Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 9, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:48

Sidebar with Dr. Francis Christian - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, everyone, this is a filthy, filthy Winston.
	Disgusting, dirty, salty.
	He walks outside.
	He tracks in the mud.
	What do you have to say?
	All right.
	Down we go.
	People, this is going to be a first.
	And I mean, let me...
	Nobody wants to see kid dolls in the background.
	Oh, Viva Ranch shirt.
	Good idea.
	Okay, I'm going to say this a few times before we actually make it happen.
	This is a first.
	We are going to cut this stream on YouTube and take it over to Rumble exclusively because I want to have an open discussion.
	I want to ask Dr. Christian things that I couldn't even feel comfortable asking him when we met on the streets in Ottawa during this convoy.
	And can we all take a moment to appreciate what we're witnessing from this convoy?
	I mean, it's a surreal experience.
	There's a certain level of anxiety that you get overwhelmed with because things are cascading in a certain direction and getting more and more...
	More and more attention, more and more intense.
	You know, the momentum is building.
	The international interest is building.
	And, you know, something's got to give, as the expression goes.
	And you just hope that what gives is both good and productive and not destructive or this just fizzles out and back to the status quo of an unacceptable status quo that we've seen for the last two years.
	I guess, you know, a lot of new faces who've met me and have seen this channel now from the Ottawa on the street, Viva on the street, just walking the streets and talking to the people and giving you the view that the media is just not giving anybody.
	This has been an eye-opening experience, I think, for even the most complacent of the blue-pilled members of society.
	They're seeing...
	In real time, just the egregious levels of dishonesty coming from the media and the politicians and everyone.
	And it's a convergence.
	What's the dog eating back there?
	It's a convergence of a number of things.
	Political abuse, government overreach, media misrepresentation and media dishonesty and big tech censorship.
	And it's like, it's a crossroads.
	Literally a four-way intersection that's going to determine, not trying to be lofty or melodramatic, but it's going to determine the future of the globe as we know it.
	If this causes political turmoil, and political turmoil in the best sense, political upheaval, a political revolution of sorts, if only in...
	Turning the Liberal Party inside out, ousting the leaders and replacing them with leaders who are going to actually listen to the people instead of demonize them.
	If that actually happens in the United States, if that happens in Canada, where, you know, sitting on your perch and just tweeting what is nothing shy of hate-filled misinformation and lies about the very people who a year ago you were lauding as heroes.
	If it ends up that this revolution...
	Boots those people out of office.
	And that there's turmoil within the parties, as we've already seen with the Conservatives.
	O'Toole is out.
	They're going to be vying for political leadership.
	If, and I think it will happen, the Liberal Party turns on Trudeau because it becomes politically expedient to do so.
	The NDP turns on Jagmeet Singh if it becomes politically expedient to do so.
	The rest of the world is watching.
	And arguably the Biden administration, this was something I discussed with Jenna Ellis on her show earlier today.
	Arguably, the Biden administration is watching this as well.
	And this was her thought, not mine.
	And, you know, if the Biden administration sees what happens up north when leaders demonize their people, try to criminalize constitutional peaceful assembly protests, if they see what happens in Canada, it's a small country, you know, politically population, but not geographically, but it's a small country, but it would be symbolic of what's going to be coming by way of cascade across the Western world.
	So it's going to be amazing.
	Now, with that said, the fake news media coming out of Canada is just atrocious.
	Now, the CBC, Canada Broadcasting Corporation, or whatever it is, CBC, their new angle, by the way, it went from ignore the convoy to distract to another hundreds of cars, truck convoy in British Columbia to demonize the convoy in the worst possible way.
	And they've been doing that hard.
	And they've been basically accusing the convoy of, you know, they wanted it to be a January 6th type insurrection.
	I'll just call it a riot.
	They wanted it to be that.
	They wanted to paint it like that.
	Some outlets in Canada were even suggesting there was Russian money behind this.
	They wanted it to be that.
	And it never turned into that.
	So much so that, you know, these protesters...
	We're shoveling the snow off the streets, salting the steps of the War Memorial, cleaning up, putting their garbage away.
	Crime has actually, by all accounts, gone down in Ottawa because everybody's looking at that Freedom Convoy thinking that's what Ottawa downtown used to look like.
	I can tell you, the downtown core, Briard's Market, whatever it's called, the market right next to the Fairmount Hotel, it was not a place where you would want to walk after hours at night.
	It just wasn't.
	I liked Ottawa, and I like Ottawa, but I never felt comfortable walking around that particular area at night.
	By all accounts, crime has gone down.
	The homeless population are more well-fed now than they were before the convoy, and the government wanted it to be what it wasn't.
	And when it turned out to not be what it was, you know what the CBC is saying now?
	That this convoy is posing a risk to children, and they actually had reporters going around suggesting that parents who were there with their kids in that convoy...
	We're placing their children at risk and arguing that potentially CPS or DPJ in Quebec should come in and potentially protect those kids from the imminent harm.
	Harm, if any, existed.
	That might come from the fact that the government is trying to starve them out and freeze them out by not allowing gas to come in and not allowing food to come in and criminalizing any form of support of the protesters.
	So it's the next level in the nonsense.
	I see Robert is there and Dr. Christian is there as well.
	So what we're going to do, I'm going to bring them in.
	Yeah, I'll bring them in now so we can all say hi.
	Then I'm cutting this stream on YouTube and we're going to go to Rumble exclusively.
	And I don't know what's going to happen because I don't know if I can see the comments from Rumble on StreamYard.
	But if for whatever the reason some catastrophic cutting off occurs, I'll get it back up in no time at all.
	Okay, that's going to be clipped and used out of context.
	All right.
	Let me bring in Dr. Christian.
	Dr. Christian, how goes the battle, sir?
	Well, thank you very much for having me on your show, David.
	It's a pleasure to be here.
	It was great to meet you in Ottawa.
	And it was great to have that interview on the street.
	And it was a privilege to speak to your many millions of viewers.
	Tonight's going to be even better because we're going to get into the stuff that we could not get into.
	For fear of just wiping it clean from the internet.
	Everyone in the chat, let me know if the audio levels are good.
	I'm going to bring in Robert.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, your audio might be a little low.
	Let me bring that up.
	What about now?
	I was just leaning forward.
	Okay, now I'm going to do the dangerous thing, people.
	I'm cutting this live on YouTube.
	Everyone go over to Rumble.
	The link is in the description on YouTube.
	Fingers crossed.
	I'm going to...
	You are live on YouTube.
	Edit.
	I'm going to remove it from YouTube.
	A post was created on YouTube for this.
	Delete it.
	I don't want to delete on YouTube.
	I'm just going to remove.
	Fingers crossed, people.
	Remove.
	Save changes.
	And now let me just go to Rumble.
	I may not be able to see the comments as we do this, but let me just make sure that we're still live on Rumble.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Press play.
	Fingers crossed, people.
	Mic check one, two.
	Let me see.
	Save changes?
	There's a little bit of a lag.
	Now let me just go to Rumble.
	I may not be able to see the comments as we do this, but let me just make sure that we're still live on Rumble.
	I think based on this that we are.
	Hold on, hold on.
	And let's see if any comments come in.
	Mic check one, two.
	Okay, we have survived, people.
	We have survived.
	Okay, this is cool.
	I may not see any comments for this entire stream, which might, you know, allow me to...
	Dr. Christian, for those in the chat who may not know who you are, the elevator pitch, and then we're going back to childhood, and then we're going back to modern times as to what is going on with you and what you've gone through in the last two years.
	Elevator pitch before we dig deep into childhood.
	I'm a surgeon and a poet.
	The type of surgery I do is trauma surgery.
	I take trauma call.
	I do what other general surgeons do, surgery of cancer.
	I have an interest in head and neck, thyroid, that sort of thing.
	I'm a poet.
	I've been writing poetry for several years.
	A few months ago, my book of poems, this book, To a Nurse Friend Weeping, was released to the world by my publisher, which is Harps Press.
	And I can give you more details of that later on.
	So that is a short summary of me.
	I'm going to post a link to that poem right now as we speak.
	How many years have you been a surgeon for?
	More than 20 years.
	Could you put your hand to the camera so we can see how steady your hand movement is?
	There we go.
	How's that?
	Good enough.
	Good enough.
	So I guess, first question first, where are you from?
	And if I can ask, how old are you?
	I'm 60 years old, 6-0.
	I was born in India.
	I did medical school in the Christian Medical College in India.
	I did training in England, and I moved to Canada from England with a fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 1990s.
	I then did my fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada from Ottawa and then went into practice here.
	I've been in Saskatoon since 2007.
	Is the lesser-known Dr. Samuel Clemens from the United States right that cigars are actually very healthy for you?
	Okay.
	Look, I...
	I think the cigar is supposed to be not as bad for you as chain-smoking cigarettes, because most people using a cigar don't use as many cigarettes.
	So I think a cigar, for that reason, produces more of an intermittent dose of...
	I'm not aware of any evidence that shows that cigars are actually better for you.
	Pipes, on the other hand, are supposed to be much better, the pipe.
	And some studies, in fact, find that people who smoke the pipe actually live as long or sometimes longer than people who don't.
	And some people have I have said that that might be due to the fact that the pipe becomes a sort of a companion to the person.
	You know, the person comes, smokes the pipe, and the pipe is almost like a companion to the person.
	Ah, so it depends on your psychological relationship with this book.
	I guess so, yes.
	Dr. Christian, you're born in India.
	You lived in India up until being a young adult.
	Yes.
	Which part?
	South India, which is, that's where I'm from.
	But my father was in the Indian Navy.
	So he was a naval officer.
	He was a surgeon too.
	He was actually a cancer surgeon.
	Did some of the same surgeries that I do.
	He started the Malignant Diseases Treatment Center for the Armed Forces.
	He was also the principal medical officer on INS Indian Naval Ship Vikrant.
	During the 1971 Indo-Park conflict.
	And he spent time in England.
	And so, of course, that is part of my childhood, too.
	But the fact is, my origins are Indian.
	Now, how much of an adjustment was it going from India to England?
	Well, not much.
	Because, you know, the fact is, I spoke English.
	Dad and Mom spoke English at home.
	We always spoke English.
	And our background was very much similar to an English background.
	And because of Dad having been in England and worked in England as well, the issue here, of course, is...
	How much of modern British culture as opposed to the traditional British culture was I at home with?
