Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

04:07:32

National Citizen's Inquiry Testimony LIVE! Viva Frei TESTIFIES!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Mr. Allen, have you ever used Twitter?
	Yes or no?
	I have utilized Twitter, yes.
	Okay, and is your account at MarcusA97050645?
	Sorry, I'll be back again.
	That is absolutely not my account.
	Okay, that's not your account.
	Well, on December 5th, 2022, an account under the name Marcus Allen retweeted a tweet that said...
	That is not my account, ma 'am.
	You haven't let me finish the question, sir.
	You haven't let me finish the question.
	And the time is mine.
	On December 5th, 2022, an account under the name of Marcus Allen retweeted a tweet that said, quote, Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th.
	Retweet if you agree, end quote.
	Do you agree with that statement?
	Yes or no?
	I'm going to comment on this again.
	No, ma 'am.
	That's not my account at all.
	I'm asking whether you agree with that statement, yes or no.
	Can you please rephrase the statement?
	Do you think that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th?
	I just want him to answer the best question.
	He'll answer.
	He'll answer.
	I'm just telling you your time's up.
	Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi...
	Do you agree with the statement that this person tweeted that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th?
	I'll provide the answer.
	No.
	No.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	We're going to watch this one more time and revel in the absolute sheer maniacal stupidity.
	But before we do that, let me just do one thing here.
	It's going to make sure that we're simultaneously live everywhere.
	Okay, are we live on Rumble?
	We're trying something new, people, and if it works, it's going to be glorious.
	If it doesn't, I'm going to be pulling out my hair here and panicking in real time.
	Okay, I'm getting an ad on Rumble.
	Are we live on Rumble?
	I've got to skip ad.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	Beautiful.
	Let me see if we're live on The Locals.
	We are live on Locals.
	Good.
	Now I'm bringing that screen back, and then I'm going to tell you what's going on today, and we're going to see if it works.
	Let's bring this back.
	The lesson number one of the practice of law, some might even call it the rule of law.
	When you ask a question, listen to the answer.
	Rule number two of law, when you ask a question and you immediately...
	Become stupid because your question doesn't make sense.
	You can pivot.
	You can pivot in real time.
	Let's just listen to what's going on here.
	This is the FBI whistleblower testimony.
	And my goodness, I don't know what to watch.
	I'm watching Carrie Lake live.
	I'm watching the NCI live.
	I'm watching these hearings live.
	I've got all the screens on in the background.
	I don't know who this woman is.
	I have to go look into it.
	But let's just watch this again.
	She's asking the witness a question.
	The witness's name, from what I understand.
	Is Marcus Allen.
	Not the football player.
	Although I almost went and followed Marcus Allen Hall of Fame, HOF, on Twitter when I thought it was Marcus Allen that put that tweet out about Pelosi.
	There, hold on.
	Mr. Allen, have you ever used Twitter?
	Yes or no?
	So smart.
	Have you ever used Twitter?
	Yes or no?
	It's a clear question.
	This is how buffoons try to intimidate.
	This is how weak, frail minds try to intimidate.
	Yes or no?
	Yes or no?
	Have you ever used Twitter?
	Let the dude answer the question.
	Yes or no?
	I'm in power.
	I have power and I'm going to use it.
	Lies, Twitter, yes.
	Okay, and is your account at MarcusA97050645?
	Let me just stop you there, madam.
	What's her name?
	What's her name?
	Do I see her name there?
	I don't see her name.
	Let me stop you right there.
	When you see a handle that has a name and then a series of random numbers...
	Chances are, not always, not always.
	Sometimes, you know, like Viva Fry 1979 could be mine.
	Chances are, it's a bogus or at least a bot-generated account.
	Chances are.
	You know, like one of those.
	Or just somebody who created it as a throwaway random generated numbers.
	They don't care.
	Okay.
	She asked a question.
	Maybe that's Marcus's 49879.
	Let me blow your minds here.
	The numbers of pi.
	Is your account Marcus 3.1415926535897323?
	No, absolutely not.
	Well, let me just continue with my question then.
	For five?
	That is absolutely not my account.
	Okay, that's not your account.
	Well, on December 5th, 2022, an account under the name Marcus Allen.
	So what?
	She's like, her stomach must have just fallen off.
	Like, oh shit, my question has just become totally useless.
	It's not his account.
	Well, let me just go ahead and ask the question anyhow.
	Let me hold this guy to account.
	For any and all tweets coming from any and all Twitter handles bearing the words Marcus and or Alan and any other series of numbers.
	Retweeted a tweet that said...
	That is not my account, ma 'am.
	You haven't let me...
	Retweeted a tweet.
	It's not even his tweet.
	So I was going to go follow this Marcus Alan fella, but it wasn't even his tweet.
	Finish the question, sir.
	Let me finish the question, sir.
	Because your question is based on a factually incorrect premise, ma 'am.
	You haven't let me finish the question.
	And the time is mine.
	The time is mine.
	Like children claiming property.
	Like someone with nothing.
	It's mine.
	It's mine.
	On December 5th, 2022, an account under the name of Marcus Allen retweeted a tweet that said, quote, Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th.
	Retweet if you agree, end quote.
	Do you agree with that statement?
	Oh, teacher, teacher, may I field this one?
	We'll stop it there.
	I'll keep it in the backdrop just in case.
	Madam teacher, may I field this one?
	The answer to your question is yes, with a slight caveat.
	Nancy Pelosi and her politically motivated partisan hack ilk facilitated the events of January 6th.
	They facilitated.
	How, you might ask?
	Well, the FBI, which had allegedly infiltrated the now convicted seditious conspirators, had infiltrated that Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, well in advance of January 6th, so they knew it was coming, whatever it was.
	The Capitol Police, or at least the Capitol Police knew they were understaffed.
	I believe there were questions, calls for the National Guard, which were to be brought in, which were not brought in, despite the fact that Nancy Pelosi and whoever the heck the mayor of D.C. is that had the authority to call him the National Guard didn't.
	Understaffed, infiltrated, because it was the FBI themselves that had infiltrated through their informants, too.
	Militia entities for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government.
	And despite all of that, they allowed it to happen so they could then politically weaponize it for years to come.
	So the answer to your question, ma 'am, would be yes.
	Staged in the sense that strategic weaknesses were allowed to be put into place, which would then be politically exploited for the...
	No, hold on, hold on.
	We gotta just do it one more time.
	Just finish this up here.
	Yes or no?
	That is, I don't, no ma 'am.
	That's not my account at all.
	I have no idea.
	I'm asking whether you agree with that statement, yes or no.
	Can you please rephrase the statement?
	Do you think that name is closely staged January 6th?
	I just want him to answer the last question.
	Yeah, he'll answer.
	I'm just telling you your time's up.
	Staged.
	Do you think Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th?
	Well, they didn't stage it because it happened.
	But they certainly allowed it to happen.
	And what a convenient thing it was that it was allowed to happen because, my goodness, they got a second impeachment out of it.
	They got two years of investigations out of it.
	They got political prosecutions, or I should say persecutions, out of it.
	My goodness, they got to brand half of the population of America as domestic terrorists.
	Oh!
	What a convenient thing to happen as a result of your grotesque incompetence.
	Okay, so people, this is what's happening today.
	We're going to see if it works.
	In the backdrop, I have got the Zoom meeting through which I'm going to be attending the National Citizens Inquiry at 3 o 'clock.
	I'm testifying at, give or take, 3 o 'clock.
	We're going to go over some stories before then.
	And then at the time when I'm going live...
	I want to stream my testimony, which is live anyhow.
	It's going to be live on the NCI website, or on NCI on Rumble.
	Here, by the way, it's on Rumble right now.
	There's 1,500 people watching on Rumble.
	Let me give you this.
	So we're going to see if it's possible to do.
	Basically, what I want to do is, at some point, I'm going to be testifying.
	I just made myself very nervous all of a sudden.
	And I want to try to stream my testimony simultaneously, both on the National Citizens Inquiry platform.
	And on my platforms, which would be YouTube, Rumble, Locals.
	And so I'm going to see how this works.
	My testimony, the object of my testimony would have been what I would have testified had I been able to, or had I gotten in successfully to the Commissioner Rouleau's, you know, the commission on whether or not Justin Trudeau was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.
	The object of my testimony is illustrating, fleshing out, and detailing how the government-subsidized media was used as a propaganda tool to misinform, ill-inform, and weaponize.
	I shouldn't say weaponize.
	It's not the right word.
	To pit Canadians against Canadians.
	And so that's it.
	That's what I'm going to be doing.
	So it should be at three-ish.
	They're running a little bit behind, which is going to be, you know, the issue is whether or not it's going to happen on time.
	And if it gets too stressful on my end in terms of making this happen, because what I'm going to do, I'm trying to think logistically, I'm going to share the screen.
	Logistically, I'm going to share the screen with the NCI's website.
	This is the link to Rumble to watch this stream.
	So logistically, what's going to happen is when I testify, I'm going to bring this up.
	Okay?
	And let me get rid of this thing here.
	And then in theory, we should see my ugly punim on this website when I do this.
	This is live testimony now and we're seeing it.
	Good.
	So we should be seeing, if it works properly, will this work?
	There you go.
	Okay.
	This is how it should work.
	Now, the only question is going to be...
	Let me put this back on mute.
	So the only question is going to be, when this happens, will I be able to use my Zoom link to use my camera?
	So that's the major question.
	We're going to find out a few minutes beforehand.
	And then you might actually be seeing me talking to the people, but I might bring my own screen out while I talk to whoever's going to ask me questions.
	So that's it.
	We're going to see if this can work logistically.
	It's going to be quite the miracle if it could.
	And then tonight, by the way, 7 o 'clock, although my wife is going to kill me.
	She's not going to kill me.
	I'm joking.
	But tonight, she's going to kill me because I'm doing multiple streams in the day.
	I think yesterday I spent three and a half hours streaming, which doesn't include prep time.
	So I might take tomorrow off.
	Tonight, 7 o 'clock, Blair White.
	And I noticed some, I won't say not nice comments.
	I'd call them ill-informed comments.
	Why are you interviewing Blair, yadda yadda, all this stuff.
	Go look up Blair's story.
	And I think people who are objecting off the bat don't know Blair's story.
	Fascinating.
	I've been watching as many prior podcasts as I can beforehand.
	So that's it.
	Now let's see here.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	So standard disclaimers, by the way, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
	There will be testimony.
	Do you know where the word testimony, testifying, comes from?
	Am I making this up?
	It came from holding your testes to say that you were going to tell the truth?
	Something along those lines.
	I don't know.
	So no medical advice.
	These little things right here, the super chats, the rumble rants.
	YouTube takes 30% of these.
	So if you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	And we're also simultaneously streaming within Locals, where, let's see what we got here.
	We're Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, what is the super chat that I have up there?
	Looking forward to your testimony.
	You'll be amazing witness and you'll kick ass.
	Did you look up custom agencies, fake IDs?
	Not yet, I'm your buddy guy.
	But I have it screen grabbed and I have to go through my screen grabs at the end of the day to see it.
	I am live on Rumble.
	I am.
	Let me see here, I just saw it.
