speaking and then you can speak.
	I'm not distressed at all.
	I will understand.
	You don't have to shout over me.
	That's your choice, but I simply want to make sure you know those supports are available to you.
	Well, I'm not distressed at all.
	It's good to be on the right side of history and to go to sleep with a good conscience.
	I'm thinking you guys must be really distressed because you're going against science, you're going against the WHO, and you are trying to Essentially since you're basically doing your best to it to sensor and to silence and to muzzle intimidate and essentially physicians scientists and
	And people around the world who are calling for adolescents and children not to be vaccinated.
	The very fact that you don't know, let me finish because I know that you all want to jump in and cut me off.
	The very fact that you don't know that the WHO came out on Monday morning with the recommendation not to vaccinate 18 and under shows that you're living in a dystopian bubble.
	You're only speaking to echo chambers.
	You don't know the level of support I have.
	You don't know how many surgeons, physicians, scientists in Saskatchewan, across Canada, who have reached out to me in support.
	You just don't know.
	You're living a fantasy world of self-congratulatory messages.
	It's really shameful.
	I think, Francis, this is why we're so concerned about you, because this appears to me to be a change in the way that you see the world.
	I read the World Health Organization statement.
	I read it this morning in preparation for this meeting to make sure that I had as much information.
	I've read the PHEC.
	I've read everything.
	I'm very concerned about your ability to clearly see what's happening and what's happening and what others may be doing with you and to you to take advantage of your position.
	You're a highly intelligent man.
	Well, thank you.
	Thank you for... You're not making intelligent decisions.
	You're not interpreting literature or behaving in a way that makes me understand that you understand how to navigate a scientific debate.
	This is why it's important that we reiterate, please reach out to the SMA Health Program to ensure that you have supports that you may not realize or think that you need right now.
	But they offer amazing support that's confidential and that we will not learn about.
	I would recommend that you get those supports because I predict you'll be needing them very soon.
	Thank you for your concern, Francis.
	Thank you for that concern, Francis.
	So the purpose of this meeting has been accomplished and that was to inform you of the actions taken by the College of Medicine and the SHA.
	Reiterate that there are mechanisms for you to appeal these decisions and a process will unfold at the University with regards to your faculty appointment.
	Again, reiterate that the supports are available to you and that they're excellent supports that you should consider taking advantage of.
	But otherwise, we've accomplished the purpose of this meeting and you will be getting the written documentation by email immediately.
	Well, it wasn't really a meeting.
	It was basically an announcement from a group of very deluded health care people.
	Unfortunately, you know, up and down the country, you guys are living in a dystopian bubble.
	That bubble, you know, the truth will come out.
	And when that bubble bursts, you guys are going to be in big trouble.
	And you think I'm in trouble?
	I, you know, by the grace of God, I'm sleeping well at night and I'm not in any distress at all.
	Well, thank you, Francis, for telling us that.
	I'm very pleased to hear that.
	And again, we support if there's any services needed, we would be pleased to help and support that.
	But the accomplishments of what was needed to be done today in terms of notification will be sent to you.
	And I thank you for participating in the meeting and we will get the information to you as soon as possible.
	As it relates to the Division of General Surgery, I will be discussing with the ADL, Dr. John Shaw, regarding what is necessary in terms of temporary and immediate suspension of academic privileges relating to learners.
	And as well, I'll be sending a notice as well that this is in place.
	So I thank you for attending the meeting and we'll end the meeting now.
	I appreciate your attendance.
	Thank you everyone.
	Well, thank you.

▲