Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 6, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender

36:16

Fired For Speaking Out with Dr Chris Milburn

Doctor Chris Milburn was fired as Head of ER in his region of Canada for speaking out, Dr Milburn discusses his story to RFK Jr.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everybody.
	Welcome back to the podcast.
	My guest today is Dr.
	Chris Milburn, a family and emergency room doctor from Nova Scotia and the Canadian Maritimes.
	He has a background in hard science and a long history of involvement with public health nationally, provincially, and locally.
	His strong commitment to free speech and scientific integrity put him at odds with the medical profession.
	is increasingly politicized and unwilling to tolerate debate, especially in the age of COVID. In 2021, he was fired from his job as the head of the ER in eastern Nova Scotia and accused of the crime of,
	quote, creating vaccine hesitancy, end quote, for speaking out against mandatory COVID vaccinations, school closures, And for suggesting that the medical officers of health had been granted a dangerous amount of power.
	As a result of his experience, Chris and his wife, Dr.
	Julia Kerwin, started freespeechinmedicine.com.
	And are organizing what they hope will be a yearly conference on controversial issues in medicine and science.
	Their substack is called Paradox, B-A-R-O-D-O-C-S, Paradox Collection of Tears, Heresy.
	And welcome to the podcast, Dr.
	Milburn.
	Is it really a crime now in Canada today?
	I would say it's a de facto crime.
	When I was fired, I had, you know, a challenging conversation with the man.
	Who had the, you know, the inuspicious job of firing me, and that was what he said.
	He said, you're creating vaccine hesitancy, you're making people scared of the vaccines.
	And as time has gone on, when people criticize me, that's usually how they phrase it.
	I've created vaccine hesitancy.
	It's sort of the new blasphemy law, you know?
	And we're seeing that in the U.S. and Canada.
	So tell us exactly what happened, what your path was.
	Sure.
	I was the head of Emerge for Eastern Nova Scotia for about two and a half years.
	It was a five-year appointment and things were going quite reasonably.
	I had just had a kind of a performance review and updated my boss on what the projects I was working on and everything was good.
	And then I was invited to be on a regular It's called the Issue Panel on our local radio.
	And I've been on it for years.
	We've discussed many difficult subjects.
	I've taken flack for my views on some of them.
	That's all fine.
	And we usually get the issues just a day or two in advance.
	So the night before, I check my My email, and there it was.
	We were going to talk about COVID policy, and I kind of thought, uh-oh, you know, it's not exactly something that doctors feel free to be open about in Nova Scotia.
	In fact, our...
	Let me just interrupt for a second, just so that American audience can put this in perspective.
	What was the date?
	Was this early in the pandemic?
	This was over a year in.
	So this was June of 2021.
	Okay.
	We were still highly locked down.
	At the time, our schools were still closed and many, many of our group activities were closed.
	I believe gyms were still closed, things like that.
	You couldn't go and exercise.
	You couldn't do any group activities.
	So we were still highly locked down.
	So yeah, our regulatory college that grant or take away our medical license had sent us somewhat Threatening email to doctors basically saying that they expected unanimity was the way they worded it in our approach to COVID. And so I knew it wasn't very popular to speak about it, but I'm the kind of guy, damn the torpedo.
	So I went on the next morning and I gave my views.
	Snappy format with three people debating and I kind of gave my views that vaccine passes were highly unethical, that I mentioned that there could be unknown side effects to a vaccine that was at that time extremely new in Canada.
	We had only just begun vaccinating the populace and that I thought it was wrong to force people.
	I mentioned that the medical officers of health had too much power and that was not a good situation and I also felt that schools should be open.
	And the evidence was clear by that time.
	And so those are the things that got me in trouble and resulted a few days later in a phone call from my boss saying that I could no longer be the head of Emerge with those views.
	So did they take your medical privileges as well?
	No.
	A Twitter mob formed and suggested that people should complain about me to the Regulatory College.
	And what I can say about that is I'm not allowed to talk about any matters that are before the Regulatory College.
	But a Twitter mob formed and shared the link on how to complain.
	So that happened As a separate thing, but in terms of my own job, I was left for now with my license, but that part of my job was pulled away from me.
	And I was basically left in a position where I didn't feel comfortable practicing emergency medicine in a place that had just fired me as head.
	I don't feel, and I continue, I no longer work in the emergency room here, even though we're very short of doctors.
	I didn't feel That it was an environment that would be very supportive of me if, God forbid, something actually did go wrong as it does.