	I'm going to give that link again, and then you'll tell me if I'm not.
	Yeah, it says there's 2,000 people on Rumble.
	Here.
	God, it's navigating my screen now.
	Someone said yesterday I need to get three...
	This is the link to my stream on Rumble right now.
	Okay, so that's there.
	Testify!
	So that's it.
	Now, I haven't followed up...
	I texted Robert Gouveia to ask him if anything better happened in the Cary Lake trial yesterday afternoon.
	He said it was pretty boring.
	So we'll see what happens today.
	But I was watching...
	Oh my God, there's just too much to watch.
	I was watching this.
	The whistleblower hearings.
	Let's just watch this for a few minutes.
	I don't know why it's pixelated rubbish.
	And there appears to be a glitch.
	It seemed to me that we would be useful to use our time to delve into this glitch.
	I love trying to guess if they're Democrats or Republicans.
	If we determine that it is a problem, then the appropriate thing to do would be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to put forth a bill.
	To address the problem.
	The shouting back and forth has done little to illustrate information on the details of the problem.
	And definitely, I agree with those who say we ought not refund the police.
	Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to allow Mr. Briggs to sit on the dial.
	Not objection.
	The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Bishop.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	This is the whistleblower, the FBI whistleblower stuff.
	I will say I've sat struggling to figure out what I think the Americans who may watch this hearing are to take from.
	And it is...
	It's troubling.
	An aspect of the ranking member's opening statement was interesting.
	I heard this part of it that really stuck with me.
	It sort of suggested, this is not what she said specifically, but it was sort of a paraphrase of what I...
	Oh!
	Hey, look at that.
	Neil deGreens.
	Wait, which one is this?
	Yeah, this is Neil deGreens.
	Goodbye.
	...in the country as FBI agents and before.
	It was sort of like, so your lives have been turned upside down by the FBI in retaliation for raising questions about abuses of the rights of Americans?
	Good.
	How do you like it?
	That's kind of what I heard.
	It seemed that her perspective, she went on and talked about how people have been victimized by police all across the country.
	ACAB is the idea.
	All cops are bad.
	And it's almost like, since she thinks there are victims of plenty, it's okay if you're victimized.
	There's a supreme irony in that, isn't there?
	I mean, one of you was concerned about the improvident use of a SWAT team.
	That's been ridiculed.
	Another of you has been concerned about the investigation of people by the preeminent law enforcement agency in the country for nothing more than being on a bus to travel to a place where there was a speech by the president and so forth, and a couple people on that bus were subsequently looked at.
	Your concern was whether the investigation was adequately predicated for those people.
	And that's ridiculed.
	It's astonishing.
	One of you was concerned about the FBI sending people out to interview persons who were going to a school board meeting and expressing their views because all they were engaged in was First Amendment activity.
	That's not an adequate predication for the attention, investigative attention.
	We're going to take this out anyhow.
	So this is what else is going on in the world.
	That's the...
	Do we want to watch that?
	That's going to go on all day.
	People, what's been the latest news of the day before I get into what I'm going to do now and make sure I can see the screen in the back here?
	We can start with some white pill news.
	Let's start with the good news.
	There is good news in all of this crap, other than the good news that people are finally starting to wake up.
	Although, you know what?
	Before we get to the good news, let's just get to the...
	Let's just get to the actual news.
	This.
	You know, the weaponization of the federal government.
	Does everybody appreciate, does everyone remember when Adam Schiff came out of those committee hearings, those Russiagate committee hearings, and said to the world, was it the committee hearings or was it the impeachment?
	I forget.
	It doesn't really matter.
	Adam Schiff came out and said to the world, There's evidence in plain sight, I'll read the actual quote, of Trump collusion with Russia.
	Here from Politico.
	You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion.
	Pretty compelling evidence.
	Schiff said, adding, there is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to provide a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Schiff said special counsel Robert Mueller's report on potential Russian government meddling in the 2016 election might not be the final word on the matter.
	Oh, it wasn't Schiff.
	It wasn't.
	We may also need to see evidence behind that report.
	Oh, we've seen it now.
	After the Durham report came out.
	And Adam Schiff said that the FBI director, Andrew McCabe, should be held accountable if he lied to investigators.
	This is from back in the day.
	I think this is from 2019.
	Adam Schiff came out to the American people and said that there was evidence in plain sight of Russia collusion, which we have now seen.
	After the Mueller report, someone asked a good question, like, after the Durham report, which came out and said the FBI acted with What did they say?
	Confirmation bias.
	It pursued an investigation, a full investigation, for years, despite the fact that not one element of the Steele dossier, not one allegation could be substantiated.
	Yet you have Adam Schiff coming out to the general public saying there's evidence in plain sight, saying it knowing from what was explained to me, and if I'm wrong, someone correct me, knowing that nobody could contradict that.
	Without violating the confidentiality of those closed-door hearings.
	So he was lying to the American people, knowing that no one was in a legal position to contradict those lies without violating confidentiality agreements.
	And if that's not even the case, too bad.
	He lied to the American people.
	He's a liar.
	And now I think about it.
	I'm not sure that he can be impeached.
	I'm not sure that he can be impeached as a member of whatever his position is in government.
	So that might have been Canadian stupidity.
	But whatever the political sanction is, and then prosecution.
	I don't know how it's not illegal to have done what he did.
	Again, not accusing him of a crime.
	I'm saying if one has been committed, he should be prosecuted.
	Not found guilty.
	He should have a fair trial.
	Not one in which he has to prove his innocence, but rather one in which his guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
	If he didn't break a law, then I would dare say this might be one of those rare circumstances when there are not enough laws.
	He can be removed.
	Do I want to Google it?
	He can be removed, but it's voted by two-thirds of the House, but it's not called an impeachment because impeachment, you can only impeach members of the, not the federal, the executive branch?
	I'll have to take, I'll have to cheat off my daughter's civics classes.
	Election interference.
	I'm not reading that.
	They attempted to remove George Santos.
	Executive branch, correct.
	Oh, that's right.
	So they're on the legislative branch?
	They're on the legislative branch, so they can't be removed by impeachment, but they can be voted out.
	Then you got the legislative branch.
	Sorry, the judiciary, the judicial branch.
	Three branches of government people, which many in Congress don't seem to want to respect.
	Legislative?
	The legislative, the executive, the judiciary.
	The legislative make the laws, the executive enforce the laws, and the judicial interprets the laws.
	Booyah!
	I'll pass my test.
	So that is, yeah, you've got to write, Viva.
	A congressman introduced a resolution and motion to remove him.
	At Viva Frey, you can impeach this.
	Oh, sorry, I can bring this up.
	I'm here.
	You can impeach.
	Principal officers of the executive branch and judges.
	Okay, good.
	Thank you.
	I'll pass the test one day, people.
	Maybe.
	Civics class over.
	All right, so that was the follow-up on the intro stuff.
	But there is actually good news.
	I don't know that it's a silver lining.
	It's very interesting.
	I've been thinking about it a lot.
	I'm going to be doing another interview with actually Phil Damaris on the 27th.
	Maybe the 26th.
	Phil is going to be back.
	Actually, I don't know.
	I think his plans are public, but I'll let him disclose his plans.
	All that to say is I'm going to do another interview with Phil Damaris sooner than later.
	But let me share this.
	You all know, if you don't know the story of Smooshy the Walrus, I've had Phil on at least twice, if not three times, and have been following this since back in the day.
	Back in the days of the original vlog that actually led to interviews.
	Phil Damaris used to work at Marineland in Canada.
	Was a contestant on Wipeout in Canada.
	Won it.
	Won 50,000 bucks.
	Blew the whistle on Marineland.
	Everyone loves Marineland.
	And nobody loves Marineland.
	Blew the whistle on Marineland in terms of their treatment of the animals there because he was the walrus whisperer because Smushy, the big one, imprinted on Phil Damaris when they had a moment and it was, you know, he became known as the walrus whisperer.
	He blew the whistle on Marineland.
	He then got sued by Marineland, as did his girlfriend.
	He went through.
	It was damn near a decade of litigation that they settled when Marineland basically dropped all of its claims.
	And Phil, in order to settle this, said, I'll drop my counterclaims for abusive process, which it was, full stop, in my humble opinion.
	I'll abandon my quarter of a million dollar claim for legal fees, expenses.
	For abuse of the process, if you just make sure that Smushy finds a good home.
	And then they said, we're going to find her a good home.
	You're going to have your end reunion, which they screwed up, whatever.
	So Smushy, they also bred Smushy in captivity.
	She had a baby.
	First of all, look at this thing.
	How do I get the picture to be big?
	Look at this thing, people, and tell me you don't want to kiss that face.
	Look at this.
	Let's get in this.
	Look at that.
	Oh, look at the...
	I don't know how you identify a female walrus versus a male walrus by physique because this thing looks big and bulky and look at the meat on its head, her head.
	But tell me you don't want to kiss that thing.
	Then you got her baby behind her.
	She's now in, I want to say Abu Dhabi, but it might be the UAE.
	She's now at her new home.
	And this is the big news.
	How do I get this out of here?
	Close that.
	She's at her new home.
	She was, notwithstanding the settlement that Marineland had with Phil Demers, she was whisked off to her new home.
	And this is a picture of her in her new home with her beautiful kid, her beautiful baby.
	And so Phil has got to have a bittersweet moment there because he never had the proper reunion that he was promised under the settlement.
	And there's got to be bittersweetness in all of this because when I interviewed him and I was trying to find the point of the interview, I said, like, you know, do you not want to have your reunited hug, you know, your moment?
	And he said, if it's better for her not to see him again because the imprint, in as much as it makes a human feel special, might not be in the best interest of the animal and if now she's imprinted with her kid and they, you know...
	Seeing Phil will bring back unnatural connections that she's better off having dullened over time.
	Phil wants what's best for her, but that's like not getting to see Old Yeller before...
	Well, that's a bad analogy, but you know what I'm saying.
	So that is what happened.
	So Smushy is now...
	I think it's Abu Dhabi or United Arab Emirates.
	It's overseas, and it's somewhere where it's very difficult to travel.
	Walrus psychology, indeed.
	Now, let me see something here.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I can't do rumble rants.
	I don't know why.
	Well, don't worry about it.
	Now, let me see here.
	It is nice for the walrus indeed.
	All right, now let's see what's going on in rumble.
	Okay, here, good.
	Rumble rants, click that thing.
	Okay, I think I might not have clicked on the rumble rants.
	It doesn't matter.
	All right, so that's the good news.
	I'm just continually going back to the Zoom to see.
	What the deal is.
	I'm going to check my emails.
	I'm going to check my emails.
	Okay.
	Let's just put this to a vote if we do.
	If I put on something just to watch while I figure things out, do you want to watch the hearings on the weaponization of the federal government, the NCI, or...
	We should do the NCI.
	Oh, there's a witness on the NCI.
	Let's just see what's going on with the NCI.
	And then I'm going to bring this up here.
	So enjoy this.
	This is now the National Citizens' Inquiry.
	And to explain the National Citizens' Inquiry.
	Citizen-led inquiry into the government's response to the pandemic in Canada.
	It will have no legal consequences of its findings.