	And I have to say that was a bit of an adjustment.
	So my boss, when he first wrote my report and he had to give a report on my English, he wrote Mr. Barville.
	And Nick, if you're listening to this, you might remember it.
	This was back in 1992.
	He wrote XYZ, you know, his surgery is XYZ.
	And then about his English, his English is better than mine, he wrote.
	So, you know, I didn't have any problems at all.
	So when you say that you spoke English, but I guess also native tongue would be?
	Well, I learned Hindi in school, so I can read and write Hindi.
	But I can also speak Tamil to a certain degree because Tamil Nadu is where my parents came from.
	But being a naval officer's son, I grew up in different places like Delhi, Bombay, Pune.
	And I actually didn't grow up in Tamil Nadu at all.
	And now, call it ignorance.
	I've never been to India, but I know Westerners have an impression of what life is like in India, what life was like 40-some odd years ago.
	What was that like?
	I guess if you're the son of a military officer, you're living in relatively affluent conditions.
	What was life like for that compared to...
	The surroundings.
	Was it what we see in the movies type thing?
	Yeah, I mean, there is a certain stereotyping of India in the literature, in the movies, and so on.
	And you have to remember, India was under the colonial yoke for 250, almost 300 years.
	And at the start of the British colonial power over India, India had about 27% of the world's GDP.
	By the time the British left, it was less than 2%.
	So the rape and pillage of the country was complete.
	And so India had to build from scratch.
	Within about 15 years or so, the combination of the so-called Green Revolution and the new and better seeds that the Indian scientists developed and the fact that the food distribution was pretty good.
	It meant that famines, which used to be a normal thing in British India, became unheard of.
	There was not a single famine, countrywide famine, after the 1970s.
	So that building from scratch was necessary.
	And so I see India as a country still in transition because, yes, the country is now, I think, The GDP of India is the fifth in the world, and it's actually gone beyond the UK's GDP now.
	And it's one of the fastest growing countries in the world.
	But it had to start from scratch.
	So when I was growing up, I did see a lot of poverty around me.
	And I would say that, you know, the sort of things that you saw with Mother Teresa, for example, that was a very big part of normal life in India.
	My father and my family would always remind us of the fact that there was food on the table when a lot of people were going hungry.
	Now, that's not the case anymore because the country has become vastly wealthier and the middle class has sort of become...
	I think it's something like 60% of the country is middle class now.
	But when I was growing up, there was definitely a lot of poverty around.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	The story you talk about your father, about remembering food.
	I remember when I was a kid and I was complaining about something when I was six years old.
	And my dad asked me three questions.
	He goes, is that food on the table?
	And I said...
	Yes.
	And he said, is that a roof over your head?
	And I said, yes.
	And he goes, are those clothes on your back?
	And I said, yes.
	And he said, then never complain again.
	And there was some wisdom in that.
	How much do you stay in touch with, do you have family and friends still in India?
	And how much do you stay in touch with them?
	Of course, I now have relatives, families, and friends all over the world.
	But my wife has family still in India.
	And we do stay in touch.
	My wife's family is on...
	You know, WhatsApp is very common in India.
	They say if you don't have WhatsApp in India, you just can't do business.
	So although I wasn't a very WhatsApp guy, I had to become a WhatsApp guy in order to get into those family groups.
	So it's a delightful thing, really.
	How did you meet your wife?
	My wife is a nurse.
	And I met her when I was a medical student, and she was a nursing student.
	And we started dating at that time, and we've never looked back.
	That's fantastic.
	So, professionally speaking, you're trained in India.
	I presume you practice a bit in India before moving to...
	Very little, yes.
	Okay.
	And then you moved to Britain.
	Yes.
	A silly technical question.
	Is there any sort of accreditation process you have to go through?
	I was chosen as a...
	There's a selection process there was at the time, so the scheme has since been discontinued.
	It was called the Overseas Doctors' Training Scheme, and I was selected as part of that.
	And so I basically went there with all my credentials.
	I had surgical training in India, too.
	And so I went into what is called a registrar's position in England.
	You know, it's fascinating.
	Like, if I went back at times, besides the fact I can't handle needles, I would be very tempted to be a doctor rather than a lawyer, primarily because you can go anywhere in the world.
	As a lawyer, you're kind of limited by jurisdiction and location geographically.
	My sister Brenda, who did very well in law school, almost went back to medical school for that reason, and then frustration with the law as well.
	How easy was the transition professionally from India to the UK to Canada?
	Well, it's funny you say that about the law profession, but actually the same thing applies to medicine too.
	I mean, when I had to move from, say, Alberta to Saskatchewan, I mean, it is a fairly smooth process, but it took a week.
	I had to submit all my certificates again, all my credentials again.
	I mean, it's the same people, the same diseases.
	It's not like appendicitis is a little different in Alberta from Saskatchewan.
	So there's a lot of bureaucracy, and I think that is part of the problem with our licensing bodies, and I'm sure...
	David will have something to ask me about that later.
	I can tell you something.
	Robert's going to have something to say about how he feels about licensing bodies.
	Sorry, but go on, please.
	Sorry.
	I was just saying that the licensing system for medicine, as you say, should be...
	Should be actually completely, you know, seamless, simple, without any problems, switching from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and certainly from province to province or state to state in the U.S., but it's not.
	Every state, every province has its own licensing bodies.
	So each province's licensing body, in other words, can display its own brand of tyranny, which is what is happening now, right?
	So that bureaucracy is partly why we are in this place as we are.
	In England, the transition to surgery wasn't really difficult at all because I was in a very good modern hospital working in India and I just transitioned.
	Actually, some of the things that were available in my hospital in India were not available in the hospitals in England.
	And that's partly because of a socialized medical system similar to the one we have in Canada.
	The National Health Service is always scrambling for pounds, just as we are scrambling for dollars.
	So many of the things which countries take for granted are not available to people in socialized systems.
	Funny thing, when you say medicine, we sort of presume is a universal constant, or it should be because it's science.
	The law stuff, I can understand one province to another, civil versus common law.
	You have different laws in different provinces, but in theory, science and the human body should be the same across province.
	And we're going to get into this in terms of the provincial variants of COVID responses.
	But just so nobody out there second guesses your credentials whatsoever.
	You have been a physical surgeon.
	You've done it for 20 plus years.
	More than 20 years, yes.
	India, Britain, and then in Canada.
	Yes.
	Not to blow your own horn, but I know you have had an illustrious career.
	In Canada, were there any awards or things that you could mention so that people will never doubt your credentials ever again if they ever did?
	There's a fellowship.
	It's like an exit exam after training.
	And there's a British version of it.
	And the British version basically is given by colleges that started in the 15th and 16th centuries.
	And one of the oldest surgical colleges in the world is the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
	And I have a fellowship from the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
	And then the similar exit exam after training in Canada is called the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada.
	So the first one is called FRCS Edinburgh, and the second one is called FRCSC, C for Canada.
	And I have a Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada too.
	In Saskatoon here, I was clinical professor of surgery.
	I also started the quality and patient safety department here.
	Now, quality and patient safety, quality improvement and patient safety is very fundamental to the practice of surgery.
	We must always do better.
	We must always try and get better results.
	And so I started that department for our department of surgery here.
	I was director for quality improvement patient safety.
	I introduced a program to our university hospital here, which is now being used province-wide.
	It's called the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, NISQIP, which is based in Chicago and is administered by the American College of Surgeons.
	So I was intimately involved with statistics, data analysis, data presentation.
	Those things are very familiar to me.
	I got together with the computer guys in our university here, and we developed an app.
	It's called the Mobility and Mortality App.
	It's an app for iPhone and Android.
	It's essentially a quality improvement app, and it's being used throughout Saskatchewan now, throughout our province.
	I was director of the Surgical Humanities Program.
	I co-founded that program in 2015.
	And the reason for that is we found medical students, residents coming to do their training, often accomplished musicians, accomplished poets, accomplished in essay writing.
	Maybe they're not published poetry yet, but they've been writing poetry for a long time.
	Some of them were consummate violinists, for example.
	And then they get into the grind of training.
	They lose their idealism.
	They become bitter.
	They look at what the system is.
	They lose touch with the humanities.
	And I started the department to re-engage medical students and residents with the humanities.
	So we had a surgical humanities day where there was an exhibition of art.
	Where medical students, residents could paint and bring their own work or do craft, nurses too.
	We invited for grand rounds people like Jan Martel, who lives in Saskatoon, to give a talk.
	We invited native elders to tell us their residential school experiences, for example.
	We looked at...
	At re-engaging, and that was the key, not just teaching people about the humanities, but actually engaging with them.
	We had an orchestra composed of residents and medical students, and we had a fine night of music and things like that, or readings in the surgical humanities as well.
	As a surgeon, my interest was in trauma, in cancer surgery, and in head and neck and thyroid surgery, things like that.
	And in my career, yes, I've done thousands and thousands of operations.
	I was curious, like my experience with a lot of people of an Indian background has been a tendency, you sometimes see it reflected in the UK, but I found it more highlighted in the Indian cultural background, is...
	Or Indian ancestry is a tendency towards humility.
	In other words, a propensity not to bragging is kind of bad.
	And telling people your long litany, for example, that it's not natural to go in, okay, I got this, I did this, I did this, I did this.
	Am I accurate about that or is that just my idiosyncratic experience?
	And correlated to that, the other aspect that's been interesting is around the globe, including what we've seen in India, including what we've seen...
	By people of Indian ancestry from Germany to California to Canada is a disproportionate tendency of those in the scientific world to step up and speak out compared to other groups.
	Is that also part of the culture at some level?
	I kind of imagine it's like a Gandhi effect, but I have no idea if that's just my idiosyncratic interpretation or there's some validity to that.
	Well, the first question is, is it a...
	A normal trait for people from India, specifically, to be humble.
	And since that's a good quality, I'm going to say yes.
	I have no idea, though.
	It's good to be humble.
	It's good to downplay what you've done rather than talk from the rooftop, so to speak.
	As to your second point, Yeah, you know, Jay Bhattacharya is this guy from Stanford, and he's of Indian origin too, like me.
	And, well, he's from, Bhattacharya is a name from Bengal, which is the northeast part of India.
	And my family is from the south, although I grew up throughout India.
	So, if the question is, do we have an urge to speak out about truth?
	More than other people?
	I don't think so, no.
	I mean, I find, you know, for example, you both and people from all races and backgrounds are speaking up and speaking out.