	Emergency medicine is a high medical-legal risk subspecialty and I just didn't feel comfortable working in this area anymore.
	What are you doing now?
	Well, my job has moved on.
	I now do rural Family medicine and I do cover, you know, a rural emergency room.
	So not the big city kind of high acuity emerge that I'm used to, but a small rural emergency room where I'm on call, family practice.
	And I also do, I've done some work kind of concurrently through many years in injury rehabilitation.
	And I do some kind of private, I guess you'd say private family practice work here in my hometown as well.
	Is the ER that you're working in, the rural ER that you're working in, is that in Nova Scotia?
	It is also in Nova Scotia for now.
	My wife and I are kind of making plans to move out of the province, most likely.
	I kind of feel bad.
	We're very short here, so I feel like I'm leaving patients in the lurch.
	There's a number of patients here in town I do look after.
	And of course, the rural area that I'm working has been over a year now, a bit of a long explanation.
	So I kind of feel committed there.
	So it's a bit of a difficult decision to move for me.
	So we're still somewhat conflicted.
	And your wife, is she an MD? She is.
	So my wife, you know, the other half of the paradox, she's a psychiatrist, kind of a background in philosophy and political science.
	So we're Very deeply embroiled in issues of things like vax passports and forced vaccination, etc.
	We have very strong views on it, let's say.
	And let's talk about that a little.
	What is your bias against vaccine passports?
	So I go into this whole thing as someone who...
	As you may know from my CV, I've been very, very involved with environmentalism over the years, environmental issues.
	I was quite involved with the Green Party of Canada for a while.
	But I was involved with the Green Party at a time when it swung a little more libertarian, and I've really been uncomfortable with it in the last 10 or 12 years.
	I come in with the bias of someone who believes that in individual liberty to make decisions, and those include medical decisions.
	So right off the hop, when I saw that people's ability to work, to go into a restaurant, to travel, was going to be dependent on them taking what I saw as an experimental vaccine.
	I believe that that's what it was.
	I really thought that was wrong.
	Now, the problem that I ran into in the conflict was that the medical establishment and the medical officers of health were presenting this vaccine right off the hop as something that was proven to be, you know, safe and effective and safe and effective.
	And I don't know how many times I heard the word safe and effective.
	Together to describe the vaccine.
	But to me, you know, sure, we've used it in billions of people now, but we've only used it over a short amount of time.
	And the follow-up has not been appropriate in my mind.
	I could discuss that more if you want.
	So I've said to people, you know, would you high dive into a pool that had 100,000 gallons if it was an acre wide, but only an inch deep?
	No, you wouldn't.
	And that's the way I look at the research on vaccines so far.
	We've used these for a very short amount of time, and we haven't properly kept data.
	At least I can speak for Nova Scotia and Canada more as a whole.
	Well, let me ask you something that may be personal, and feel free not to answer it, but would you describe yourself prior to COVID as a Conservative, as a Liberal Party, or NDP, which essentially is the kind of Labour Party that That generally allied with the Liberal Party,
	but kind of a Labour-type party of the kind that they have in Europe, just so Americans have a frame of reference.
	Sure.
	Maybe I'll just give you my one-minute thumbnail sketch of Canadian politics.
	Canadian politics, Americans may know that we're far, far left of you guys.
	So even our, you know, quote unquote, conservative or right wing party, as they're called here, is sort of would be considered maybe moderate Democrat in the US. And our NDP party is far, far to the left of anything that you guys have there.
	It's interesting for me.
	I've gone through this evolution.
	I was considered a left-wing radical perhaps 15 years ago because of my work with the Green Party and my belief in environmental issues, you know, the importance of environmental issues, I would say.
	But as the political landscape has shifted to the left, I've been left, I've shifted.
	I don't think my views have shifted all that much, but I'm now considered a right-wing radical.
	So I've gone in Canada, even though my politics haven't changed that much, I've gone from being a left-wing radical to now some people have described me as being alt-right.
	So my own position, I don't know whether to describe it as conservative in the I would have conservative values in the sense that I want to conserve the classical liberal framework.
	I think that's very, very important.
	The other thing I'll say...
	Let me interrupt you for a second.
	I want to hear what you're about to say.
	You describe as the classical liberal framework, you know, on other issues like, you know, personal freedoms, freedom of speech, religion, etc., foreign policy, you know, interventionists, LGBTQ, you know, the rights of an abortion.
	These are kind of the defining cultural issues in our country.
	And where would you put yourself?