	Whether or not you think it's biased or whether or not anyone accuses it of bias because it's clearly oriented.
	To allowing the citizens to tell their stories of abuse, injury, etc.
	That the government doesn't want to hear and won't let them say.
	Whatever.
	That's what it is.
	It's a time for the scientists who are stifled to speak their minds and share their expertise.
	It's a time for those who were injured to testify.
	Yesterday they had a woman.
	I forgot her name, but I'm darn well going to reach out to her.
	Injured.
	Talking about her injury.
	Like, you know, gets the jab.
	Within short order, becomes basically hyper-allergic sensitive to everything.
	Dogs, cats, perfumes, swelling, anaphylactic allergic responses.
	The government doesn't care to hear it.
	The doctors don't care to entertain that it might have been associated with that which was contemporaneous with this event.
	And then listening to her testify on everything that she's gone through, like going through 10 EpiPens a day.
	People trying to...
	Medical experts trying to chalk it up to psychosomatic symptoms.
	And then Alberta Health Services calls her to see when she's going to schedule her second poke.
	I mean, it's like...
	Inhumane is not the word.
	Inhumane is not the word.
	Then they had other medical experts talking about other stuff.
	For the YouTube overlords, not related to the Jibby Jab, but related to the same type of technology in animals.
	And if we know that the magic juice, the Fauci juice gets into breast milk, and then into that which drinks breast milk, what might be the consequences of this type of technology in animals as relates to the milk that we drink, the meat that we eat, the eggs that we enjoy every morning, which now the mainstream media is trying to tell us is associated with strokes.
	So that's it.
	I don't know who's testifying right now, but let me bring it up and let me just go do some homework while we do this and you'll all have to bear with me because this may or may not be smooth here.
	okay let me get the uh volume here lab and all we receive is a tube with a name date of and birth date and that's it there's no vaccine status there's no
	And all we give back is a positive or a negative result and that's it.
	And so it could be a positive with symptoms or without on a lab end.
	We have no idea at all.
	Thank you very much.
	So these are the questions.
	They ask follow-up questions after the testimony.
	Thank you for your answer.
	I have more of a comment.
	I just want to applaud you in speaking or confronting the stereotypes that go along with stuttering.
	You did a great job, and you're certainly a prime example of someone who pursued education.
	And stand as an equal.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	I'm just, for the, I thank you for that.
	I have now lost five jobs during the pandemic as of my, Dance on things.
	You just have to keep fighting and keep the scientific facts.
	That's it.
	Are there any other questions from the commissioners?
	No.
	Dr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your testimony today on behalf of the National Citizens Inquiry.
	So thank you for coming.
	Thank you.
	So they have the witnesses.
	They have the witnesses.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Cabot.
	Can you please spell and state your name for the record?
	I'm going to leave this on, and you might see me pop up on the screen sooner than later.
	P-H-I-L-I-P-E-C-H-A-B-O-T.
	I apologize for my mispronunciation.
	That's fine.
	Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding your testimony to us this afternoon?
	Yes.
	Very good.
	Now, I understand that you were employed by the CBC and that you were subsequently suspended because you refused to disclose your vaccination status.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	Now, before you tell us a little bit more about that experience, can you just start by telling us a little bit more about yourself?
	I understand that you're married, is that correct?
	Yeah, I'm married.
	I have four children, three girls, age seven, five, three, and a seven-month-old boy.
	And yeah, I'm French-Canadian.
	I was born in Montreal in 1982.
	I've worked as an analyst most of my career, including 10 years in mainstream media.
	And, yeah, software quality analyst, mostly.
	Very good.
	And were you trained for this line of work, or how did you come to have this profession?
	Yeah, I had a little bit of training.
	I did a little bit of computer science in CGEP.
	But mostly I'm self-taught.
	I mostly learned on the job.
	Very good.
	And when did you first start working for the CBC?
	So I joined the CBC in 2018, specifically Radio Canada's Média Numerique.
	And by the way, I'm going to be saying CBC a lot, but most of the time I mean CBC Radio Canada.
	So I joined the Média Numerique, which is where...
	They do most digital projects for the French-speaking audience.
	So their websites, mobile apps, all the infrastructure underneath, the streaming services.
	And myself, I worked mostly on 2TV when I was there, so it's the equivalent of CBC Gem, the French streaming service.
	So I understand from your description that this was a largely digital role or something that you largely performed with computers.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	And where were you required to perform these duties?
	Well, when I joined, we were at the office in Montreal.
	But when the pandemic came back, when I came back from Prantavit, everyone was already working 100%.
	And when you returned to work, after the pandemic had started, were you able to fulfill all of your duties from home or only most of them?
	Sorry, all of them?
	Yeah, all of them we could fulfill from home.
	I mean, there was no use case that required me to go on the premises.
	I mean, the same for almost everyone.
	So, most employees at that point in your division were working from home at that point, is that correct?
	Yeah, to my knowledge, all of them, all of us were working from home.
	So, prior to having left for parental leave and the onset of COVID, what was your relationship like with your employer?
	Well, I really enjoyed working there.
	I would describe it as an extremely positive experience.
	I mean, professionally, it was an ideal place for someone in my field because there were many issues to tackle and a lot of freedom to use our creativity, our problem solving.
	And yeah, I mean, it was just incredibly positive.
	It was also, like, for me, it was a source of motivation that it's a public entity.
	I felt like a kind of civic responsibility working there.
	So that was important.
	Overall, I felt it was an important institution and the work we did there.
	Even though, you know, it's just, it's not life or death deciding services that we worked on, but it's, you know, it's every Canadian's.
	We're all co-owners of the CBC and what they produce there.
	So that felt good working on that kind of thing.
	And overall, the culture there, the attitudes of my colleagues, they were a good fit.
	The three years and a half that I was there, I met a substantial amount of people that I really enjoyed working with and being around.
	Yeah, it's basically where I wanted to be for the rest of my career.
	I just loved it there.
	I made plans to keep working there and it didn't happen.
	Right.
	So you are no longer working for the CBC at this point in time, correct?
	That's correct.
	And why is that?
	Well, they implemented mandatory vaccination.
	And I didn't disclose my vaccination status, so I was put on indefinite leave without pay for a while.
	But overall, all the measures they took for that policy, it just led to me not being able to continue working there or to work there ever again, I feel.
	So when was the idea or the suggestion of a vaccination policy first raised or introduced by your employer?
	Well, we'd have to go back to spring or summer of 2021.
	And during that time, mandatory vaccination or just vaccination in general was a heavily discussed topic.
	And I think it's June or July.
	The CBC felt compelled to at one point state its position on mandatory vaccination on the internal employee website.
	So they posted a statement that basically said that vaccination was a personal choice and that they couldn't impose it unless a law was requiring it.
	So that's the first time we started hearing about it internally.
	And yeah, so that's the first time.
	So obviously at some point that policy changed.
	When did that policy change?
	Well, I mean, not long after that, I think it was like the early fall or like the end of August or September, I was hearing like the federal government talking about mandating the vaccines for federal workers.
	And, you know, so I was concerned.
	So even though the CBC stated that it was a personal choice and that they couldn't impose it, I wasn't really reassured by that.
	But at one point, the CBC announced that they would ask us to disclose our vaccination status.
	And I think that was...
	Yeah, I think they announced it, like, at the end of September.
	And on October 1st, we got the form.
	Did you complete the form?
	No, I didn't complete it because I didn't want to disclose.
	I didn't think at that point it was even in their right to ask for our vaccination status, which I consider to be...
	Like I mentioned earlier, I didn't think they were in there right.
	And that's because I found out on the CRHA website, which is the L 'Ordre des Conseillants Ressources Humaines Agrées, which is a professional association in Quebec.
	And, well, I guess these HR directors, like there's a few of them, but those that were communicating this stuff to us at the CDC, I guess they were part of this association because they have this title in their signature, CRHA.
	So this order, they put out a statement, well, not a statement, but more like a dossier, like a webpage with information on vaccine status disclosure.
	And in there, it said very clearly that disclosure had to be voluntary.
	And that no reprisals could be brought upon an employee refused to disclose.
	And they cited different laws.
	They cited the Charter, they cited the Code Civil du Québec and other laws.
	So I felt pretty confident that I was right, you know, that I didn't need to disclose.
	And like I said, I was working remotely, so it didn't even matter whether I was vaccinated or not for me at this point.
	Right.
	So if I understand correctly, the form was due October 1st, is that correct?
	The disclosure form?
	Yeah, they sent it to us October 1st, but we had a month to reply to it.
	And then when was the mandatory vaccination policy brought into effect?
	Well, the federal government brought its directive.
	For mandatory vaccination of the federal, well, not all federal workers, but it was like central administration workers and the RCMP.
	So that came down on October 6th.
	I don't know when it was announced, but they had been talking about it for a couple months earlier.
	And not long after, October 21st, the CBC announced its own mandatory vaccination.
	Most people have disclosed their status at this point, but this new policy was announced and we had until December 1st to show proof of having had two doses and this applied to every employee.
	Pretty much like it was announced by the federal government.
	There were also people working remotely in the central administration, but probably the RCMP as well.
	And, you know, it affected even people who worked 100% from home.
	So the CBC pretty much copied the federal government in that sense.
	Now, you've said that the policy required you to show all employees, rather, to show all...
	To show that they had received two doses by December 1st or that they would be put on indefinite leave without pay, was there any option to test instead of receiving the vaccination?
	Nope.
	And I think you've already answered this, but just to be very clear, was there any exemption offered to those employees who were working 100% remotely?
	Yes, there were exemptions offered to everyone, even people working on premises.
	So you could...
	Request a medical exemption or religious exemption.
	But what bothered me is that when they announced that, right from the start, they said that, well, medical exemptions, like, probably they would honor that, but it's rare that people, like, have a medical condition that prevents them from getting those vaccines.
	But religious exemptions, a lot of people applied for them.
	But right from the start, the CBC told us that very few would be granted.
	So, I don't know, that just didn't resonate well with me.
	And so I didn't apply for one myself.
	That's not the path I chose to defend my case.
	And I spoke to many people who applied for one, and every single one was rejected.
	Like, even those who seemed...
	Bulletproof, basically, like, were signed by their bishop and, I don't know, they were all turned down.
	So that was kind of disappointing, but the way they had announced it, I kind of expected that.
	And some people, you know, it was supposed to be based on your sincere belief.
	So if you hold a sincere belief, you'll be able to get an exemption.
	But I think there was something else going on with the process and it seemed like it was based on something other than the person's sincere belief, the decision to grant the exemption or not.
	And some people even received their letter informing them that they were being put on leave without pay.
	You know, around November, just before the deadline of December 1st hit.
	Some people even received confirmation that, yes, you're being put on leave without pay for not complying to the policy, while they were still waiting for a decision on their religious exemption.
	So, yeah, something's not right there.
	So what did you do in those few weeks between when the policy was When it was announced, rather, and when it was actually going to be implemented?
	Well, at one point, because I wanted to resolve this, so I wrote to HR.
	They had set up this generic email for all of these issues that had to do with the policy, so I wrote to that email.
	And I asked them, you know, if it was legal, what they were doing, if it was constitutional.