	Too few of us, though.
	This is one of the shameful things in this era.
	I've never been more ashamed of my profession than now.
	And it's going to be several decades before we regain the public's trust.
	This is a very shameful time for medicine generally.
	But I don't think that we have more of a tendency to speak out.
	Gandhi, of course, did the same kind of civil disobedience which is happening now.
	I mean, one of the things Gandhi said very clearly is that for civil disobedience to be effective, it has to be disruptive.
	It actually has to be something that the other side notices and cannot help noticing and cannot help reacting to.
	Now, for example, you know, in Toronto, we have something called Dunder Street and people regularly march down there.
	And last summer, I think there was something like 200,000 people who marched down Dunder Street on a weekend.
	There are crowds like 500,000 people.
	Coming together in Paris and marching and so on on a weekend, that's not going to do anything because it's being ignored by the mainstream media.
	I mean, I think it helps, but I don't think it disrupts the system.
	Whereas what is happening now is disruptive, peaceful, legal, and disruptive.
	And that is why I think the Gandhian mode of civil disobedience, it has to be targeted civil disobedience.
	Now, for example, Gandhi.
	He noticed that the Indian weaver, the guy who used to weave these things, was out of work and they were living in poverty and starvation for generations.
	And the Indian muslin, the muslin is this very fine cloth that the Indian weaver used to weave, mainly from that area which J. Bhattacharya comes from, Bengal.
	The muslin was supposed to be so fine that you could draw it through a ring.
	And of course, the world preferred that kind of fine muslin.
	But when the British came, they wanted to replace that fine muslin with cheap goods manufactured in Birmingham and Manchester.
	And so what did they do?
	They actually cut off the little fingers of the muslin weavers and that completely destroyed.
	So they couldn't actually do the...
	The hand loom weaving.
	And that destroyed the Indian industry and replaced it with the British goods.
	So what then did Gandhi do?
	He decided that he will make a bonfire of goods made in Britain.
	And thousands of bonfires were lit across India.
	And Indians started wearing Gandhian clothes, hand loom clothes.
	And that's why you see Gandhi with a wheel sometimes.
	So, you know, those fires were seen around the world just as our trucks are being seen around the world.
	And so it was disruptive.
	One telegram from Gandhi in the days before the Internet, and people would stream out of their offices, paralyzing the British Civil Service and out of their factories, paralyzing industry, just like the bridges that are being blocked now.
	That is paralyzing industry.
	It has to be made disruptive, peaceful, legal.
	Disruptive.
	You're on mute, Viva.
	If you didn't hear that part, I just said I'm an idiot because I'm an idiot.
	This is where the distinction between disruptive, aka summer of love in Chaz and Chop in Portland versus disruptive, blocking bridges and honking horns.
	There's criminal disruption or criminal level disruptions and then there's peaceful, maybe statutory.
	Level disruption.
	And that's what we're seeing going on now.
	But without getting too ahead of ourselves, because we're going to get here, tell us how you got into this.
	You've had an unblemished, impeccable career.
	COVID hits.
	And now you are public enemy number one.
	And I'm not overstating that.
	You'll get into how you've been besmirched, defamed, blacklisted, unpersoned.
	Explain what happened.
	You have an illustrious career.
	You have a very comfortable life.
	You're living large, as we say.
	And COVID hits.
	And how do you find yourself getting pulled into where you are now and making the decisions you've made to be where you are now?
	Yeah.
	So when the pandemic started, it started probably in 2019.
	But in Canada and most Western countries, it was March of 2020.
	That the big lockdowns and everything started.
	At that time, I actually thought to myself, let's give the government a little bit of rope and let's see what they come up with because this is a new virus.
	They say that it's never been seen before.
	And let's see what happens because, you know, maybe we need to know a little bit more.
	So, I then...
	I looked at the lockdown, which is supposed to be two weeks and then three weeks, and I didn't like the way that it was being implemented.
	But come April, I saw certain disturbing things emerging.
	There was censorship going on in the mainstream media.
	And censorship of not just anybody, but of people I had been reading about and whose works I had read, medical people, even before the pandemic.
	So I'll give you an example.
	A fellow called Paul Marrick.
	He's an ICU guy with an amazing ICU physician record.
	He's the second most published ICU physician in the world.
	And I had read Marrick's work even before COVID, especially his work on sepsis.
	So Paul Marrick was being censored.
	What he was saying was being called disinformation and misinformation.
	What was he saying that Merrick got censored?
	Paul Merrick at that time was talking about steroids and so was Corey, Pierre Corey.
	So the usual use of massive amounts of steroids in inadequate amounts is something that that group, Paul Merrick and Pierre Corey, pioneered.
	And then, of course, shortly after that early treatment with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and all the other drugs.
	So all this information was being censored.
	And the censoring was so dystopian that I started recognizing patterns.
	And the patterns I started recognizing were related to communism and the Soviet Union.
	I had been a student of Soviet history because of the way...
	The Soviet regime had blocked, you know, Bibles from getting in and were persecuting people who went to mosques or churches and other religious institutions.
	And so I decided to study the methods of the Soviet tyranny.
	And since a teenager, I've been doing that.
	And then I started hearing these terms, misinformation.
	Disinformation.
	These were terms that the Soviet tyranny employed very, very commonly.
	If they didn't agree with what you were doing or saying, they would call it disinformation.
	And then you would be whisked off by secret police.
	And I thought to myself, where had I seen that before?
	And that was the Soviet Union.
	And then I started looking at the evidence.
	And the evidence, the data, which I'm actually trained to look at data in my role as quality improvement director.
	I was looking at data every day, and arguably my grasp of the data is much better than most other physicians.
	So I started looking at the data, and none of the data made any sense compared to the official narrative, right from mortality of the illness.
	To the age groups it was affecting.
	For example, the mainstream media was saying that it was a bad disease for everybody, but it wasn't.
	If you're young, if you're healthy, if you're actually less than 65 and healthy and not obese, your risk of dying of COVID was vanishingly small, even with the most virulent alpha strain.
	Now, it was a very different thing for the elderly, and there was more than a thousand-fold difference between mortality in the elderly group.
	And mortality in the younger group, where actually in those less than 18, the mortality is and was almost zero.
	It was statistically zero.
	I can't hear you, David.
	I apologize.
	I'm an idiot.
	If I can stop you there, because you're saying these stats, you have access to types of statistics which were not known to the public.
	Were these known to the public?
	Because I remember people saying this at the time and saying, well...
	I don't see that.
	And they're saying X, Y, and Z. How do we know that it's a thousand times more likely?
	Because for several reasons.
	One is, you know, the mainstream narrative was what people were listening to.
	And the narrative of the mainstream was fear.
	And in order to drive a fear narrative, you have to lie with statistics.
	And that was what was going on.
	If you have a population cowering, With fear, it's easy to control that population.
	The communists knew that.
	The Nazi regime knew that.
	And all tyrannies have known that in order to control a population, the first step is to make them really fearful.
	And that's what they did.
	So this data was actually accessible.
	And that's why very early in this whole pandemic, we talked about Jay Bhattacharya, his group, with Sunitra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kuldoff of Harvard.
	They came up with what is called the Great Barrington Declaration, which would have saved us, saved economies, saved societies, saved our people from a lot of suffering.
	It showed that you don't need lockdowns.
	You need focused protection of the elderly.
	You need recognition of natural immunity.
	Lockdown, by the way, is a prison term.
	It has no previous use in public health.
	Nobody had heard of this thing called lockdown.
	You lock down prisons.
	You don't lock down healthy people.
	So when I started questioning the population, I started also discussing this with my colleagues in the hospital.
	Many ICU physicians also work as anesthesiologists, so that's one group I would talk to.
	They would come and give anesthesia for my patients and residents, medical students.
	Some of them would be receptive, but not really.
	You know, they wouldn't be interested in actually examining the data.
	They would say, oh, very interesting.
	Some of them, and I got to say the majority of my colleagues, a sort of a glaze would go over them.
	And they would just switch off.
	And then you start talking about where did you go to your next holiday?
	And they will suddenly come back to life.
	You know, it was really surreal.
	And so that was what I was doing within the system.
	And then the system, which I now call the COVID criminal enterprise, started going after the kids who don't need the vaccine.
	The vaccine is neither safe nor effective.
	It's a leaky, unsafe, ineffective vaccine.
	And that's when I decided that if I didn't speak up and speak out, I couldn't live with my conscience.
	Now, what was the response of the system to you deciding to speak at?
	Yeah, so our province, which is Saskatchewan, which is a province in Canada, had approved the injection with the mRNA injection.
	At that time, Pfizer.
	Moderna, by the way, is also an mRNA-type vaccine.
	It had approved it for 12 to 17-year-olds, okay?
	The type of injection was, in fact, a novel injection or a new injection, an injection of a substance that had never been used in humans clinically ever before in history.
	And so whenever you introduce a new treatment or any intervention at all, There's a process called informed consent.
	Informed consent is simple and beautiful.
	What it means that before you give any injection, any treatment, any medical intervention, you explain to the patient, you give them information for informed consent.
	You tell them the risks of the intervention.
	You tell them the benefits of the intervention and if any alternatives exist.
	That wasn't being done at all in the province.
	So I had a press conference where I asked for informed consent in the injection of mRNA vaccine to our kids.
	I told you I made this decision because I...
	Thought if I didn't speak up, speak out, and become public, I could never live with my conscience again.
	And Adas can make their own decisions.
	I mean, they may be stupid decisions, and you can tell them, hey, this vaccine, you're 25 years old, you're a strong athlete, and there's almost zero chance of you dying of COVID.
	But if they want to go ahead and get it anyway, you can't stop them.
	But children don't have a voice of their own, and we have to be their voice.
	I had a press conference, and because it was just me and another physician in that press conference, nobody else, because I didn't want any conspiracy theories or anything in that press conference.
	I just wanted the science and informed consent.
	Global News and CTV did come to that conference, and they had ran very negative stories.
	Global was a little better, but the post-media papers...
	We ran very negative stories on the news conference.
	And then subsequently, a week later, at what I call a tribunal composed of the dean of the medical school, the chief medical officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and the acting chief of surgery, the tribunal then fired me from my directorships and suspended my My professorship in surgery.
	They also made it impossible for me to work in an academic center because they said something to the effect, they said to the effect, and they wrote, they made it very clear in writing that I should not interact with medical students and residents because ostensibly I was very unsafe because I asked for I mean, what I was saying was unsafe for them because I was asking for informed consent.