	And of course, Immigration and race, which are perceived as a hostility toward immigrants on the far right of our country.
	And so we're, you know, on those kind of milestone benchmark issues, where would you describe yourself as standing?
	And the reason I'm probing you on this It's because of this kind of dominant propaganda theme that people who question the official orthodoxies are a right wing, extreme right, radical right.
	And Justin Trudeau, who is an old friend of mine, who I've known for many, many years and kept a personal friendship with, has characterized, I think, Very, very badly mischaracterized the truckers' convoy as motivated by a right-wing impulse, by bigotry, by hatred, by xenophobia, by misogyny.
	You know, it's interesting to me to talk to people, including the truckers, who would not describe themselves that way.
	Yeah, you've put a lot out there, but maybe I can wrap it up into a little ball by saying that what happened to me over the COVID issue and speaking out against mandatory vaccinations, etc., I think is symptomatic of the dyslexia.
	Uncomfortable shift we've felt in society.
	So rather than have good arguments and be able to discuss difficult issues, one person to have one opinion, one person to have another, and then come away disagreeing but still respecting the other person, there's been this automatic tendency to label someone.
	So if you do not agree with mandatory vaccinations for everyone in Canada, you're automatically an alt-right, misogynist, neo-Nazi racist, right?
	And the other things you asked me about my political views in general, I would put myself in the same category.
	So, for instance, transgender issues.
	I'm actually quite liberal.
	I have friends who are transgender.
	I have no malice towards them.
	They're human beings just like me and they can make that decision.
	But I also don't think that transgender women should be able to compete against women in the Olympics, for instance.
	But just expressing the second opinion now will get me labeled as an alt-right neo-Nazi in some circles.
	And I totally agree.
	I think Justin Trudeau, and I actually wrote about this on our substack called, you know, what to do when your prime minister jumps the shark.
	Rather than have a reasonable conversation about these truckers who represent a good chunk of the Canadian population, instead he just jumped right to trying to label them and render their opinions invalid and somehow dangerous to listen to.
	And in general, again, just one further comment.
	So what's happened in Canada is the same as for you folks in the States.
	The Democrat Party used to be the party of the little guy, the working people.
	But more and more, if you look at it, they've become the party of the upper crust university professor with extremely kind of what we call woke views.
	And by moving to that direction, they've actually alienated their traditional base of working class people who have moved, you know, in your case, to kind of Donald Trump and the right end of the political spectrum.
	And in our case, what's happening is the NDP and liberals who are traditionally the party of the working class and the conservatives were seen as the party for big business.
	It's flipped here as well, where they've gone so far off the end of anybody who argues with us as misogynist, racist, anti-trans, this and that.
	That they've driven all these people with just what are very centrist views.
	They've driven them to the other end of the political spectrum.
	And the Conservative Party and what we call the PPC, which is a little bit to the right, I suppose, of the Conservative Party, is picking them up.
	So it's been a real political landscape shift here.
	And maybe one more thing, sorry, but the last thing I'd say is I don't even like to look at it as a left-right shift.
	There's a better axis to look at it on, I think, is authoritarian versus libertarian.
	I think that's a much more accurate axis.
	There's a whole bunch of us who don't believe that we might have very liberal views, but we also don't believe that you should force other people to do things like take vaccines.
	And that's gotten us labeled as right wing now, but I believe it's more correctly labeled us as believing in individual right.
	I mean, I think this is a really interesting discussion because We're at this, you know, period of realignment, and at least there's been a series of realignments throughout American history in the Democrat and Republican Party, the Republicans, of course, or the, you know, party of Abraham Lincoln and of Black civil rights for African Americans.
	And then, you know, beginning during the, and also in many ways kind of anti-corporate, it was Teddy Roosevelt at the beginning of the 20th century and, you know, other Republicans have to pass the Sherman Antitrust Act and who were pushing for corporate income taxes, graduated income taxes.
	It was the Republican reformers in the city.
	Who were pushing for women's rights, for reform of child labor laws, the 40-hour work week, and then, you know, beginning with Franklin Roosevelt.
	I mean, at that point, there was literally no Black in the South who would vote Democratic.
	And that was changed during the New Deal, when Blacks started coming over to the Democratic Party and Labor became the Democratic Party kind of fulcrum.
	And that was one of the great realignments.
	And that was kind of completed during my uncle's administration.
	And he really split the Black vote in 1960 with Richard Nixon.
	But within four years, 98% of Black votes were going to the Democratic Party.
	And so you have a realignment at that point.