	And the answer I got back was that it was mandated by the government.
	So one of those HR directors told me that it had been mandated and that the mandate applied to Crown.
	Well, it was mandated through a directive that applied to federal workers, including Crown corporations.
	And I also brought that to, like, all these arguments that the CRHA, the L 'Ordre des Conseillers en Ressources Humaines, agrées, put out.
	I also sent that to my union.
	So I was in discussion with both the CBC and my union at that time.
	And that's also what my union told me, that it had been mandated by the federal government.
	And, you know, I...
	After that, I asked them, because I had read the directive, so when they mentioned that, I read it, and I had already read it, and I knew that it, well, at least from what it seemed, and I had other people read it as well, just to make sure it didn't apply to Crown Corporations.
	So it didn't apply to us.
	It was limited to the central administration and RCMP, and there was no mention of Crown Corporations in there.
	And did you specifically point that out to your employer and to the unions that it appeared from your reading that it did not apply to Crown Corporations?
	I did.
	And what was their reply?
	Well, I pointed it out to the union.
	I sent them the text.
	I told them, you know, I basically walked them through it.
	And my union ignored it.
	What I asked the CVC is, when they mentioned that directive, I just asked them very simply, Which directive is that?
	And can you tell me where it says who it applies to, just to verify it applies to Crown Corporations?
	And they basically shut the door to any further discussion when I mentioned that.
	I understand that the CBC also has an appointed Ethics Commissioner.
	Did you attempt to raise this issue with the Commissioner?
	Not myself, but because we were able to form a little group of people who were in the same situation.
	We reached out to each other via different means.
	And I know that one person in the group wrote the ethics commissioner at the CBC and basically showed her that the mandatory vaccination policy violated many, many points in the CBC's own code of conduct.
	And I don't remember her reply exactly, but it...
	It was something like, well, she just basically stated that it was out of her purview, so she didn't seem to want to get involved with us at all.
	And what did you do when the deadline came along, finally?
	So, I'm just checking just to see if we missed anything.
	Okay.
	You mentioned to me at one point that you believed you've referred to the CDC Code of Conduct.
	I believe that you've mentioned certain criteria that you believed they would be required to meet in order to implement a mandatory vaccination policy.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's a very important point.
	One thing I want to mention before that is, you know, those statements that the Lorde des Conseillers en Ressources Feminagrées put out on their website.
	I found out later that the CBC, well, actually, Radio Canada, in French, put out an article where Manon Poirier, which was the head, I don't know if she's still the head of that order, but she basically stated in the article exactly those points, you know, that vaccine disclosure had to be voluntary and that no reprisals could come to employees who refused to do it.
	So basically, regarding these...
	These other points that I brought to the attention of my union, because the CBC had refused to discuss this with me, and since my collective agreement and my contract didn't allow me to represent myself, I had to go through my union.
	So at this point, I was basically trying to convince my union.
	And one way I attempted to do this is using charter law.
	And because I read that...
	You know, for example, well, to me, basically, mandatory vaccination was pretty clear that it was by itself a violation of your charter rights.
	So there were, like, limited circumstances under which charter rights could be suspended, I guess.
	But from what I'd read, the law really seemed to be on my side, because I'd read, for example, that it had to be demonstrably justified.
	It had to be the least infringing measure available.
	And it had to be proportional.
	And this principle of proportionality has to do with the means of attaining an end being no more than what's necessary, basically.
	And, you know, when I read those things and I considered the CBC's policy and my context, being remote, working from home all this time, I didn't think the policy met those criteria.
	So I felt pretty confident that if I demonstrated that and showed all that to my union, that they would have to, even though I knew that they were reluctant, it was obvious that they didn't want to represent me.
	I thought that if I did the work, that's supposed to be their work, if I did that, I can well put out manner that they would have to represent me.
	But yeah, that's not what happened.
	So did your union ever end up filing a grievance on your behalf?
	No, they refused to do it.
	And I did multiple demands for a grievance because initially I argued on that front using charter case law that it was just...
	That the CBC could meet that threshold of implementing mandatory vaccination.
	But they rejected that demand for a grievance based on that.
	I also asked them to grieve the fact that the CBC was using leave without pay as a disciplinary measure, which is not something that's in the collective agreement.
	It's not something that's in my contract either.
	But my union basically...
	Just said that the CBC was fully in their right in doing those things.
	And they cited, like, there's a kind of clause, I don't remember exactly, but there's a clause in the collective agreement that says something like, for every point that's not stated explicitly in the collective agreement, well, the employer can do, as pretty much a carte blanche, to do whatever it wants.
	So when the mandatory policy took effect on December 1st, what happened to you on that date?
	Well, you know, I've been working from home all this time.
	So that morning, just like usual, I knew this was coming.
	And at that point, I was pretty sure that they would enforce it.
	But I went on the computer, tried to log in to do my work and meet my team and all my access.
	We're revoked.
	So even basic things like email, access to the employee portal.
	And like email and employee portal, I don't think someone...
	Because usually leave without pay, the employee has to ask for it.
	I mean, it's something that the employee requests.
	And when they do in the normal circumstances, I don't think...
	Their email access is cut off.
	I don't think their access to employee services, like the portal we have, is cut off either.
	So seeing all that was kind of a shock.
	I mean, to me, it just meant that they really didn't want us even communicating amongst ourselves or communicating easily, at least, with each other using our work email.
	That was a shock on December 1st.
	What impact did the suspension have on you and your family financially?
	I mean, I lost my income and we didn't have access to EI.
	I say we because that's basically the experience of everyone I've spoken to that was my situation.
	We didn't have access to EI because it was considered misconduct to not comply to these policies.
	And I mean, having to find work This was December, so having to find work or other sources of income during holiday season, that's not ideal.
	Were you the sole earner of the family?
	Yeah, I was.
	My salary was my family's only income.
	Stressful not only for me, but for my wife as well.
	And when two parents are stressed out or anxious about something like that, about the financial strain like that, it had an impact on my children as well.
	And they're young, so they're sensitive to this kind of stuff.
	They can't understand yet what was going on.
	Now, something you mentioned to me earlier that I would just like to talk about a little bit.
	So you were not dismissed or terminated, but instead you were suspended without pay.
	And I understand that you were also required to maintain your insurance and benefits.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	As part of the policy, the CBC told us that, well, they didn't leave us a choice, really.
	They said, you will be keeping your insurance and benefits and...
	The cost will effectively double because we won't be covering half of it like they normally do.
	So that was like an extra financial burden that they were putting on us.
	And I guess what bothered me about that is that the union didn't bat an eye at that.
	They seemed to endorse that kind of stuff as well.
	Were you aware of other employees who were similarly suspended as you were on December 1st?
	Yeah, like I mentioned, we were able to organize a small group.
	So that was incredibly beneficial because none of us had to go through this alone.
	I can't imagine having gone through this.
	I wouldn't be here.
	If I had gone through this alone, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here testifying.
	Because it would have made things much worse.
	So I heard their stories as well because I was one of the lucky ones.
	I found work pretty quickly.
	I mean, the kind of work I do, there's a ton of demand for it right now.
	So even during the holidays, I was able to use my remaining vacation time, use just a little bit of my savings.
	To keep everything going, basically feed my family, and then I could work again pretty quickly.
	Even though I had no EI, it went pretty smoothly.
	So I'm one of the lucky ones, but some of the stories I've heard, people were put in very vulnerable positions by these measures.
	Okay, because some of them, like for example, I'll give you an example or two.
	I know this woman who's 58 and she was employed at the CBC and she has kind of a specialized skill set in broadcasting, like TV broadcasting.
	So there wasn't any work for her in her field, you know, when she was put on leave without pay.
	And she's a single mom.
	She has a house.
	She has a daughter in university.
	So just to keep things together, keep her house, keep her daughter in school, she had to look for a job.
	She had to, well, basically she found a minimum wage job and she had to burn through all her retirement savings, her RRSPs, just to keep things going.
	And I mean, she's not seeing that money again.
	So that's one example.
	Other examples, well, just in general, I mean, there were other measures affecting the unvaccinated at this time.
	So people couldn't travel.
	I had a colleague who had family overseas who wanted him to come over because a family member was dying.
	They were sick.
	They were dying.
	They wanted to see their family one last time.
	And this person, on top of being put on leave without pay, they couldn't travel.
	So that's like compounded pressure on these people.
	That's just horrific.
	Now, we're nearly out of time, so I don't want to rush you, but there's just a couple of more quick points that I would like to talk about.
	Now, the vaccine policy was actually suspended at some point.
	I believe you told me it was June of 2022.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	And were you asked to return to work at that point?
	Yeah, I was asked to come back to work.
	You know, after being on leave for seven-plus months, receiving no communication from the CDC, I considered personally myself constructively dismissed at that point.
	So I told them, no, I won't come back to work.
	And one of their other reasons is that because since they had basically mirrored what the federal government was doing, The directive that applied to federal workers also ended just before the CBC ended theirs.
	And it was clear in one of the documents that the Treasury Board put out, that they called the Manager's Toolkit, that talked about people coming back from leave without pay, that they were only suspending the policy.
	They weren't revoking it.
	I couldn't see myself going back there and having this Damocles sword above my head that this could just happen all over again.
	It was just too much pressure.
	And people in my group, some of them wanted to go back, some of them considered it, but they engaged with the CBC.
	They asked questions, you know, okay, well, if I come back, what will happen?
	If you decide to bring the mandate, all that stuff.
	Well, first of all, the delay that they gave us to come back was very short.
	So in those short few days or weeks, the people asking questions weren't really getting the answers that they were expecting.
	The CBC was putting pressure on them, and some of them were resigned.
	Without even resigning themselves, the CBC just stopped talking to them, stopped answering to them.
	They learned through employee services that they had been effectively resigned.
	So my final question, subject to any questions that the commissioners of course may have, is why did you want to testify today?
	Yeah, so the main reason I wanted to testify was because I want people to be able to have an informed opinion on the CBC and what it stands for.
	It's an important institution, like I said, and I think you can learn a lot about an organization by the way it treats its employees.
	And I mean, we haven't really talked about this, but the stated goal of the CDC by implementing mandatory vaccination was to ensure the safety and the security of its employees in the workplace.
	So I don't understand why that would apply to people working remotely.
	I mean, it's not even logical.
	So it looks like they put aside even the most basic logic in favor of this all-vaccine ideology.
	Everyone had to be vaccinated.
	And I was supposed to continue working from home.
	I mean, during those seven-plus months, almost everyone in my department was working from home.
	Here and there, people who wanted to could go to the office, but they were allowed to work from home during all this time.
	Even today, remote work continues.
	This had been communicated to us that remote work would continue, by the way, even before the policy began.
	So everything pointed to remote work.
	And this is what the union should even have pushed for.
	There's no better measure to ensure the safety and security of people in the workplace than remote work.
	So I don't know why they coerced me.
	But when you have a stated goal that there's no logic with the measures you're taking, like this has to do with also being demonstrably justified and the least infringing and all that stuff.
	If they followed the law, it would just have kept the status quo and allowed me to continue working from home.
	But they didn't.
	So that really bothers me.
	And to me, it feels like...
	That's not the real goal.