	And I was actually asking for informed consent based on time-honored principles, principles that have been time-honored for generations.
	I mean, is it fair to say that informed consent is the foundation of modern medical ethics in the world?
	Absolutely.
	So if you look at the progress of, I mean, informed consent, by the way, goes back to the beginning of medicine.
	But the lack of informed consent was seen in the death camps, right?
	Where experiments were carried out against their will, without informed consent.
	On Jewish people, on, you know, gypsies, gays, Slavs.
	And subsequent to that, there was the Nuremberg Code.
	Now, the Nuremberg Code wouldn't have come into existence had not the atrocities committed in the death camps come to light.
	And unfortunately, and, you know, this is something that people don't know.
	More than 50% of German physicians were members of the Nazi Party, not just sympathizers.
	They were actual members of the Nazi Party.
	And the fact is, the attraction of power is very seductive.
	And physicians are no different from any other human beings.
	But physicians ought to know the history that unless you zealously and prayerfully guard your conscience, you can be taken over by Big Pharma in this case, by what I call the capitalistic tyranny.
	And so informed consent, the Nuremberg Code is one particular document to emerge from the horrors of the Second World War.
	But there were other codes as well.
	And there are many human rights and medical ethics codes which enshrine informed consent as a bedrock of modern medicine.
	Absolutely.
	And I had a funny thought in my head.
	As lawyers, we always said, like, doctors are no different.
	And when I had real estate tenants, I said, never lease to a doctor or a lawyer because they're the toughest people, precisely for those type A personality reasons.
	But, Doctor, just to back it up a little bit, just to get into the timeline, the interview or the press conference with the Global is what date?
	I can't remember the exact day.
	I think it was one week before the 23rd.
	Of what year?
	2021?
	Of 2021.
	Okay.
	So just backing it up through 2020, you say, you know, I'm starting to see the data.
	I don't like what I'm seeing.
	What you're seeing is in your analysis.
	Certain groups are at higher risk, others are at no risk whatsoever, but we're having a blanket, one method fits all, lockdowns, face masks, social distancing.
	Just to get your opinion on each one of those steps, the lockdowns, the social distancing, the face masks, before we even get to the vaccines, how are you feeling about these things and when do you become vocal for the first time?
	Let's take lockdown first.
	Now, I think I pointed out to your viewers, even on the streets of Ottawa when I came on your show, that lockdown actually was a prison term, is a prison term.
	It came from the prisons.
	You lock down a prison.
	You don't lock down healthy populations.
	It's a type of control that the global predators, you know, big pharma, etc.
	Sought to have over the population.
	Now, you have to remember that big business has actually done really well in this pandemic.
	You know, the Amazons, the Bezos of the world, the Costcos, all these big guys have done extraordinarily well.
	But it's the small businesses that have been devastated by these lockdowns.
	The small, you know, mom-and-pop restaurants, the people who work hard to build a business all their lives.
	And, you know, I was driving down the TransCanada across Ontario and Lake Superior and it was like a war zone.
	I would see a sort of a sign, Bob's Burgers, 20 miles ahead, and then you come to this area and it'll be overgrown and closed for several months.
	Millions of small businesses have gone out of business.
	And of course, the Amazons of the world and these mega corporations have become fabulously rich.
	Now, my son, who's an economist, pointed out back in April of 2020 that the objective of the lockdown is essentially one of the big economic objectives is to get the small businesses out and consolidate all wealth.
	To these global predators, essentially.
	So I think lockdowns have been devastating for the population.
	It's increased loneliness.
	Suicides have skyrocketed because lockdowns, again, means social isolation.
	Lockdowns also serve a good political purpose.
	It means people are stopped from aggregating, demonstrating, planning.
	And, you know, doing things like the Magnificent Truckers for Freedom convoy.
	So if you lock people down, Justin Trudeau knows that people will not congregate and cannot congregate.
	So for all kinds of reasons, lockdowns, in fact, there was a huge study released just two weeks ago that lockdowns have actually been completely useless in this pandemic.
	It was, you know, accumulative, aggregated.
	A study from various jurisdictions that showed that it's completely useless in COVID, but had several spinoff harms.
	You know, small businesses closing, suicide, loneliness.
	Overdoses.
	Overdoses, yes.
	All that has skyrocketed.
	So what is the second thing you say?
	Mass, right?
	Well, I guess actually one caveat to that, or one sub-question.
	Like, when do you, as a doctor, say lockdowns don't make sense?
	Well, you know, as a physician, lockdowns not making sense is something I think we have to, it's a duty to speak out about.
	So I very early signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, which was, by the way, called misinformation and disinformation by the media.
	This was a Harvard guy.
	Martin Kulldorff, by the way, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, he is such a well-known epidemiologist that his software is used in the field by epidemiologists all over the world.
	So this Harvard epidemiologist, this Stanford guy, the Oxford mathematician and modeler and epidemiologist were dismissed as misinformation and disinformation.
	I signed on very early to that.
	I mean, because obviously we can't keep quiet about these things.
	These are harms to society.
	And physicians cannot countenance harm without speaking out.
	Absolutely.
	How much did you witness one of the concerns that was raised earlier with the medical community was the way these lockdowns were working and the way the hospitals were being treated is cancer screenings were dramatically declined.
	People were not getting their analysis that they needed to.
	And often, you know, I had a sister that dealt with cancer.
	And if she had not got that diagnosis early, be lucky for her, it happened before the pandemic.
	She might not be with us today.
	So how much did you start witnessing that as a particularly pernicious outcome of these public health interventions?
	So to answer that question, you have to look at, first, the American system is a little different because the American health system is a private system.
	The system basically responds to need and can do so in innovative ways.
	We have a system that cannot respond nimbly and flexibly to needs in the way the American system can respond.
	Now, in Canada, there were years of chronic underfunding of care.
	So if you look, Canadians say that they have this impression, not every Canadian, that lie is being sort of open and...
	being displayed more and more as we go on this pandemic.
	But Canadians think that our health system is very good.
	But if you look at the OECD rankings of advanced industrialized nations around We're usually near the bottom of things like physicians per population, waiting lists, and so on.
	Was straining even before COVID.
	And so when the pandemic hit, and with all the lockdowns, and with the inaccessibility to care, of course, there was misdiagnosis, delayed treatments, not just in cancer, but things like heart disease.
	People were, let's say they had angina and needed some sort of a heart operation or an angioplasty, which is opening up the...
	The arteries that supply the heart with a procedure.
	All these things suffered.
	And of course, how do you know that that happened?
	You have to look at something called excess mortality.
	So, not COVID mortality, but excess mortality above COVID mortality.
	So, if you look at nations which have had excess mortality, the graphs diverge.
	So, you'll have COVID here.
	Yes, it caused some excess deaths.
	But if you look at excess mortality, it departs from the COVID line.
	So in other words, excess mortality was not just COVID.
	It was much more because of all these other things, you know, loneliness, suicides, you know, domestic abuse, all those things.
	You know, women for whom going to work was like, you know, it was like a liberation, right?
	I mean, they were...
	Sort of locked together with abusive partners and so on.
	So all these terrible things of lockdown, including delayed cancer treatment, delayed cardiac treatment, it has had an effect on mortality.
	Absolutely.
	Dr. Christian, this is the nut of that to crack.
	Excess mortality, people were saying that they were attributing a lot of deaths falsely to COVID.
	And so even in the excess mortality, they got away with saying, the excess mortality, look, there was the one example of the guy who died on a motorcycle accident and was attributed to COVID.
	But on the less extreme absurdity examples, when you are attributing, when you're fudging the numbers or at the very least exploiting of the everyone's got COVID to attribute those deaths, when did you see and what is the evidence to suggest that excess mortality...
	Was actually not COVID-related versus COVID-related, as they initially said back in 2020.
	And for context, can you tell the audience how strict our causation used to be in medicine, in public health, and how radically our new definitions with COVID deviated from that?
	And those new definitions were also serving the whole idea that you have to make the population very fearful.
	Okay, so the media have now become arms of government, right?
	So that is a definition of a fascist state where there's one party rule and where media becomes arms of government.
	So to answer your question, David, the question really is, did a patient who they say died of COVID really die because of COVID or died?
	With COVID, but actually died of something else, like a stroke, admitted to the ICU with stroke, heart attack, renal failure from different causes, and then somebody does a test, like a PCR test, and that comes back positive, and then they say that is the cause of death.
	So, interestingly, now, various provinces and the CDC itself is talking about Dying of, because of, versus dying with as an incidental thing.
	They're talking about it themselves.
	But back in, you know, last year, I actually gave a TV interview which my dean thought was subversive.
	And I talked about this.
	And I talked about how dying with COVID is very different from dying because of COVID.
	And, you know, you talked about this guy who died of a motorbike accident in the UK.
	And then, you know, essentially somebody stuck something up his nose and said he's died of COVID.
	So there's an even more dramatic meme that I saw, and that is this guy jumping out of an airplane.
	And then he says, hey, I jumped out of my airplane without a parachute and died of COVID.
	So, you know, it's been absurd, the type of statistics we have been fed.
	Yes, Robert, the fact is, in medicine, typically, before you ascribe causation, you have to do a proper analysis.
	And I really think that we will never get to the real truth unless there's a third party that actually examines the raw data.
	And that will come with a commission of inquiry, where they have their own...
	When they have their own data investigators that look at the raw data and then tell us, the public, whose money actually is feeding all these public health officials, they're actually our public servants.
	I mean, we don't work for them.
	And so they should have all that data out in the public.
	The raw data should be examined by a third-party commission.
	Appoint, you know, non-biased investigators, and then we will get to the real truth.
	By the way, I was going to say one thing, Robert.
	We are officially, if I may refresh, just to make sure, on Rumble only, nearly at 15,000 live viewers right now, which is monumental.
	And, Robert, I was going to say, you can actually light that cigar up this time because we're not having it anymore.
	Sorry, but, Robert, that was my joke.
	That was the comic relief.
	Now back to the question, Robert.
	Well, I'm pretty sure I have a healthy psychological relationship with it.
	George Burns claimed it helped him live to 100, so I'll stick with that for now.
	Were you surprised at all, or how much were you surprised, or not surprised, at the retaliation?
	You just go out to raise the basic questions.
	There are a lot of people.