	And it's happened a couple of other times in American history.
	And something like that appears to be happening now, where there's a perception that the Democratic Party in the United States is no longer, you know, the party of the traditional democratic values, liberal values of labor and essentially class equality.
	And now Democrats have become kind of the cancel culture party, which seems antithetical to traditional liberal values, which, as you say, were about debate, discussion, and respectful interchange, and absolute adherence to freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, and all those.
	It's interesting what's happened because If you talk to some of these truckers, the way they see what happened during COVID and the anger, because most of them are vaccinated.
	I think 95% of them are vaccinated.
	But they see this as a war of the elites against the poor.
	And it really was the COVID mandates were really a war on the poor around the globe.
	There's 100 million children were pushed into food insecurity and came from COVID. The impacts of the lockdowns are much more dramatic.
	And today you see this, the same truckers are saying, you know, if you were rich, if you lived in Beverly Hills or Greenwich, Connecticut, the lockdown was just a pajama party with, you know, DoorDash delivering food to you.
	But if you go into the poor neighborhoods, to Harlem, to Compton, there were padlocks on the basketball courts and people were locked and children were locked.
	In homes deprived of schooling, you know, their IQ points among children dropped 22 points, according to the Brown University study.
	You had a $3.8 trillion shift in wealth, poor to billionaires.
	We created 500 billionaires during the pandemic.
	And they see this as really as now a class war.
	And, you know, the Democrats are ending up on the wrong side, which is dismaying to me because I'm a lifelong Democrat and a liberal.
	Well, just to kind of riff off that bit, me too, because I come from kind of that, I suppose, that left-wing caring thing that society should try to care for everyone and, you know, a society can be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable people.
	And I really believe in those concepts.
	But there's a few things that just...
	Again, you've said so many things.
	I'm thinking so many different directions.
	But one of the things, so I totally agree with your comments.
	So the pajama party, what we call, you know, I've heard it called the laptop class.
	The laptop class seemed just fine with lockdown, you know.
	They didn't make any less money.
	They could order food to the door.
	They have nice...
	Well, unless you didn't own a laptop in your home.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Right?
	Yeah, that's right.
	So a good example is here in Canada, our doctors were very well paid.
	We're right at the top of society in terms of our pay.
	And if you poll doctors, we were very on board with lockdowns.
	But, for instance, here in Nova Scotia, the doctors here cut a sweetheart deal behind the scenes, not announced, that they could get paid up to $50,000 per month to be off, right?
	So a doctor who was furloughed, let's say an ophthalmologist who couldn't do cataract operations or a dermatologist who couldn't see patients, they could get paid up to $50,000 per month.
	Well, that kind of changes your view on whether you're in a hurry to go back to work or not, right?
	And I'd like to think that doctors are all so altruistic that we're motivated only to be giving the best care to our patients.
	But if that was true, we would have been trying to get back in the office as soon as possible.
	And when you Talk to doctors and when they were polled, we didn't seem to be in a big, big hurry to do that, you know?
	Another thing you said was about how, you know, these basic liberal values of free speech.
	When you look at how disadvantaged minorities were emancipated, particularly in the 60s in the US and Martin Luther King and whatnot, if you think about the hate speech laws that are coming into play, coming in in Canada right now, Your speech will be judged by whether you hurt somebody else's feelings.
	It's free speech that has allowed people to drag themselves out of the basement of society.
	And so now it seems like it's the people who were the beneficiaries of those free speech in the past who want to shut it down.
	So it's the transgender movement, the racial minority movement, etc.
	who's trying to shut down free speech, saying that it's a danger.
	I think it's a misunderstanding of history because we need to keep free speech.
	We did so many things wrong for so many years.
	We're still doing things wrong, clearly.
	What will we see in 50 years and look back at and say, oh my God, I can't believe we did that back then.
	We were so backwards.
	But if we freeze ourselves And put ourselves into stasis by eliminating free speech.
	All we do is cement all the things we're doing wrong now.
	It's not only that, but ultimately the people who went from restricting our speech are large corporations and government technocrats and intelligence agencies and the military.
	And once you give permission to government or to large corporations like Facebook, To constrict speech, to control speech, they will use it for their financial advantage.
	And, you know, the people who have the illusion that it's going to help the poor, that illusion will quickly disappear because it is not.
	And, you know, one of the other emblems of this kind of shift of the Democratic Party away from, and liberalism, away from really representing the interests of the poor, the downtrodden, Is the masking mandates, which if you, it becomes really obvious that this is kind of a class war.