	The official one that they stated is not the real goal.
	And it bothers me that the CBC seemingly tried to use one ostensible purpose, safety in the workplace, to make this policy appear acceptable while they don't disclose the real reasons behind it.
	So I want people to think about that and to...
	You know, reflect on the fact that, yes, you can learn about an institution or any organization as a whole by the way it treats its employees.
	So there was no justification to treat us this way, to prevent us from keeping working from home.
	And I wonder, and I want people to ask themselves, if the CDC can't be trusted to be ethical in the way it treats its employees, people should ask themselves if it can be trusted to be ethical.
	In its other activities, including news reporting and all that stuff.
	So that's the main reason I wanted to come and tell this story.
	And the other reason is because I don't know how many people the CBC coerced into getting these vaccines.
	I know some people didn't want them and some people had to betray their own conscience and to comply to the CBC's policy.
	So those people...
	I want to acknowledge that they exist.
	I know that some of them have been harmed physically by the vaccine.
	And I wish I could have reached out to them just for mutual support and to tell them that they were not alone.
	So those are the reasons.
	Thank you.
	Are there any...
	Okay, there's one question.
	Please go ahead.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Shabbat, for your testimony.
	Do you consider yourself as an informed citizen?
	Yes.
	Yes, I do.
	I mean, I'm an analyst by trade, so I'm used to dealing with information in general.
	And I'm someone who grew up basically with the internet at their fingertips.
	So yeah, I do consider myself pretty informed.
	So what kind of research would you have done to raise Doubt about the vaccination to the point that you were willing to put everything on the line not to get vaccinated.
	Very simply, I just thought that the risk-benefit ratio was not in favor of the vaccines at all.
	The risks were scary and the benefits, I didn't see any evidence of that.
	The CBC, when they tell you, well, we have this objective of ensuring safety and security in the workplace, I would assume that they would show evidence that it has an effect on safety and security in the workplace.
	And I haven't seen that evidence myself, and the CBC certainly hasn't produced any to show to its employees.
	So from the research I did, the benefits just didn't seem to be there, and the risks.
	It seemed huge.
	I have four young children, so I can't afford to be injured or killed by these injections and leave them without a father.
	So for me, it was out of the questions, mostly because I'm a father and they want to put that risk.
	Did you have the opportunity to discuss your analysis or your questioning with some of your colleagues within your environment?
	Yes, I did.
	I discussed it.
	It's something I talked about openly with my colleagues.
	But you know, my environment, we were not news people.
	We were analysts, programmers, project leaders, and our world is digital.
	And most people there already had gotten two doses of their own volition.
	And people were scared at that time.
	They weren't really open to...
	I mean, even though I thought my arguments were good, like, now is a much better time to use reason.
	People are much more open to those kinds of arguments.
	So I was able to have a huge impact, even though I tried.
	But, yeah, it's sad because, you know, even though I discussed it, and I discussed not only the reasons, For not getting vaccinated, the risk benefits and all that stuff.
	I also discussed the ethical implications and people at the CBC, not just people close to me, but people in general at the CBC, from what I heard from my other colleagues who went through this, there was very much a lack of empathy and indifference over there.
	And I had like 10, 15 years friends that I'd been friends with for 10, 15 years.
	I mean, people who actually got me to join the CBC that I was very close with, who just willfully looked the other way while this was going on.
	And that's the same experience.
	I lost those friendships.
	That's the same experience my other colleagues have gone through.
	So, yeah, at that time, most people over there were really...
	in the narrative and I wondered a lot about why that is.
	Why did people stick to that narrative and have this very narrow way of navigating through it?
	So what is your current condition with respect to your family or people around you?
	How do you feel about the decision and even though it was somewhat Earthfall, how do you feel about the whole situation right now?
	Yeah, it went good for me.
	I mean, I found work.
	I found a consulting firm that hired me.
	And they gave me a contract for a big bank.
	And while the CBC had mandatory vaccination in place, at that bank, even though it was mostly remote work, I could go meet my team.
	And I did.
	And there was testing.
	It was offered to people who weren't vaccinated and we could meet in the office.
	You wore your mask when in the corridors and when you're in the meeting room with your team, you can take off the mask.
	And really quickly, even that requirement of testing went away.
	I don't know if it's because public health guidance changed, but the experience I had in that bank was so refreshing because they were like...
	It was a good example, basically, of proportionality.
	They didn't go beyond what was absolutely necessary and what made sense.
	So really quickly, even though I was unvaccinated, I couldn't go in the CBC.
	I could go meet my team there at the bank and work remotely.
	And people had such a different culture.
	It didn't really matter to anyone.
	You know, they hadn't been subjected to this very strong pro-vaccine bias.
	That was present at the CBC.
	So it was an incredible experience to get out of the CBC and feel like in a normal work environment again where it's just not a concern.
	So that was good.
	I don't work for that bank anymore because I went on parental leave again but I'm still with the consulting firm and I'm very happy now.
	Thank you very much.
	Very good.
	On behalf of the National Citizens' Inquiry, I'd like to thank you very much for your testimony here today.
	Thank you.
	So we're just waiting for a witness to be set up technically.
	I will give you an update, Commissioners.
	We are farther behind than usual, and so we're going to be asking Council to try and keep witnesses more on time, and if it's not essential questioning, we'll ask you guys to also try and help a little bit with that today.
	We're just going to have one of those days.
	I think we might go over five today.
	For anyone listening, that's a joke.
	We usually finish around 6.30 or 7. Because we're just so...
	Well, it's just we have people attend.
	You don't know how long it's going to take for somebody to tell their stories and what issues are going to come up.
	And we want the commissioners to explore all issues because they have an important task at hand.
	So, actually, we're very thankful that the commissioners are willing to do that and privilege the witnesses that we call.
	So we're just having an unusual day today because it was a pretty ambitious schedule, that's all.
	So I think our next witness is almost ready.
	And so our next witness is Dr. Edward Leighton.
	And Dr. Leighton, I thank you for your patience.
	You were scheduled this morning and we kept bumping you back.
	I think I can get in to my doctor sooner than that.
	I've had to wait.
	I'm sorry?
	That's a joke.
	Yeah.
	So can I ask you to start by stating your full name for the record, spelling your first and last name?
	Edward Leighton, E-D-W-A-R-D-L-E-Y-T-O-N.
	And Dr. Leighton, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	I do.
	Now, I just want to introduce you a little bit, and then I'm going to let you tell...
	The evidence that you've come to share with us today, but you had practiced for a full 40 years as a complementary and alternative medicine physician.
	You graduated from medical school in 1975.
	You practiced medicine.
	You focused on chronic illness and psychotherapy.
	You practiced in those areas also.
	You actually retired just before COVID hit back in 2018.
	And then when this global pandemic starts, You thought, okay, I better renew my license and go and help because we're facing a crisis since you renewed your license.
	And I want you to start from there and share with us then what was your experience like going back and where did that lead you?
	Okay, thank you.
	Thank you for the opportunity, Commissioners, and thank you for doing this.
	And good afternoon to the audience.
	So, yes, I decided to go back in 2020.
	And it was mainly to help out with COVID stress-related illness.
	And I did that for about the first eight months.
	I was treating people with psychotherapy, which was my focus.
	And that went on for that length of time.
	I do want to make a little disclaimer before I start, that this is my personal experience that I'm talking about today, and it doesn't in any way represent an official corporate response of the Canadian COVID telehealth group, of which I was a part.
	I was a director for a number of months.
	So I just want to make sure that that's the case.
	So I guess I'm ready with slides.
	Yes, please start your slideshow.
	They'll show up on your computer screen and that will tell you they're on the screen behind you also.
	Yeah, the screen is up.
	Okay, great.
	Thank you.
	So I'm going to talk about why I treated COVID-19 and long COVID, and what was the response to treatment, and also how did the media and the CPSO, which is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which is the regulating body of physicians, that acts under the RHPA, which is the Regulated Health Practitioners Act.
	So I'm going to be talking about all of those things.
	So you've got most of my resume already outlined.
	So I want to take you back for a moment to before the college even started.
	And the reason I'm doing this is some people might think that the college and the way they've behaved towards practitioners who are trying to treat COVID is something that started with COVID.
	But in fact, Physicians have been operating under the shroud of a college which is extremely detrimental towards physicians who are practicing alternative kinds of medicine.
	And this has been going on for a long time.
	So this quote here from 1859 will show you that.
	It's from the York County Medical Practitioners Meeting, Minutes.
	And it says that the members of the medical profession, considering themselves the best, as the only true judges of the requisite qualifications of the art of medicine, claim the power of regulating the amount of those to be possessed by candidates for practice and granting licenses accordingly.
	That paragraph, I think, demonstrates the arrogance, I guess, of the medical profession, thinking that they're the best and that nobody else can come close to them.
	And that was prevalent even in the 1850s when, in fact, medical treatments were pretty primitive, you know, blistering and...
	And arsenicals and all kinds of things were being used.
	The germ theory hadn't even been introduced into medicine at that point.
	And it was clear also that when the college was eventually formed, that even legally qualified physicians who wanted to practice what was called heterodox medicine or alternative kinds of...
	That would be, you know, chiropractic manual therapies, naturopathy, homeopathy, that kind of thing.
	They are actually denounced by their colleagues and regulating bodies as violating the terms of their license.
	So this is the shroud of secrecy under which we practice.
	All doctors practice under this, and many people don't realize that.
	The college has been investigated on a couple of occasions, two or three occasions, actually.
	And I'm going to quote now from an investigation that was done, that was initiated by patients and physicians back in around 1998, finished in 2001, and became known as the Glasnost Report.
	Referring to transparency is needed in medicine.
	And this investigation was headed by a lawyer, now Justice Michael Code, who was a former Attorney General, and he investigated the practice of six physicians who had been treated for chronic pain and other difficult situations.
	And he came to the following conclusion.
	These are college-driven fishing expeditions, which are initiated under Section 75. That's the Regulated Health Practitioners Act, Section 75. And they can be misused in such a way that they do not serve the public or the evolution of medicine.
	They can ruin the life of the doctor involved and have done so in several cases.
	It is highly unusual that even people under criminal investigation in prison attempt suicide.
	Yet we know of four doctors who committed suicide while under CPSO investigation, and none had patient complaints against them.
	These are all college-driven issues.
	He refers to a particular case.
	Mr. Code refers to a particular case.
	Saying that in this case, that allowed Mr. Code to assert that it provides prima facie evidence that CPSO officials may have committed the criminal offense of obstructing justice by repeatedly misleading the executive committee as to the true state of the evidence in this case.
	This is our college, the college that is supposed to regulate practitioners.
	Involved possibly in criminal offenses, a very serious charge.
	It's almost impossible to launch a complaint against the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
	I tried to do that in 1998, around the time of this investigation, and was told that I couldn't really launch a complaint against them unless I launched it with the actual prosecution.
	So there's no recourse, there's no way of launching a complaint against the college at all.
	So given that, it wouldn't perhaps surprise us to see the edict that came out in 2021, May 2021.
	I'll just read it because it's...
	Probably not terribly clear.
	The college is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding those physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations.
	Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, and anti-lockdown statements and or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19.
	Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations.
	Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO.
	When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct.
	The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be reported by available evidence and science.
	It's an interesting wording because they use that a position of trust.
	We have a position of trust.
	With the public and a responsibility not to communicate these things.
	Do we have trust in the CPSO who are supposed to protect the public and guide physicians?
	No, we don't.
	There have been at least two demonstrations by physicians and patients outside of the college in this pandemic.
	Maybe three.
	And those demonstrations have been met with silence by the college.
	In fact, the college has vacated the premises for a number of months during the pandemic because they were afraid that their safety was in danger.
	So that's the position that we were working under during the pandemic.
	And this is the position...
	Of the CPSO on vaccine anxiety.
	It's an interesting concept that having anxiety about a new drug, or in this case, quotes, vaccine, can be considered an illness.
	But in this case, it is.
	Here's one of their statements from their website.
	It's important that physicians work with their patients to manage anxieties related to the vaccine and not enable avoidance behavior.
	In cases of serious concern, responsible use of prescription medications and /or referral to psychotherapy are available options.
	So, you know, if I offer you a high blood pressure medication in my office and I say I want you to take this, I would obviously go through whatever is important about the side effects, the positive effects, the negative effects of this medication.
	And if the patient said, well, I'm anxious about that, according to this, and the vaccine is kind of like that, I would have to say, well, take five milligrams of Valium and come and see me tomorrow.
	And you'll feel better about the whole thing.
	That's what they're suggesting.
	In November 2022, they added, for some reason, I'm not sure why, the extreme fear of needles, trypanophobia, it's called, or other areas of concern.
	I don't know what that means.
	And that we should be treating that with medication.
	Or with psychotherapy?
	Well, first of all, you can't get a psychotherapist for love, no money.
	And second of all, the prescription medications that would be used for that, I'm not sure how I would treat trypanophobia other than by giving a sedative of some kind so that you are kind of half asleep when you have your vaccination.
	It's really an outrageous suggestion.
	And then there's the circumstances of the pandemic which support physicians declining to write notes or complete forms when the patient is making a request.
	Usually that's a natural thing that we would do if a patient came with a request to have medical forms completed.
	And they're saying, in this case, you know, you don't have to do that.
	So you don't have to write prescriptions for exemptions and so on.
	You have to sensitively explain to your patient that you can't provide them with that.
	Dr. Layton, can I just ask, because you practice psychotherapy, I mean, I imagine that some patients will legitimately, not just for a vaccine like this, but legitimately have anxiety that reaches a medical condition, you know, mental health condition.
	And that it would be reasonable in some situations to exempt people.
	Is that a fair comment?
	To exempt people?
	No, to exempt somebody if they legitimately are anxious about it.
	That could be a valid ground for an exemption, actually having undue anxiety about a treatment.
	Yes, of course.
	But physicians are basically being told, no, not for this one.
	Right.
	Okay, thank you.
	So, we weren't allowed to write exemptions unless it was anaphylactic shock.
	I wrote a couple of exemptions during the period, first year or two, and it was because of very significant side effects that I figured might happen as a result of genetic thromboembolic disorders and so on.
	But I wasn't supposed to do that.
	Thank you.
	So the other thing about the RHPA in Section 75 that's important to know is that Section 75 allows the college to investigate our practice completely and to remove files, that is to remove patient files.
	And this has been challenged in the last six months by a couple of challenges.
	If you refer to the second paragraph, the second bullet point, about 100 patients of Dr. Sonia Couste under investigation for writing two mask exemptions, that's apparently enough for an investigation, during COVID, unsuccessfully filed their motion to stop CPSO investigators from gaining access to their private medical records.
	I want you to go down to the fourth paragraph, which says, And this kind of reflects the attitude of the college, which I brought up at the beginning, which says, and this was the lead counsel for the college.
	She stated that patients should not have any say about their own medical records or how the CPSO wishes to use them when a physician is under investigation for potentially putting a patient at risk of harm.
	So to come back to my story, after 2020, when I was practicing mainly psychotherapy, I joined a Facebook group in February of 2021.
	And that was just when the vaccines were starting to come in.
	And the Facebook group was a professional group with, I think, nurse practitioners and physicians.
	And I noticed two things happening.
	I noticed that Physicians and nurses who were actually starting to give vaccines were starting to see side effects even at that early stage.
	They would come back with reports of aches and pains, orthopedic issues, arthritic issues, swelling of joints, brain fog, musculoskeletal system symptoms, and so on.
	And also at that time, ivermectin was being touted as a useful tool in the treatment of COVID because there was no treatment given.
	Doctors were told to send their patients home with Tylenol and that they should go to the hospital if they couldn't breathe anymore.
	That was the only treatment that was on.
	So I started to bring up questions on this Facebook page about Ivermectin and also about the fact that vaccines seem to be detrimental in some cases.
	And I was immediately pounced upon by a number of people in that group saying you cannot talk about this because this is a public health recommendation and they are our colleagues and we shouldn't be criticizing them.
	So naturally, I went on to criticize them, and eventually I was ousted from the group.
	I was removed.
	So then I joined the Canadian COVID telehealth organization.
	I came to know about it because I started to look into what was going on.
	And I found a group that was definitely on my side.
	And was open to different opinions about things.
	And I also started looking into ivermectin and several people in the CCCA talked to me about the possibility of prescribing ivermectin.
	And so I looked at that and I thought there's a lot of evidence to show that ivermectin is very useful.
	And one of the people in the group said, well, why don't you prescribe it?
	So I said, well, I'm not really, you know, I'm a psychotherapist.
	That's my focus.
	But I was a family physician at one time.
	And so I thought about it a lot and I researched it.
	And so in the summer of 2021, I decided to start prescribing ivermectin.
	And I was fortunate at that time to be able to be in touch with Dr. Ara Bernstein, who some of you may know, was a prominent physician who had been treating COVID quite successfully for some period of time with ivermectin and other treatments.
	And in fact, he attended the first international conference in Rome and was very up to date on COVID treatment.
	So I began to use ivermectin in my private practice and found excellent results.
	I used it for prevention, for simple COVID, which we treat in the first few days or one week, and then for more complex COVID, which lasts longer than a week.
	Eventually, we decided that it would be good to form a clinic.
	So a number of us got together and we formed Canadian COVID Telehealth.
	This was a telehealth group.
	We had at that time about half a dozen physicians and an equal number of nurse practitioners and nurses.
	We operated throughout Canada and we saw patients.
	In every province except Manitoba, which didn't allow us to do telemedicine without a license.
	But we could in other provinces.
	That went on.
	Well, it still goes on.
	I'm still prescribing ivermectin.
	But it went on at a fairly good clip because...
	That was right in the middle, if you'll recall, of the Delta variant, which was probably the worst variant that we've seen.
	And people were getting really quite sick with that.
	And one of the things that was very noticeable about our patient population is that people were terrified of COVID.
	They had been completely propagandized, if you like, to believe that COVID was a terrible disease.
	And a lot of people wanted prevention.
	Most of our patients called up wanting ivermectin prevention.
	And we had, at that time, about half a dozen pharmacies in Ontario and a few out west that were dispensing ivermectin freely.
	They were compounding pharmacies.
	They weren't using the Merck product.
	So they pretty much stopped making it.
	But the raw materials were available to pharmacies and pharmacies were dispensing it freely.
	And so we were very busy at that time.
	And we saw a lot of patients.
	I myself personally prescribed, I think, around 800-900 prescriptions for ivermectin.
	Over that period of time and on into 2022.
	But it was a problem.
	We had a hit piece in the global news and also in the Toronto Star.
	The reporter from the Toronto Star had impersonated a patient and called our clinic asking for ivermectin.
	And of course, our physician responded appropriately.
	And she then proceeded to write about us in the Toronto Star and denigrate us as a clinic, saying it was all misinformation and we shouldn't be doing that.
	As a result of that, or maybe it was happening anyway, the college I decided to raid the office of Dr. Ara Bernstein, and that contained the electronic medical records of our clinic.
	The CPSO went in without asking, without Dr. Bernstein being there, being present.
	They took all the information, information that they had no business taking.
	And they used that information to target all of our physicians.
	And they did that over a period of time.
	So that we lost all of our physicians, except myself, over a period of about six months.
	We also lost nurse practitioners and nurses.
	And I have to tell you, we had an amazing team of people.
	We did full assessments on everybody.
	We did full histories.
	We couldn't do physicals, of course.
	But we made every attempt to follow up.
	And nurses spent hours on the phone, often with patients who were anxious and either sick and anxious, or anxious about getting sick.
	And we treated them all.
	It wasn't just ivermectin.
	I'll come in a moment to how we treated them.
	But we treated them all.
	And then in 2022, of course, Omicron came along and we actually had a decrease in the number of patients because Omicron was much less.
	Although it was more infectious, it was much less serious.
	and so people started to sort of accept that they had covid and they would get over it on their own so So, I don't know if there are any questions up until this point and how much time I have, but I'd like to go into some of the treatments that we did and how those worked and didn't work.
	I just wanted to ask, how did you guys lose the doctors and nurses after the CPSO?
	So the CPSO raided, and you said you've lost all of the doctors except yourself.
	What was the cause of losing the doctors?
	Like, how did that happen?
	Some of the doctors had privileges at hospitals and worked at hospitals, and often the hospitals made complaints to the CPSO that the doctors were either unvaccinated and shouldn't be working,
	or they were prescribing ivermectin, and the college took it from there, and they either delicensed them completely, Or they restricted their license.
	Dr. Bernstein, for example, had his license restricted.
	He wasn't able to treat COVID anymore.
	He wasn't able to use ivermectin.
	And he had to put a notice up in his office saying, I do not treat COVID.
	So these are medical doctors that are fully licensed.
	There are not complaints against them by patients.
	No.
	And basically their right to practice is either fully or largely restricted.
	Correct.
	Just because they are treating COVID patients in this clinic.
	Yes.
	Okay, thank you.
	The other thing, for example, I don't know if Dr. Patrick Phillips testified.
	I think he did.
	For example, he and Dr. Hoff out west both reported Side effects from vaccines, because they were both emergency physicians, reported that to public health.
	And as a result of that, they lost their jobs and couldn't work.
	So it was either the hospitals complaining or it was the CPSO saying...
	That they couldn't prescribe ivermectin.
	Now, just so that it's clear, especially for people that are participating online to watch your evidence, my understanding, though, is that it's federal law that a physician is to report a suspected vaccine injury.
	That's correct.
	So you just cited the names of two physicians that were disciplined for following the law.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	And who should really be disciplined as the CPSO for not following the law?
	So, we treated COVID using the frontline COVID care, critical care alliance protocols.
	Now, the frontline critical COVID care, you've heard from Peter McCullough, and you're probably aware of Dr. Pierre Corey and Dr. Paul Merrick.
	These physicians were ICU physicians, intensivists, boots on the ground people who saw that something was wrong and wanted a primary treatment for COVID, found out about ivermectin and did very thorough research into that.
	We're extremely grateful to them for putting together protocols that we could use.
	These protocols came from Physicians all over the world who were communicating with Dr. Corey and Dr. Merrick.