	I mean, the UK, even the public health authorities in the UK, had some doubts initially about under 18. I represent a whistleblower, Brooke Jackson, who participated in basically Pfizer's clinical testing and saw extraordinary deviation from scientific norm, reported it, and then they retaliated against her for it.
	But what got her to go public about a lot of this was when she saw they were going to do this to kids.
	I mean, now in the United States, they're talking about doing it to six-month-olds.
	But how much were you shocked or surprised or disappointed in how the people with medical licensure power and professor employment power took retaliatory action just for speaking your mind?
	Let me just start off by saying that the injection of our kids Injection, which is neither safe nor effective and which they don't need, is a gigantic tragedy that's unfolding before our eyes.
	And the fact is, you know, humanity must rise up together against this, against this obscene action by governments and big pharma working together.
	To essentially give children a vaccine or an injection they don't need, which is neither safe nor effective.
	So with that, I'll address your question about the reaction of these authorities.
	So when I was fired, the recording of my firing actually was put out together with a news release by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	So, for those of you who are not in Canada and are watching, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is actually a very unique organization.
	It's composed of lawyers, and the lawyers actually, like you, Robert, believe in the things you believe in, freedom, liberty, conscience rights, you know, charter rights, and these eternal values, these things that go beyond.
	A particular law case or a lawsuit, but serve a much higher purpose.
	And all the lawyers are in that category.
	Many of them have left lucrative law practices to become part of the JCCF.
	Your viewers can find JCCF by going to the internet, jccf.ca.
	It's an amazing organization.
	And they do all their work pro bono.
	And because they believe in the things they are fighting for.
	So that organization put out a news release the day I was fired.
	And in that news release, there was a link to a recording of my firing.
	Now, many people who have listened to that recording have asked me, you know, Dr. Kristen, were you really shocked by this?
	And I had to tell them that, you know, it was very disturbing.
	But it was not shocking because I had actually, Read transcripts like that from the Soviet attack on the academy and the Nazi attack on the academy from decades ago.
	Well, you see, the Soviets and the Nazis knew they had to go after the academy because they had to go after the ideas.
	If you can capture the ideas early, then you can control the narrative.
	And, you know, if you listen to that recording...
	The things like they said there, things like, you know, Dr. Christian, you're a very intelligent man, but you're using your intelligence in the wrong way.
	You're associating with the wrong people.
	This is literally what they said.
	And this is literally in the transcripts of, you know, those Nazi and the Soviet tribunals.
	And I got to tell you, the powers that be here thought that...
	The negative press coverage and the sort of deplatforming smearing that happened with the mainstream media would be all that they would see of it.
	But the JCCF news release and the recording went around the world.
	And I started getting messages of support from, you know, Canada, of course, from U.S., from Holland, from Australia, from Germany and U.K. and literally all over the world, South Africa.
	And so, you know, I have to say that the kind of work that we are doing here is a very important part of the revolution.
	We are the alternate media, the Samizdat, which the Russians used to call it the Samizdat.
	And we are resisting the tyranny effectively.
	Dr. Christian, so I know people are going to ask this particular question, and if anyone's watching this who's not ideologically aligned, this is what they're going to ask.
	You say the vaccine is neither safe, or not neither, not safe or effective, and they didn't need it.
	Now, the didn't need part, I don't think anybody can disagree with.
	Statistically, children under 18 are at virtually zero risk of any serious side effect.
	The effective, I think we can all now agree that the kids can still carry, transmit, and get infected with the virus.
	The argument's going to be that any symptoms they might have otherwise gotten will be...
	More subdued because of the vaccine, but they were at 0.0000 risk to begin with.
	Safe.
	I know the stats.
	I know what I've read.
	Explain to people out there who may not know what allows you to say that the vaccine is not safe for children.
	What are the metrics?
	What's the criteria?
	And why do you come to that conclusion?
	To start off with, as you said, David, kids have a 10 times more increased risk of dying of a car accident than dying of COVID.
	So if you're going to give an intervention, you know, this is a fundamental thing in medicine.
	Any treatment intervention, there must be a need for it.
	Just because you can do it, it doesn't mean you should do it.
	Now, for example, to give you a very dramatic example as a surgeon.
	Just because I can take out somebody's stomach, I can do a gastrectomy, in other words.
	It doesn't mean I should do it if they don't need it.
	I mean, this is extreme, I know, but it's the same idea.
	I mean, if there's a tumor in the stomach, I've done several gastrectomies.
	I've done that operation when it's needed.
	But if it's not needed, taking out a stomach is, I would say, criminal.
	So this is a condition.
	A virus, an infection, which the mortality in Canada, when I checked last, was something like 0.003%.
	So it's less than the annual mortality of the annual flu.
	So they don't need it.
	Now, like you pointed out, the data is showing very clearly that both in adults and in children, vaccines do not stop infection and do not stop transmission.
	What is the idea of this vaccine apartheid, the medical apartheid, otherwise called the vaccine certificate?
	It is essentially a display of power from the tyranny.
	They want to tell us that, you know, we know that you don't need it, but you still must have it.
	This is what Justin Trudeau is telling the truckers and Canadians.
	We know that the vaccine cannot stop transmission.
	We know that it cannot stop infection.
	I know that, but I still want you to have that certificate.
	I still want to have that mandate.
	It's a display of arrogance, common in tyrannies, common in fascism.
	Mussolini often spoke like that, actually.
	So to go to the question of harm.
	So if you look at Pfizer's own data, six-month data, which was made...
	And Robert will know this because he's representing a client.
	If you look at the six-month data, Pfizer itself admits that the vaccine will send many kids into the ICU, many more kids than otherwise, than if they didn't get the vaccine, to the ICU with myocarditis than if they didn't get the vaccine.
	Pfizer's own data says that.
	You know, the mainstream media was schooled by the corrupt government and big pharma to introduce another term which is actually quite ridiculous for physicians.
	It's called mild myocarditis.
	There's no such thing as a mild myocarditis.
	You know, it's like saying something like a mild brain tumor.
	These are new terms which we have never heard before.
	We know that myocarditis is always a serious condition.
	The other condition that is caused by this mRNA injection is called pericarditis.
	That's also a problem.
	Sir, what's the difference between myocarditis and pericarditis?
	The heart is a muscle.
	And you might have heard the term, the heart is a pump.
	By the way, my father once heard, Christian Bernard, The guy who did the first heart transplant, he gave a talk, and he was saying that the heart is a pump, but don't go and tell your girlfriend, you know, I love you with all my pump.
	But anyway, the heart is a pump, and the reason it's a pump is because it's a muscle.
	So because it's a muscle, The heart is composed of muscle cells.
	When those muscle cells get inflamed, we call it myocarditis.
	So the inflammation of the muscle of the heart is myocarditis.
	Covering the heart is quite a tough membrane.
	It's called the pericardium.
	It's there to protect the heart, to make the heart go smooth as it goes and so on.
	When the covering of the heart is affected, it's called pericarditis.
	mRNA injections cause both.
	And, you know, Senator Ron Johnson, that's his name, right, Robert?
	Yeah.
	He had a hearing not so long ago for victims of mRNA injections.
	And there were two cases there.
	One was what we call transverse myelitis, where this girl, Maddie DeGray, she's, I believe, 13 years old.
	She wasn't...
	Pfizer's own trial, by the way.
	And her paralysis below the waist, the fact that she's being fed by a nasal tube, the fact that she was completely healthy before that, before this mRNA injection, was completely ignored and is still being completely ignored by the mainstream media.
	Then you had this case of Ernest Ramirez, again in the Ron Johnson inquiry.
	His only son, they were really close.
	And he died of myocarditis, and that was verified, I believe, by autopsy.
	So I'm just saying this because these are human stories.
	I mean, it's not just a statistic.
	The injection actually has killed people and is killing people.
	Now, if you look at mild myocarditis, as the media like to say, what is the long-term mortality of myocarditis in general?
	So there was a very good six-and-a-half-year longitudinal finish study that showed at 6.5 years, myocarditis has a 20% mortality.
	One in five kids or adults with myocarditis will be dead.
	Was there any divergence in that statistic among the young versus the old, or was that flat across myocarditis?
	That was flat across.
	But remember, When we say myocarditis, as a statistics go, we're talking only of those kids who present to hospital with myocarditis.
	Now, I'll give you an example.
	I had an acquaintance, a friend who's actually a young fellow who's an engineer.
	And he lives in Victoria, which is on the island, and he had a job as an engineer in Vancouver.
	His job was remote.
	And in this tyranny, even if you're remote, you still have to be vaccinated.
	So, you know, I don't know what they think, but maybe they'll get a computer virus or something.
	Who knows?
	But this guy had, he was 27 years old, completely fit, used to run five miles a day.
	He had this injection and he got chest pain.
	He didn't go to hospital, though.
	He knew what he was having, and he was actually scared to go to hospital because of all the problems in hospitals, and he stayed at home.
	Now, he stayed at home, and over two or three weeks' time, the pain became less, and he was still breathless, and he still can't run more than about 200 yards.
	But this is an example of a case that doesn't go to hospital.
	There are lots of cases like this.
	If you look at the latest, you know, football, FIFA thing...
	Close to 100 top athletes.
	These are guys who are in top condition.
	They've died unexpectedly.
	I was listening to one ex-British football player.
	He said, during my entire career, I don't remember one guy who just clutched his chest like that and fell dead.
	And now we have several dozen like that.
	So the vaccine is causing harm, and it's unconscionable that it's being injected to our children who don't need it, and for whom it's not safe, it's not effective, it doesn't protect them, they don't need it, and it doesn't protect anybody else.
	It doesn't protect the teachers either.
	Just one quick question.
	Pericarditis, is that to say that if the sheath around the heart, if you can call it that, if that gets inflamed, it constricts the otherwise normal palpitation of the heart?
	Is that the problem with it?
	That could be a problem because when there's inflammation, when that inflammation heals, there is scarring.
	So that scarring can cause contraction, and then that can then limit the beating of the heart, and that can then require an operation.
	Actually, a famous evangelist who I don't agree with.
	He was encouraging everybody to get vaccinated.
	I'm not going to say who he is, but he got vaccinated, and then six months later, he was in the Mayo Clinic having an open-heart surgery for, not open-heart surgery, an operation for constrictive pericarditis, the sort of thing that you were talking about.
	And I think two other things that you've correctly highlighted is the mRNA nature of the predominant vaccines and children.