	When you go to a restaurant, you see the waiters and poor women are waiting on the table or wearing the mask.
	All the wealthy diners who are sitting in the restaurant are unmasked.
	And we've kind of now put, forced the poor into invisibility, into anonymity.
	And to me, it's a very, very disturbing thing to go into one of those restaurants and see that servers are all masked.
	And it's almost like the Delmonico Steakhouse during the 1930s, during the Great Depression, when you had all of these homeless men waiting outside.
	Looking through the big picture window at the wealthy people smoking cigars and eating sirloins and outside, anonymous, hidden...
	We're the poor who are increasingly poor.
	And the dominant feature of this pandemic, the dominant historical feature has been the acquiescence to the laws of our traditional civil rights, and combined with this giant shift in wealth to the super rich that is unprecedented in human history, the obliteration of the middle class.
	And those things are When you combine them and imagine what our future is going to look like, now the government has those powers, they will never give them up, and they will use them again and again and again to amplify that impact of making the rich richer,
	of making the poor poorer, And then building up police states and militaries and militarizing our society and, you know, all of these associated industries, the oil industry, the chemical industry, and all of these really powerful and dark, dark, sinister industries that have now been given this tremendous power, and they will not give it up unless we figure out a way to take it from them.
	Yeah, and we're not getting there.
	We won't find that power if we allow free speech to evaporate, right?
	And I just, you know, kind of back around to the what got me fired.
	You know, if you look at science, Science as a concept, because science is not...
	One of the things, again, I wrote about this on my Substack, I hate that saying, follow the science, because there's two words there that are really bad.
	Number one is follow, number two is the, because there's no such thing as the science.
	Science is a method, it's a way of assessing and understanding reality.
	It's not like a definite, defined, concrete body of knowledge.
	It's just a way of processing knowledge.
	Also, follow.
	You can't follow science anywhere.
	Science can tell you how electrons flow through metal, but they don't make an iPhone, right?
	Human beings make an iPhone.
	One of my favorite sayings in medicine was one of the very famous physicists, Richard Feynman, said, science is the belief in the fallibility of experts, right?
	So right off the hop, if it's science, nobody has the final word.
	That's the definition of science.
	But what we did immediately, almost within the first month of lockdown, Here, and I believe it was the same in the US for you guys, is we just basically bowed down in front of a Fauci statue or in our In our province, it's Dr.
	Strang.
	We set up an idol of him, a shrine, and we bowed down every night and said, tell us what to do, oh great one.
	And we stopped thinking.
	And medical colleges actually told us to stop thinking.
	They told us to be unanimous.
	They told us not to criticize.
	We got a missive telling us not to be an anti-masker or an anti-vaxxer.
	And what does that mean?
	Well, to me, I don't believe that masks help and I don't believe they should be forced on people.
	I also think that vaccines were completely overblown.
	Well, obviously now that we have the data in and that they shouldn't have been forced on people.
	So does that make me an anti-mask or an anti-vaxxer or does it just make me A person who likes to discuss actual science.
	Well, I would say it's the latter.
	But we've become very religious about this and we've forgotten what actual science is.
	And if we're going to have real science, we have to be able to debate.
	Somebody has to be able to call me an idiot and I have to be able to call them an idiot.
	And we have to be able to do it politely and within the scientific method because that's what we've always done.
	I mean, Galileo was a majority of one, and the scientific consensus at that time was that the sun revolved around the earth.
	And, you know, they threatened to burn him at the stake for his heresy until he recanted.
	And as he left the court...
	Where he recanted, he whispered and was overheard saying, and yet it moves.
	And yet the earth does move.
	He whispered it to himself because he knew what the truth was and it didn't matter what scientific consensus is.
	And you're right, all of the You know, this discussion is religious in nature.
	You're not allowed to debate it.
	The anger that people respond with when you try to challenge their thinking on these things is really like a religious belief.
	You know, we're not allowed to talk about science anymore.
	We're not allowed to debate each other or to disagree with each other.
	And then there's this authoritarian response.
	This was not a public health response to this issue.
	It was not public health.
	It was a militarized police state response, you know, to compel people to do things.
	Listen, in any pandemic in history, if somebody comes with a convincing cure, there's nobody in the society who won't rush to get it.
	What do you say about a cure that has to be guaranteed liability against litigation, that has to be compelled on people, you know, repeatedly?
	It will stop transmission.
	Okay, it doesn't stop transmission.
	It can't stop the pandemic, but it's going to reduce your Chances of severe illness, now we know that that's not true.