	And they were very thorough and they worked well.
	So you can see that we divided treatments into prevention, early treatment, and complex COVID.
	I'm not going to go over those treatments and I don't expect you to read the protocols, but we used to send the protocol to the patient.
	After each consultation, so they knew exactly what to do and how to manage it.
	We treated viral entry points because there was some research that showed that this was very important because the virus starts in the nasal passages and that's where you need to treat it, first of all.
	So we used simple things like proviodine sprays and Cetyl pyridinium chloride, which is in things like SCOPE and ACT and so on.
	We also had a cocktail of immune modulators.
	I don't like to use the word booster because you don't always need to boost your immune system, but what you do is you give the body the orthomolecular ability to correct whatever's wrong with the immune system.
	By using these kinds of things.
	And they would include, of course, vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, sometimes melatonin.
	We also sent patients home.
	I think I'm seeing them in my office.
	We also gave patients over the internet things like this.
	This was a home treatment put out by the World Council for Health, which was a really good...
	A home treatment that people could follow.
	So we made sure that not only they got the treatments, they knew how to take care of themselves, and that we followed up with them.
	Some of the nurses were on the phone with them two, three times a week, reassuring them that they were doing okay.
	And of course, in the more advanced cases, we had to measure our oxygen uptake.
	And sometimes we even had to give IV fluids, and this was all through home care and so on that we had to arrange for them because we weren't physically present in the same city as them.
	So as I mentioned, the patient volume dropped with Omicron.
	That was a good thing in some ways.
	And now we don't even actually give ivermectin for prevention anymore because the virus is pretty mild.
	So in October of 2022, I got the dreaded Section 75 from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
	So they started an investigation into my practice.
	There was no patient complaint.
	I practiced for 40 years without a complaint.
	There was no patient complaint in this case.
	They sent me 400 pages of documents to read, most of which were propaganda from Health Canada about ivermectin.
	They didn't really send me anything substantial in terms of research.
	And the complaint was that I was prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
	That was it.
	They were correct.
	That's what I was doing.
	But it's not illegal to do that.
	It's what's called off-label prescribing.
	Happens all the time.
	Example.
	Metoprolol is a blood pressure medication.
	It's often used for stage fright.
	Doctors do that all the time.
	They prescribe off-label because there are indications that it might help other conditions.
	And that is exactly what ivermectin is.
	Ivermectin is a safe, widely used drug.
	It has been used for many, many years, particularly in the tropics for river blindness and sometimes here in the West for scabies.
	Very safe and very available.
	Thank you.
	So when Omicron came along, we also started to see a number of patients who were vaccine injured.
	And the Frontline COVID Care Alliance once again started to put out protocols.
	They have to remember that vaccine injury is something we knew nothing about until the vaccine came along.
	It didn't exist.
	So here we are faced with an illness that nobody knows anything about.
	It has extraordinary breadth of spread in terms of what it does to the body.
	And we didn't know really how to treat it.
	So again, we sort of relied on the frontline COVID care people to gather information again from the rest of the world about vaccine injury.
	And they put together some protocols.
	It turns out that ivermectin also binds spike protein, which is the protein that the body makes as a result of the vaccine.
	Of course, we were told that the spike protein was short-lived.
	It didn't live in the body.
	It just stimulated the immune system, stayed in the shoulder, as did the mRNA.
	Neither of those things were true.
	The spike protein goes into every tissue in the body, including the brain.
	It's been found there in pathology and histology slides.
	You can stain for it.
	We know it does that.
	And that's why we see so many symptoms throughout the whole body.
	We get brain fog.
	We get things like POTS, which is orthostatic hypertension.
	It affects the autonomic nervous system.
	The spike protein can affect the neurological system, and so on.
	It's all over the place.
	So these are some of the things that we used for treating that.
	So I want to give you a couple of case histories just to finish up here.
	I don't want you to get the impression that this is easy to treat.
	I mean, acute COVID was relatively easy to treat because it worked really quickly and you knew when you were over it.
	Vaccine injury is completely different.
	It's a complex illness about which we knew very little.
	I would say that in my experience, treating vaccine injury, probably 50% of people respond to treatments.
	It often takes a long time and a lot of work on the part of the patient, as well as the practitioner.
	This is the case of a 40-year-old mother breastfeeding a 19-month-old child.
	She had an immediate reaction to a mandated Pfizer vaccine in January 2022.
	These are some of the symptoms.
	You can see them there.
	The main ones were chest pressure and facial rash, cold extremities, twitching all over the body.
	These are symptoms that we generally don't see as physicians.
	If you saw this as a physician and you had no knowledge of the fact that they had a vaccine, You would say, what kind of illness is this that does this?
	Completely new.
	And a lot of those symptoms are neurological.
	They affect the nervous system.
	Shooting pains.
	Paresis.
	Weakness of the limbs.
	Difficulty getting up and moving around.
	And the tests are often normal.
	This lady's vitamin D was low.
	And her nutrition wasn't that great.
	So she says after three and a half months, she was left with intermittent pressure, tightness and numbness in face, head, neck and soft tissues inside the mouth.
	Chest pressure feels like a squeezing and a push gave me a dry cough.
	Can you imagine having chest pressure and going to the emergency, thinking you're having a heart attack, and being told, no, it's not a heart attack, we don't know what it is, but just go home, take some Advil.
	Now, it could be myocarditis.
	It's possible.
	Sometimes it's not.
	But it would terrify you.
	And especially it would terrify you not knowing what that is.
	So this patient had some changes in her extremities.
	I'll just demonstrate for you.
	Normally, when you hold your hand, for example, at heart level, your veins are not filled because that's the blood going back to your heart.
	When you drop your hand down below heart level, your veins will fill up.
	You'll watch this video, you'll see that her veins and her skin and her swelling in her hands develops as she drops her hand.
	I go the right way here.
	So there you see the normal hand and now you'll see the veins filling.
	Some of this is normal, veins will fill up, but you see how engorged they become and then the swelling and the redness of the knuckles and so on.
	Very bizarre symptoms that you might not see that don't fit any disease category at all.
	So we treated her with ivermectin.
	Now, some people respond to ivermectin very well.
	And she happened to be one of the fortunate ones.
	We increased her vitamin D to 5,000 units a day, put her on an anti-inflammatory diet, and started her on some gentle exercise.
	And she had 30% improvement within two weeks and 60% in three months.
	How do we know this?
	We do a very careful, what's called functional inquiry.
	We question people about every organ system in the body.
	So you can see them all there, head, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, throat, and so on.
	And we score them.
	The patient scores them as to how much of a symptom, how much problem a symptom is within that particular group.
	You can see that she scored 154 at the beginning.
	And then after her treatment, a couple of months later, she was scoring 65. So we're measuring change.
	We're trying to be objective about it and measure how much improvement people are getting.
	And it's helpful for the patient to see this, that they are improving.
	Another case of a vaccine injury was a 51-year-old female, former athlete, actually, a very athletic person.
	She, after the second vaccine, had significant symptoms that developed less than a month later.
	You might say, well, how do you know it's the vaccine that's doing this?
	You know, skeptics will say that, and, you know, you can ask that question.
	It's important.
	I mean, From a temporal point of view, I mean, if I'm working in my workshop and I hit a nail, and then I hit my finger, I can be pretty sure the pain is due to the fact that I hit my finger with a hammer.
	So the closer the temporal relationship, the closer the cause is likely to be something.
	If somebody has a vaccine in a pharmacy and drops dead, which has happened, you can be pretty sure it was probably the vaccine.
	Not a coincidence.
	The longer between the vaccine and when you have symptoms, the more difficult it is to kind of assess.
	But you can tell, in a sense, because the symptoms are so unusual and they're so varied.
	Now, her D-dimer was elevated, and she had blood clots.
	She knew that something was wrong, and she had chest pain as well.
	Again, an MRI and colonoscopy and stress test, they were all normal.
	By the time we see these patients, sometimes they'd had a lot of tests.
	So I said she gave some very typical symptoms of post-vax inflammation and injury onset within a month, probably the vaccine, given the kinds of symptoms that she was having.
	Headaches, too.
	Helmet-like headaches that can last for hours.
	Shooting nerve pain.
	Extreme fatigue.
	That's a very common symptom.
	Increased brain fog.
	You know, when the spike protein gets into the brain, it creates inflammation.
	And then, of course, increased anxiety as a result of all of this.
	So, again, we treated it with ivermectin.
	And we started her on an antihistamine.
	Sometimes these people get what's called mast cell activation, so their mast cells are producing a lot of histamine, which produce symptoms.
	And so we give an antihistamine, and that helps, that it's a non-drowsy antihistamine.
	And she, after this treatment, Could actually bike five kilometers without being short of breath.
	So she was very pleased about that.
	Again, looking at the scores, you can see the scores going down over a period of time.
	So we know we're having an impact with our treatments.
	Now she had a drooping of the face, sometimes known as Bell's palsy.
	She's given us permission to show this.
	Next slide.
	So on the left, You can see that the right side of her face, she's trying to smile, and she can't smile because the facial muscle was paralyzed on the right side, but she can smile on the left.
	You can see the crease.
	Does mouth work?
	No.
	You can see the crease, facial crease on the right side is almost non-existent.
	But then after treatment, Her facial smile is almost normal.
	You might say, well, Bell's palsy is self-limiting.
	True.
	She'd had this for, I think, over a year.
	And then suddenly it gets better.
	Well, it could be a coincidence.
	So, in summary, we've had a disease with a 99. 5% survival rate.
	We've had poor testing.
	The last speaker showed a diagnosis of PCR with false positives, rushed vaccine development, absence of treatment until hospitalized, lack of recognition of vaccine injury, and persecution of doctors and other healthcare practitioners by regulating bodies with their loss of licenses.
	I'll stop there.
	Before I turn you over to the commissioners, I just wanted to clarify.
	You had practiced a full 40 years.
	Longer now, right?
	Because you got your license back in 2020.
	So how many years have you practiced medicine in total?
	Well, I started in 70...
	I graduated in 75, so 78 to 2018.
	So that's 40 years.
	Right, and then now for a couple more years.
	I took two years off and I'm now into my third year.
	Right, so 42 and a half years.
	You have never had a patient complaint in that 42 and a half years.
	And am I right that, you know, in the next month or so, you might lose your license to practice because of the activities that you've just shared where you're trying to help people with vaccine injuries and in preventing and treating COVID?
	Possibly.
	It's ironic that the college...
	When I renewed my license in 2020, the college gave me a free license for a year because they wanted doctors to come back, and I've been rewarded with an investigation.
	So I might lose my license.
	I might be restricted.
	I have no idea.
	I might retire, too.
	I think it's a race.
	Right.
	Well...
	I think I can speak for pretty well everyone that we're thankful for people.
	Thank you very much, Doctor.
	I have a couple of questions.
	It's not as active or it could be because they have other immune suppression of some sort.
	So these so-called frail people or more fragile people were initially Targeted to be vaccinated.
	They were targeted to be vaccinated to protect them from the disease.
	So it's my understanding, based on my research, that the vaccination should work by triggering the immune response in order to protect against the infection.
	But if the reason why you're...