	Because, I mean, we've just been dealing with the short-term risk profile.
	Many of the great concerns when this first started is the long-term risk profile we still don't even know.
	We've seen issues with, you know, people have neural, just short-term neurological issues.
	Women have issues, reports of spontaneous abortions in pregnant women, menstruation issues with women.
	We've seen all of this.
	But what we don't know is what the long-term profile, because we've never used an mRNA vaccine before ever in history.
	Our testing is very limited.
	The testing was, as my whistleblower reported, completely contaminated.
	I mean, so bad you had needles sticking out of bags.
	You had people's medical records stuck up on the walls where the janitor could read some, oh, look, you know, Sheila's got this.
	I mean, it was a joke because they just rushed it through and knew that the governmental authorities wouldn't do anything about it.
	One-third of drugs that get FDA biologic licenses are ultimately revoked, but mostly for problems they don't know until 5, 10, 20 years later.
	Can you talk about how the combination of mRNA and kids, kids face the greatest risk because they have the longest potential lifespan to experience some of these long-term risks that we don't even fully know about yet?
	Wait, wait, Dr. Christian, before you do that?
	Robert meant spontaneous miscarriages, by the way.
	Anyone fact-checking?
	He did not mean spontaneous abortions.
	So clarify that.
	Sorry, Dr. Christian, go for it.
	Well, I was just going to say that I completely agree with you, Robert.
	In many ways, this is a much more relevant and important thing for the kids than for us, actually.
	They're our future, and they're the future for the nation, for humanity.
	And it's unconscionable that we don't know the medium-term risks of this injection.
	We don't know the long-term risks.
	My good friend, Byram Bridle, who's a vaccinologist and virologist in the University of Guelphia, he showed through his own investigations that this mRNA stuff actually goes and settles in various parts of the body.
	Including the gonads, meaning the ovaries and the testicles.
	It goes to other parts too.
	Apparently, it goes beyond the blood-brain barrier.
	It causes strokes.
	Apparently, it also does distribute itself in the heart.
	That could explain in the myocarditis.
	Once you get the injection in the arm, the spike protein travels everywhere.
	The long-term effects could include infertility.
	In my book, those are all crimes against humanity.
	If you are experimenting on a group of innocent kids with a substance which has never been used clinically in humans before, whose medium-term risks and long-term risks are unknown, And which in the short term itself is causing lots of mayhem and problems, and governments are not putting a stop to this.
	It's terrible.
	Now, you have to remember that mRNA technology is also used in all the other vaccines available in rich countries, anyway, where these companies are making their billions.
	So the Moderna vaccine uses almost the same technology as the Pfizer vaccine.
	Now, what Canadians and Americans or anybody watching may not know is that the Moderna vaccine is actually suspended and is not recommended and cannot be used for 5 to 11-year-olds in the UK, in Germany, in France, in Norway, in Finland, in Iceland, in Sweden.
	So if mRNA Moderna is really bad and unsafe for kids in all these countries, how is mRNA Pfizer?
	I mean, there are so many contradictions in the narrative being spun that it's really tragic for our kids.
	If you could briefly try to simplify it, explain it like we're five.
	Vaccines have been around for a long time.
	The definition was changed in 2015.
	So, mRNA vaccines have not been around for a long time, although mRNA itself has been around for a long time.
	Can you explain what mRNA is as a concept, as a science, and how it's been applied for the vaccines in this current pandemic?
	Yes.
	And let me start that explanation by stating unequivocally and without any doubt that I'm actually a pro-vaccine physician.
	I like vaccines for poliomyelitis, for meningitis, for tetanus.
	And, you know, I'm a student of history, too.
	I know that some of the great scourges of mankind, like smallpox, were eliminated with vaccines.
	But I'm completely against this mRNA stuff, okay?
	Completely against this mRNA injection.
	So you have to ask yourself, here's a doctor who follows the science, who says he's not an anti-vaxxer.
	But who does not support, does not back the mRNA injection.
	So mRNA, to go back to your five-year-old explanation, I know you have kids, David.
	Maybe you should have them here also so that they can hear.
	But here's the explanation that I can offer.
	Controlling...
	A cell is the nerve center of the cell or the control center of the cell.
	That's called the DNA.
	The DNA sends instructions to make proteins in the cell.
	Virtually every important...
	Action in the body is regulated by proteins.
	For example, enzymes are proteins.
	Hormones are proteins.
	The cell signaling substances between cells are proteins.
	So the role of the DNA is to send instructions through mRNA, which is messenger RNA, to the amino acids, which are protein building structures.
	So if you take a protein apart, the protein, by the way, is a three-dimensional, wonderful, miraculous structure.
	And the way it folds itself is, it makes something of the property of the protein.
	But a protein essentially is composed of something called amino acids.
	Each protein has several amino acids.
	The DNA, the control center of the cell, Sends the mRNA to line up the amino acids to make a protein.
	So when you inject mRNA, the mRNA goes into the cell as an external mRNA and instructs the cell to make a particular type of protein.
	In the case of the mRNA Pfizer or Moderna injection, it's what we call the spike protein.
	For those of us who understand molecular biology, mRNA technology, as Robert Malone and others initially put it forward, has a certain elegance to it.
	Science, at its very basic level, does have a certain elegance to it.
	For example, cancer.
	Cancer also makes abnormal proteins often.
	And if you can then reprogram the cell to make normal proteins, perhaps that can do something.
	I don't know.
	But this technology is getting a foreign, so to speak, mRNA into the cell to make a novel or a new type of protein called a spike protein.
	It uses amino acids to do that.
	Now, on a molecular biology level, On that cellular level, the idea is either extremely diabolically stupid and dumb or diabolically evil.
	I mean, I sometimes shake my head and think, what were these guys thinking?
	That they can reprogram the cell to make actually a toxic substance?
	We know the spike protein itself is toxic to the body.
	And we don't know how long the spike protein is produced.
	We don't know where it's produced, and we don't know where it goes.
	All these were unknowns, you know?
	And so, did that explanation work?
	Yeah, I was going to say that one analogy I heard was that your DNA is like the architect, and the mRNA is like the construction manager, and we're basically screwing around with the construction manager, and we're not quite sure how the building's going to look at the end of it.
	And disturbingly, there is some evidence that, over time, the DNA can also get altered.
	And some molecular biologists are warning about this right at the beginning of this.
	Mind you, the AstraZeneca and Johnson, people think it's different, but actually the basic mechanism is still the same.
	That also goes to the DNA, and then the DNA makes the mRNA, which then makes the spike protein.
	If you remind people, there's never been an mRNA or DNA-based vaccine in history until now.
	Never.
	This is the first ever time.
	I never understood.
	People were saying, look, people were judging me for having gotten vaccinated, and everyone knows I got double-vaxxed, and I think my last injection was in...
	August.
	So I think I'm past, maybe I'm past the point of risk.
	But people are saying, I'm not taking the gene-modifying shot.
	I never understood what that meant.
	I sort of think I understand it now, but I just jokingly messaged, commented on the Rumble channel.
	I'm sort of lost, but I think I understand, kind of.
	I think you'll probably be fine.
	You know, there are some apocalyptic predictions that are sometimes made about these vaccines, like...
	90% of people are going to die and so on.
	Suddenly, that's not true.
	Well, no, that's a question.
	100% of people are going to die.
	Yes, someday.
	Over a long enough timeline, everyone's survival reaches zero.
	I think you'll be fine.
	Most severe reactions occur in the first four weeks.
	So, you know, I think you're going to be fine.
	And you've completed your family anyway, so...
	I don't even...
	My testicles have served their purpose.
	Sorry, I had another joke.
	But on the other hand...
	A lot of people have died as a result of the vaccine.
	And I think most people are going to be fine.
	And certainly, it's been a long time since you had it, and you're probably going to be okay.
	But obviously, nobody should take this booster because it's completely ridiculous, except maybe very elderly people and immunocompromised.
	I don't know.
	Doctor, you know the numbers better than I do, but I know them from what I've read.
	Public health...
	Health Canada has recently corrected some stats in Canada saying that the risk of serious side effects, I don't know how they qualify it, is 1 in 10,000 from the vaccine.
	Are you familiar with that?
	And can you elaborate on that?
	Because I read it in CTV News, people.
	I'm not making it up.
	Are you familiar with that?
	Yeah.
	So serious side effects means what?
	So they have to define what a serious side effect, okay?
	Because you...
	Does it mean death?
	Is that a serious side effect?
	And if one in 10,000 people having this vaccine are dying, then obviously it's unacceptable.
	But let's say a serious side effect means paralysis below the waist, a stroke, a major heart attack.
	It's still an unacceptable statistic.
	If one in 10,000 people are having serious side effects like that...
	Of course, it should be pulled immediately from the market.
	I mean, if you look at the history of vaccinology and vaccine rollouts, and ever since the vaccine adverse event reporting system went live in the U.S. 30 years ago, for something like 30 deaths, certainly below 100.
	But vaccines have been pulled for 10 deaths, 30 deaths totally among millions of doses given.
	And there have been literally thousands of people who have died, documented died because of this vaccine.
	And the vaccine is still being rolled out.
	It has absolutely no role.
	It doesn't stop transmission.
	It doesn't stop infection.
	It is unsafe.
	Kids should definitely not get it.
	And if you listen to the experts in vaccinology, including Byram Bridal and And Robert Malone, who are very familiar with the basic science, they believe that no age group, including the elderly, should ever be given this mRNA injection again.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I mean, it's especially what looks like a subscription service.
	I mean, that was the meme that, you know, you thought you were signing up for Netflix, and it turned out you were signing up for Pfizer's boosters from, you know, every four months, every six months, etc.
	And even as we've seen the evidence mount of a public health debacle, like in Israel, most vaccinated country, one of the most in the world, and it has the worst COVID impact right now that it's ever had, while neighboring...
	Palestine, which has a very low vaccination rate, but same geography, same area, same seasonal effects, is not experiencing a big COVID problem.
	And yet there's been this disconnect from the ability of the institutional media to Provda-style mislead people, even when the data is staring at you.
	I mean, one of the things that, or two pieces of evidence, as to your point.
	Richard Barris has been doing nationwide polling, and he's been the most successful, predictive, and accurate pollster in America going on more than half a decade.
	And more than 5% of people, one out of 20, are reporting serious adverse events.
	And he uses the same definition the CDC uses to describe their response to the vaccine.