	And everything about it, you know, the data are now showing was a lie.
	But those of us who ask questions are isolated, marginalized, vilified, and punished, and in your case, fired.
	Yeah.
	And I want to tell you a little bit of a story, which I think will be of great interest to you folks.
	When I was head of the Emerge over two and a half years, I got an incredible amount of email and paper, right?
	I joke, but it's kind of true.
	If they were going to change the brand of toilet paper that got stocked and Emerge, I got a three-page memo about it, right?
	So when we were in the midst of the COVID pandemic, when it first hit, we were understandably really nervous and we were meeting a lot and we kind of got ready and things progressed along.
	And then, you know, then the vaccines came and they were going to be released to the public.
	And because I got memos about everything, I expected to get a memo from public health about, okay, this is an experimental vaccine.
	We're releasing it to the public.
	I would have expected to know several things as I'd have emerged.
	What side effects might we expect and what should we look for?
	So if we get a patient who comes in with chest pain in the eMERGE after the vaccine, is that something, you know, what should we know?
	Number two, if we suspect a side effect, how do we report it?
	Because I've been perfectly involved with a few drug studies in the past, and I know enough to know that when you're doing a drug study, you report everything, everything.
	It doesn't matter if the patient If the patient broke wind, you're going to report it because you don't know what's related to the drug and what's not.
	You just report everything and it comes out in the wash.
	So my questions were, what should we look for and how should we report it?
	And I kept waiting for a memo and waiting for a memo and waiting for a memo and nothing ever came.
	And then we started to see some side effects or things that we were pretty sure were side effects.
	And it was very, very hard to report those in Canada.
	So you would have to find the form online, which was really difficult.
	And it was five pages, and it required things like the lot number of the vaccine and what time they got it and where.
	And most patients could only tell me, I went to the pharmacy and I got my vaccine on Thursday.
	They didn't know even what brand it was, let alone the lot number.
	So there was this really high bar to report it.
	Then the other thing, going into this, because you talk about belief, the problem that we ran into, a big problem we ran into in my mind was belief.
	So doctors were told the vaccine is safe and effective when it was released, even though it was experimental.
	So we had things happen, like for instance, we had a patient who died of of multiple blood clots in her lung several days after the second vaccine.
	Now, was that coincidence or was it the vaccine?
	Well, the only way to know is you report it and then statistically later we look back at all these reports and we say, geez, there was an increase in what we'd expect the number of blood clots to be.
	There wasn't, right?
	But what happened with that case was I was told about it through a friend of the person, a friend of the patient, and there was concern that that wasn't reported as a possible vaccine side effect, and there was some concern.
	So I looked into it, and the physician who was involved with the case said, oh, well, I talked to the specialist who was on call, and we knew that that wouldn't be related to the vaccine, so we didn't report it.
	So there's the problems.
	People's minds were already made up.
	They were already told by public health that these vaccines are safe and effective.
	So doctors were not reporting these things.
	And it's only in retrospect now, having talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of patients who had things like shingles and Bell's policy and blood clots and et cetera, et cetera.
	And it's too much for me to say it's coincidence.
	But we still don't have official data in Canada.
	So my problem is I'm still just going anecdotally by what I've heard.
	And I can get in trouble for being anecdotal.
	And I could be in trouble just for saying what I just told you.
	I'd love there to be data, but there's not because it was not kept properly.
	Will we ever get it?
	It's going to be a rat's nest to pull out.
	It's going to be very, very difficult.
	But as I'm sure you are well aware of, we're seeing things like insurance company data, et cetera, coming out already saying that there probably is, you know, what we call a signal in the data that maybe we were doing more harm than good with these vaccines.
	And it's extremely concerning to me.
	Extremely concerning that we went into the whole vaccination project with that mindset that these are safe and effective and anything you see after the vaccines is probably not from the vaccines.
	Dr.
	Chris Melbourne, tell us how people can follow you and can support you.
	So, two quick things.
	So, if people go to the, as you say, Paradox, so my wife and I are a Paradox, P-A-R-O-D-O-C-S, Paradox at Substack, or.substack.com rather, we're on Substack.
	They can find us there and sign up.
	We also are just getting a website up called freespeechandmedicine.com and we're planning a fall conference and currently securing what we hope will be some great speakers so people can watch for that.
	And we'll be announcing that on our Paradox, as well as when the website's set up next week, they can look there.
	So yeah, thanks for the opportunity and thanks for talking to me.
	Dr.

▲