	And that number just keeps rising because as length of time more injuries accumulate.
	But maybe the most disturbing aspect is it was disproportionately shifted young.
	The younger they were, The more likely they were to report serious adverse events.
	And in my legal practice, most of the people that have come forward with me not wanting to take a vaccine mandate or be part of it are people that didn't start out that way.
	But either they, their loved one, a friend, a neighbor, they witnessed had an adverse event.
	And almost all of them say, I know more people that have had a bad response to the vaccine than I know people that suffered severe consequences from COVID.
	And there are people who started out pro-vaccine, not skeptical of the vaccine, thinking they would take it, but they just keep witnessing this.
	And the disconnect from their everyday reality and what the media is lying about has been disturbing.
	So there's definitely, to your point, there's a lot worse.
	And historically, when they've studied the VAERS system, there's 100 times more injuries than is reported.
	Just the very nature of a self-reporting system is usually going to underestimate it.
	Because people often, especially in medicine, don't know.
	90% of medical malpractice never results in a lawsuit or legal action because the person doesn't know that's what caused their injuries or their problems.
	But in the same scope, what I've often said is any medical system...
	That says, definitely one that mandates it, but any system that says, here's a drug, it's totally safe and effective, but if it turns out we've been lying to you, you can't take legal action against it.
	And that's been true of this vaccine everywhere in the world.
	Pfizer wouldn't even distribute it unless the government agreed in advance that they could not be sued if it turns out their product is crap.
	That, to me, seems like bad medicine.
	I completely agree with everything you say, Robert.
	I got to tell you, David, I don't agree with that 1 in 10,000 thing.
	I know several cases here where I live and across the country, physicians have told me, mainly family doctors, that they have massive problems if they actually report a vaccine injury.
	Public health officers slap them down and say, no, this is a coincidence.
	You know, this is a deception of gigantic proportion.
	So that is one thing.
	The reporting system is broken in Canada.
	It's better in the U.S., but it's still broken.
	I mean, we're vastly under-reporting the cases.
	And then when they go into hospital, if this, I'm not saying it is, but if this were designed to kill off people, it's actually pretty brilliant because you will go with a number of different things.
	You will go with a heart attack, and they'll say it's not related to the vaccine.
	You can go with a stroke, and then they can say it's not related to the vaccine.
	You can go with pericarditis, myocarditis, and they'll say it's incidental and nothing related to the vaccine.
	So this requires a deep dive into the data, and it requires autopsies.
	And German pathologists have actually shown that there is actually a very high incidence of autopsy confirmed.
	Autopsy confirmed vaccine injury rate.
	Well, but doctor, so here's the big question, and it's almost the nut of the pickle if I'm mixing metaphors.
	Everyone will have, by and large, contracted COVID or Omicron at this point, but that encompasses everyone who's gotten the vaccine.
	So the idea that someone who developed myocarditis or pericarditis, they say, okay, well, that is also a side effect of COVID itself.
	But there's an overlapping sample field where there's almost no test field.
	How do you know?
	How is it scientifically possible to determine if the myocarditis comes from a vaccine, a booster, or a COVID-related contraction after either of those two?
	How do you determine that?
	And can it be determined?
	Actually, Pfizer's own data answers that question.
	The six-month data shows that...
	There is much more myocarditis and excess of myocarditis after the vaccine as opposed to not having the vaccine at all.
	So if you look at that data thing, and in fact, many of that excess myocarditis cases actually end up in ICU in their own projections.
	So it's not true to say that the natural infection causes the same amount of myocarditis.
	The injection...
	Of the Pfizer or any other mRNA stuff causes much more myocarditis than natural infection or not being infected at all.
	But here's the thing.
	In a particular case, it's impossible to say whether you, having got COVID, will get myocarditis.
	But if, in addition, you get the vaccine and get myocarditis, that's not acceptable.
	I mean, to the doctor's point, the CDC and the FDA have both acknowledged, after the Pfizer data came out, that there is a myocarditis risk, there is a pericarditis risk, and then it often, people forget, like, the actual fact sheet that, you know, I put up once at the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com site.
	Went through all the things that are actually in the fact sheet, which are different than the media's narrative.
	Like the fact sheet says, maybe this works.
	We have no idea, really.
	Maybe it's safe.
	We have no idea.
	There might be a lot of risks out there.
	We're not sure.
	Now, of course, what's supposed to happen is you're supposed to get that fact sheet as part of the informed consent process.
	That's why it exists.
	But the FDA and CDC has not required it or compelled it, while Moderna's out there advertising, pitching it to kids during football games.
	And the president of the United States is having Big Bird.
	You know, go out and promote it to little children.
	The degree to which they don't know this, and as part of, you know, forgetting our history, we rushed a vaccine for the swine flu in 1976, turned out to be a total disaster.
	You can see the old 60 Minutes show on this, but the media has completely suppressed the existence of it, suppressed the fact that we've never had a successful coronavirus vaccine because of the very nature of viral evolution, as Brett Weinstein and others talk about, makes it very hard to avoid the variant problem.
	Amazing watching the media act like variants are so weird.
	How did we not predict this?
	But it's extraordinary that the scope and scale of it in terms of the risk exposure.
	But in terms of as a matter of like medical ethics, do you think that any drug should be out there, particularly one that doesn't have informed consent or can be mandated, where the drug maker?
	Manufacturer, distributor is totally free from any lawsuit if they actually were negligent or reckless in what they did.
	Not only are they free from any legal liability and paying out damages, the agreements themselves are secret, Robert.
	Our Prime Minister has not made the agreements public.
	I don't know whether Biden has.
	Look, Pfizer alone has had several criminal convictions.
	It has a criminal history.
	And you know case law and all that much better than I do.
	But just from a recent research that I did on that, I could identify just in the last couple of decades, several criminal cases have been settled by Pfizer.
	2009, $3.2 billion, the largest You know, settlement ever in the history of American drug prosecutions, drug company prosecutions, and that was for fraudulent marketing.
	What irony!
	It was convicted for, it was charged and settled for fraudulent marketing.
	And then in 2014, they admitted to bribing physicians in eight different countries.
	In 2011, they paid $400 million as settlement for Neurontin, another drug for fraudulent marketing.
	So the question for parents is, do you want to trust your kids to accompany with a criminal history?
	A criminal history of lying directly to people, including lying to kids, misusing and abusing kids, experimenting on kids in Africa.
	I mean, it's a notorious, ugly history.
	What Pfizer has.
	It's like saying, you know, we're going to mandate a drug that's an experimental drug using experimental technology that hasn't been thoroughly, hasn't even reached stage three testing.
	It hasn't reached the critical stage testing for a whole bunch of determinations that we're going to give them complete immunity if they're lying to you or screwing you over.
	But don't worry, and we're going to do it for the local criminal down the street.
	I mean, that's what we've done.
	And compare that with Jonas Salk.
	The inventor of the injectable polio vaccine.
	Jonas Salk refused to take royalties for his invention because he said it was for the benefit of mankind.
	That's what medicine is all about, for the benefit of mankind, not for making these guys, these global predators, you know, increasing their power, wealth in an obscene way.
	I mean, a good example is a big competitor of Jonas Salk went down to Belgium.
	There was the Belgium Congo, which was, you know, people can read about King Leopold's ghost, how that looked like.
	Speaking of colonial exploitation, they forced the drug on a bunch of people, his version of polio.
	And then, of course, it ended up being the hotspot, according to various reporters.
	You had an overlap with that and where the AIDS virus emerged.
	And it's like we still don't know if there was a correlation or causation or not, but that's what happens when you put the wrong people in charge and you use the wrong methods like giving immunity to people for experimental drugs.
	Dr. Christian, we didn't actually get back to the...
	I'm taking notes.
	I'm going to get to these questions in a second.
	The repercussions that you faced for having spoken out...
	So you signed the Great Barrington Declaration.
	I think that was back in 2020.
	Yes.
	When was the first time you experienced sanctions for having spoken out?
	And what's happened to you since?
	So I was fired from my directorship of the quality improvement in patient safety.
	That was ironical because I was talking about patient safety.
	And they fired me from the Director of Quality Improvement and Patient Safety.
	I was also fired from the Director of Surgical Humanities, the Department of Surgical Humanities.
	One would have thought that at a time like this, a time of suffering and isolation and loneliness, the humanities, art, music, literature, poetry...
	Would be much more important to people, but not to these authorities.
	And how does firing me from directing surgical humanities help the pandemic?
	I have no idea.
	They also suspended my professorship because they thought my asking for informed consent was somehow unsafe.
	For medical students and residents.
	And because I work in an academic center, and I always have to interact with medical students and residents, I haven't been able to do that.
	Are there any legal remedies available to you?
	The JCCF, I told your viewers about the JCCF, jccf.ca, is representing me.
	I have a team of lawyers who are representing me.
	The suspension has been appealed.
	As the narrative crumbles and collapses around us, it's going to be more and more difficult for the tyranny to defend itself.
	And so that has been appealed.
	But, you know, the directorship of quality improvement and patient safety and surgical humanities...
	That is their prerogative.
	They can fire me from that if they want to, and they have.
	Now, what do you think led to your willingness to choose conscience over prestige and job and money?
	Well, for the physician, any physician, it is imperative to put the patient first.
	That's something that we, all of us, regardless of what our background is, we know that We have to put the patient first.
	And closely tied to that is the principle of not doing any harm.
	Do no harm.
	And neither of these principles have been upheld during this pandemic.
	The patient has not been put first.
	The big pharma has been put first.
	And public health officials who have been running this whole pandemic Typically don't actually see patients.
	We do.
	I was working through the pandemic.
	I was operating on patients.
	My colleagues were, my family doctor colleagues, my specialist colleagues were actually seeing patients.
	Public health guys were sitting on their computers making these ridiculous projections.
	Most of them came out false.
	And they were running the pandemic.
	And so the profession, unfortunately, has been brainwashed.
	And I have to say I'm ashamed of the profession, the way it has just been following the official narrative.
	Some of my colleagues are genuinely scared that the licensing bodies will come after them, the authorities will come after them like they did after me.
	But from Scripture, let me just quote something that Jesus said.
	In the Gospel according to Mark, Jesus says, What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?
	So, you can become fabulously wealthy.
	You can become influential in this false narrative.
	But if you lose your soul, it's worthless.
	Absolutely worthless.
	What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?
	I'm not a religious man, Dr. Christian, but I knew that.
	That's saying from before.
	I don't remember when I saw it, but it's always stuck with me, especially when analyzing the fine folks at CNN who make filthy amounts of money but have lost their soul in the process.
	This goes back to, you said something earlier, when you were talking with your colleagues early on and they had a glaze over their eyes.
	The question I had is, is the glaze or was the glaze that you noticed, was it a result of apathy or was it a result of conflict of interest as in Or threats?
	Was the glaze confusedness, ignorance, or bias?
	What explains the glaze?
	There's a certain element that I don't completely understand, I must admit.
	But it's a combination of all that.
	Now, if you look at how medical education has progressed in the last 20 or 30 years, medical students are now taught to do everything by guidelines.
	Algorithmic guidelines.
	Not to think critically and think out of the box.
	So who has the power over these guidelines?
	Big Pharma.
	So Big Pharma has massive influence on these guidelines.
	And they are taught to think according to those guidelines.
	So for that segment of the medical population who are trained in that way, They're probably just following guidelines.
	And unfortunately, critical thinking has been lost.
	But even if critical thinking has been lost, what about putting the patient first?
	What about actually thinking, if this was my son or my sister or my father who had died as a vaccine injury, what would be my reaction?
	So that is something I can't explain.
	So that's one thing.
	The other thing is the fear of licensing bodies.
	The fear of...
	You know, authorities that, like in my case, that fired me from my contract.
	So, but you have to think, do you want...
	So this is an appeal again to my colleagues.
	Just earlier this morning, David and Robert, I saw a very inspiring little video.
	It was from a serving Edmonton police officer.
	She was asking...
	Ottawa police colleagues not to obey orders if they were illegal.
	So this could possibly be the start of a peaceful mutiny.
	And of course, as we all know, if the police start marching with the protesters, the revolution is over.
	We're one.
	And I got to appeal again to my colleagues and through your show.
	Please.
	My colleagues in medicine, in nursing, if you have not spoken out and you have wanted to speak out, speak out now.
	Because you have to be on the right side of history.
	Remember, history will not judge you properly.
	And if you don't speak out now, it will take decades for you to regain the trust that our profession has lost.
	Be on the right side of history.
	Be on the side of freedom, liberty, science, truth.
	The pursuit of evidence to where it leads.
	And history will thank you for it.
	Robert, do you have a question?
	I got two more questions.
	Not legal ones, medical ones.
	Leaky vaccine, what does that mean?
	So a leaky vaccine means a vaccine that doesn't do its job.
	A vaccine is supposed to prevent infection and transmission.
	And essentially it's not doing that.
	And by the way...
	This whole idea that it may not prevent infection and transmission, but prevents severe illness, is not what a vaccine is supposed to do.
	It was something that was conjured up later by the corrupt authorities, saying that, oh yeah, you know, it doesn't prevent transmission, it doesn't prevent infection, but it prevents severe disease.
	And that, of course, in your show on the streets of Ottawa.
	A few days ago, I pointed out that that assertion itself is not necessarily true.
	I question that assertion.
	It has several flaws to the assertion that it prevents severe illness.
	So, a leaky vaccine is one that does not do its job of preventing infection or preventing transmission, which is what a vaccine is supposed to do.
	Particular mRNA injection doesn't prevent transmission, doesn't prevent infection, as Robert pointed out.
	Just look at the controlled experiment in geographically similar countries and populations.
	You have triple and quadruple waxed Israel having skyrocketing cases of COVID.
	Next to it, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan.
	With cases that are absolutely flat.
	Why is that?
	I mean, if you look at the Ontario data, which they're not putting out any data now, but when I was looking at the data, if you're double-vaxxed, you're much more likely to get Omicron.
	So, you know, this is a vaccine that doesn't work, not safe, and is not needed.
	The second question I had, why were they saying that...
	Ventilators.
	Back in 2020, they said if you get respiratory failure, stick them on ventilators, and then a year later, they're saying ventilators were a death trap.
	What was the element of the ventilators that facilitated or contributed to death?
	So, the work of Paul Maric, and we talked about him earlier, and Pierre Corey and several ICU physicians, including Roberto Maduri, who, by the way, This guy, Meduri, is part of the FLCCC Alliance.
	The FLCCC Alliance is an alliance of ICU physicians, mainly in America but around the world.
	And Roberto Meduri was the guy who first invented or popularized or actually told the world about non-invasive ventilation.
	In other words, you put a mask, for example, just to simplify things.
	You don't put a tube into your trachea to control your breathing, and then you can hook that up to a mechanical ventilator.
	Instead, you put a type of mask on, and that's called non-invasive ventilation.
	He actually invented that whole concept.
	And he was also deplatformed.
	And what he was saying was also called misinformation and disinformation.
	Coming back to your question, the lung and its mechanisms are actually very delicate.
	Putting a person on a mechanical ventilator has its own problems.
	Now, your readers may not, your viewers may not realize that the concept of the modern ICU is only about 60 years old.
	Okay, so before mechanical ventilation became relatively safe.
	There was no such thing as an ICU where you could keep a person well perfused, well oxygenated for weeks and months sometimes.
	So the whole experience with mechanical ventilation, safe mechanical ventilation, is only a few decades old.
	Before the 1970s, the modern ICU as you see it today didn't exist.
	It's a new concept.
	So we're learning all the time what ventilation does to the lungs.
	And when the lungs are inflamed, and when the lungs already are under great assault with inflammation and so on, to put a person on a ventilator can sometimes exacerbate the problem, can cause issues with the ventilation itself, causing damage to the lungs, which are already damaged.
	With inflammation.
	That's the simple way of understanding it.
	Okay, cool.
	Now, Robert, unless you have a question, I've got one last question, which is breaking off from all the subjects.
	It's a philosophical one.
	Robert, you have no more questions?
	No.
	Okay.
	Here's the question.
	You talk about humanities, Dr. Christian.
	In law, one of my mentors said, every lawyer ends up hating their clients because they can't help but get themselves into problems.
	And I don't say this is analogous to being a surgeon at all.
	But how do you internalize?
	I presume it's happened.
	It has to have happened.
	You lose a patient that you're performing surgery on.
	If you try to internalize that so that it does not destroy your ability to go forward doing what you do, what is that process?
	Above and beyond everything we've talked about tonight, you lose a patient.
	How do you not let that experience destroy you from doing what you need to do going forward?
	How do you internalize that without losing sight of the humanity of the individual that actually died under your hands?
	That's an excellent question, actually, because the teaching of many physicians nowadays is that you must approach some things like that with a certain detachment.
	And you should not get too emotionally involved.
	I have wept with my patients, hugged my patients.
	I have made, you know, like in the Bible it says, rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep.
	And I actually wish that physicians or nurses would, actually nurses are pretty good at this, actually hugging patients.
	And shedding a few tears with the patients.
	That is part of our common humanity.
	You know, by the grace of God, I'm able to do that.
	My father, who was a cancer surgeon, said to me that you need something special within to be a physician and a surgeon.
	Because otherwise you will break.
	And, you know, by the grace of God, I draw upon God's grace through Christ.
	And that's the way I handle this.
	But I think the ability to identify with suffering is very much a part of humanity's, right?
	So medicine may teach you what drug to give or what operation to do.
	But it doesn't teach you about suffering, for example.
	But if you read the great works of literature, if you read poetry, for example, then you come across the human narrative with all its joys and fears and tears and ups and downs.
	And that is the value of a humanities education for physicians.
	That alone is not enough.
	But that can go a long way.
	In making a physician a better physician.
	I don't know if that answers your question, though.
	Fantastic answer.
	I don't know that there could be a better answer to the question.
	Dr. Christian, where can people find you?
	Where can they support you?
	And what can they do if they want to make a difference going forward in the world in which we're living?
	You know, that's a good question.
	I think, actually, David and Robert, the issue is really much bigger than me.
	It is a consequential, generational battle for freedom.
	And the truckers, I know, are asking for the lifting of the mandates.
	But it goes much beyond that.
	It is a battle for the very heart and soul of the nation.
	It's a battle for humanity, for us all.
	And for all our todays and all our tomorrows.
	And so I would say the number one thing that people should do is stand with the truckers.
	Because you're standing not just with the truckers, but you're standing with freedom and liberty and these eternal values, which are timeless.
	So that's the number one thing I would say that people should do.
	Stand with the truckers, fight with them in this generational battle for freedom.
	The eyes of the world are upon Ottawa and upon Canada.
	And by the grace of God, we are not going to let them down.
	Now, as far as I'm concerned, I'm a poet.
	And I'm a surgeon, too.
	And this is my book.
	You said you'll have a link to it.
	It's called To a Nurse Friend Weeping.
	It was released to the world by my publisher, Heart Press.
	In the spring of 2021.
	So if you wish, you can go to that website and buy my book.
	First of all, I think we're going to end on this.
	I love it.
	I'm a poet, but I'm also a surgeon.
	Typically it would be the exact opposite for most people, but Dr. Christian, it's been phenomenal.
	Robert, what do you have to say?
	You need to get the last word, Robert, and tell us what you think of this.
	Oh, it was fantastic.
	Thanks, everybody.
	Dr. Christian, are you still in Ottawa right now?
	I returned on Sunday.
	Okay.
	I'm going to head back to Ottawa tomorrow.
	Apparently, Saturday is going to be a big day.
	If you want to see it, support it, be a part of it, witness it, even if you disagree with it, see it in person so that you can know what you're seeing, what you're disagreeing with.
	Dr. Christian, it's been beautiful.
	I wouldn't want to live your life experience, but sometimes you choose your path, and sometimes your path chooses you, and you might be sort of a middle ground of both of those.
	I will put the links in the pinned comment on Rumble.
	I haven't been able to see comments or Super Chats, but I thank all of you for everything.
	With that said, everyone, we will be back next Sunday, live, Dr. Christian.
	Oh, it'll be Monday, because the Super Bowl is on Sunday here in the States.
	Next Monday we'll be back live.
	And so how far detached we are and removed from football in Canada, I didn't even know.
	But now I think hopefully I can still watch it at my best friend's house.
	Dr. Christian, phenomenal.
	Robert, thank you very much.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	I'm going to see if I end this broadcast.
	Let me see if I don't screw this up right now.
	I can't.
	Oh, gosh darn it.
	I'm going to end it.
	Hold on one second, people.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Ending the broadcast.
	Now I can see the avatar.

▲