	Mainly susceptible to the infection is because your immune system is not properly functioning.
	How come vaccination will solve that?
	I'm asking that to a practicing doctor.
	Well, vaccination doesn't solve it.
	First of all, this isn't a vaccine in the true sense of the word.
	We think that it actually makes the immune system worse.
	And in fact, you're more likely to get COVID the more vaccines you have.
	That's a Cleveland Clinic study that was, I think, has already been reported on in the inquiry.
	The more people are vaccinated, the more likely they are to get COVID, which is kind of...
	Weird.
	I don't know if that answers your question or not.
	Yeah, it does.
	My other question has to do with the CPSO, which we have the equivalent in Quebec.
	We've heard from other doctors that testified recently in Quebec that they want to interrogate the Collège des Médecins and ask them a number of questions about the scientific rationale.
	to promote vaccination of children and pregnant women.
	And these doctors had several questions that were never answered ultimately by the collision.
	We're not a society that generates new knowledge.
	This is not our role.
	You should consult with the official society and SPQ and the other society.
	If such a question would be addressed to the CPSO, would they come up with a similar explanation that it's not their role to generate new knowledge and to ask those very specific questions that arose from the deployment of the vaccine with respect to the risk-benefit balance for children and pregnant women and so on?
	What would be their position in your opinion?
	The college doesn't answer questions like that.
	The college is a regulatory body.
	It investigates people on a whim.
	And I don't know what goes on inside the college, to be honest with you.
	But it's something pretty nefarious.
	So in terms of asking the college to explain something like that, they don't do that.
	The motto is protect the public, which they don't do, and guide physicians, which they don't do.
	My last question is about the state of the art in terms of practice of medicine.
	Did the practice of medicine evolve in your experience through I would say the practice of science observation and medical treatment that any given physician can actually do in their normal activity or does it evolve solely when some new treatment or protocol has been Check very rigorously through
	these randomized controlled trial.
	That is the only way to come up with new solution for treatments.
	Well, it should be a combination of those things, in my opinion.
	The problem is, well, it's a complicated question.
	The problem is that when somebody comes up with a solution for something that's unusual, for example, I'm thinking of, I think it was Barry Marshall, who was an Australian physician, who came up with the idea that an ulcer was caused by a bacteria called Heliobacter pylori.
	This was many, many years ago.
	And he couldn't convince anybody.
	In the scientific community that this was valid despite publishing.
	So it's very difficult to convince the medical community of new things.
	And eventually he had to give himself an ulcer and then take the treatment and cure himself.
	And now antibacterials are used for ulcer treatment with success.
	Killing H. pylori.
	But that was a hard fight.
	There's multiple examples of people who've come up with innovative solutions who have been put down and not recognized throughout the history of medicine.
	I'm not a philosopher, so I can't answer why that might be.
	What has happened also is that In a regular doctor's office, you get visits from a pharmaceutical company with the latest and greatest medication for something.
	And physicians are heavily influenced by that.
	And as we know, the only way to get grants for research is through money from pharmaceutical companies.
	So there's a built-in bias.
	That is quite extraordinary.
	Does that answer your question?
	Yeah, thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	There being no further, Commissioner, questions.
	Dr. Layton, on behalf of the National Citizens' Inquiry, we sincerely thank you for coming and sharing this information and sincerely thank you for the service you've given as a physician.
	Thank you for the inquiry.
	Appreciate all you guys are doing.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	So I'll just state for the online audience that cannot participate that there was a standing ovation for Dr. Leighton.
	He's very well respected for the service that he has given.
	So I'm just being signaled by our AV staff that we should take a short break or stand out for five minutes.
	So we're going to go off air for five minutes and then be back.
	So when I...
	like to call our next witness, Mr. Rick Wall, who is attending virtually.
	And Rick, can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, so first of all, I'll ask if you can state your full name for the record, spelling your first and last name.
	Yes, sir.
	My full name is Diedrich Wall, D-I-E-D-R-I-C-H.
	Last name is W-A-L-L.
	Most people call me Rick, but that is my full name.
	And we'll call you Rick because that's what you're comfortable with.
	And I'll ask you if you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God.
	I do.
	Now, Rick, you're almost being provocative today because you have a Canadian flag behind you.
	And I never thought I would, as a Canadian...
	Where my inside voice will say, oh boy, that's kind of an act of rebellion, a Canadian flag.
	But you have some interesting involvement in what I'll call the trucker movement.
	So let me just introduce you and then I'll ask you to explain your story and what happened.
	But my understanding is that you are the owner of a trucking company in southern Manitoba.
	And basically, your company does a lot of cross...
	Border shipping since 2009, but you've been running the company for 11 years now.
	Correct.
	And that you became very involved in the trucking protests.
	Am I correct about that?
	Yes, sir.
	And basically in January 2021, you started getting involved in anti-mask rallies in Winkler.
	Yes, sir.
	Correct.
	And then for...
	First couple months of 2022, you became involved in the Freedom Convoy.
	Right.
	But you were actually involved in what might be the very first cross-border blockade on January 17, 2022.
	You were one of the organizers of the first blockade.
	We'll talk about that later, but I'm just introducing you right now.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	But before we get to the trucking...
	Part of this, I want you to share with us something that happened with you in Outdoor Church, because my understanding is in May of 2021, you got involved in an outdoor church.
	So can you share with us your experience there and what happened?
	I certainly can.
	I'd just like to take a quick opportunity to just say thank you to the entire team at the NCI.
	I feel extremely humbled that I was asked to present or to share my story here today.
	Just thank God for all of you people on that commission that you guys are donating your time and doing this.
	I think it's an extremely important part of Canadian history, so I commend each and every one of you for doing that.
	Again, I'm a God-fearing father of three, and the last couple of years have been rather interesting, to say the least.
	But yes, my journey in the freedom fight, well, I guess I became...
	Quite leery early on when the pandemic first started.
	There wasn't much scientific proof or anything at that point on which way was maybe the right or the wrong approach on this whole thing, but my critical thinking got the best of me early on.
	But yes, early in 2021, a good friend of mine organized the first Freedom Drive within the Winkler, Manitoba area and I started helping and participating shortly thereafter.
	And yes, in early May of 2021, at this point, churches and everything were locked down.
	And of course, you know, we as Canadians, or I guess like-minded people such as myself, felt extremely violated that our constitutional rights to worship freely were now officially stripped from us.
	And so we thought it'd be a good idea to organize our church worship services.
	You know what's the harm in that was our thought process during that time but this was of course when the implementation of the outdoor gathering size had decreased to five I believe it was outrageous to think that that only you know you're only allowed to to gather with five people outdoors and but yes it was during that time so we organized the first one was on May 5th correctly it was just At a public
	park we made sure we stayed we stayed off like there's a big stage in the city of Winkler where we where we conducted this but we stayed off public property except for the fact of the actual grounds that we were at we stayed off the stage we just kind of set up our own little little setup and had somebody come out to bring a message saying some praise and worship songs all the meanwhile we had our chief of police Not in uniform, off-duty.
	With his personal vehicle, he'd park close to the stage and monitor basically our every move and counting how many people attended and therefore got in trouble for it sometime later.
	So can I ask Mike, how many people would have come out to this event?
	If I'm correct, I think it was between, I would say between 70 and 100 people.
	We did this two consecutive Sundays in a row, so both times I think it was probably pretty average, between 50 and 100 people somewhere in there.
	Okay, and I just want to make sure that I understand.
	So basically you've got 70 to 100 people in an outside park, am I right about that?
	Correct.
	And they're singing hymns, and they're listening to somebody give a message.
	Correct.
	So basically they're listening to preaching.
	Yes.
	And the chief of police, who's known because this is a small town, is there in his private car photographing who's there?
	I understand your question.
	Like, are you asking?
	Oh, so you're asking whether he was in his private car taking photographs?
	Is that your question?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	In fact, that was the reason why he was there.
	He documented the event.
	Therefore, I guess justifying them later on fining all three of the organizers for these two events.
	We were all ticketed for each event.
	Ticket amounts were for not complying with public health orders and they were for $1,296 each.
	I received two of them.
	Right, so for your participation in Outside, singing hymns and listening to a sermon, basically over $1,000 in fines.
	Correct.
	And this is in the town of Winkler, Manitoba.
	Yeah, it's actually a small city.
	It's considered a city, but yeah, in the city of Winkler.
	Yeah, it was very saddening to witness this time, especially when it came to church-related things.
	You think, you know, we live in a country where we should have the right to worship.
	And it was, yeah, we're hardly put it into meaning what those times are like.
	And again, when you guys play these clips in between of our public health officers and Premier, you know, announcing these measures, it's sure those raw feel come back.
	Yeah, it's still hard to believe that we went through that time.
	So can I ask you how it affected both you and your family not to be able to attend church?
	Because my understanding is because of the fines, you guys only did the outdoor church twice.
	Correct.
	Yeah, they made it pretty clear that any time going forward, we were going to organize anything like this, that more tickets could be issued.
	And again, memory doesn't serve me well enough to know exactly if that was one of the only reasons why we stopped.
	Because at this point, I myself was in the same shoes as Patrick that just testified.
	You know, you get to a point where you see how unlawful, within the sense of law, all of this was at this point.
	And where do you just find a, you know, draw that line and say.
	Hmm.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon.
	Can you please spell and state your name for the record?
	My name is Dr. Karen Epstein-Gilboa.
	And can you please spell that?
	Karen is K-E-R-E-N, sometimes K-A-R-E-N, E-P-S-T-E-I-N hyphen G-I-L-B-O-A.
	Very good.
	And do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony here?
	Yes, I do.
	Very good.
	Now, I understand that you're here today to describe various childhood traumas that were suffered largely as a result of COVID or COVID measures.
	Just to start with, can you give us a little bit of your background?
	Can you briefly describe that for us, please?
	Well, I graduated with an undergrad degree in a health-related area more than 40 years ago.
	My master's is in counseling and applied psychology, and my doctorate's in developmental psychology.
	Very good.
	So you're here today to speak to us as an independent scholar, is that right?
	Yes, I'm an independent scholar.
	Very good.
	Now, I know that you have a presentation that's ready to go, and my intention is just to let you...
	Carry on with that.
	I will interrupt if I have any questions, but we're in your capable hands for the moment.
	So please, please start.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay.
	So I'm going to be presenting insights from behavioral science.
	My agenda.
	My question in 2020 was, what is the reason...
	That existing and long-standing research practices related to social determinants of health were discarded, and now I would say during the past three years.
	So I'm going to provide insights from behavioral science, a little bit on systems models, and individual, and that's when I'm going to be talking about children as well, infants and children, a little bit on bioethics.
	And then I'm going to be presenting about the psychological model used to circulate systemic messages, which is often called the nudge model.
	Dr. Epstein-Gilboa, if I can interrupt you for one moment, the commissioners have just brought it to my attention that I didn't swear you in.
	Did I swear you in or did I not?
	Okay, sorry.
	I apologize.
	Do I start again?
	So, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	Absolutely, yes.
	I do.
	Very good.
	Now that we have that out of the way, I will let you continue.
	My apologies.
	I just continue for a while?
	Okay.
	So, I'm going to go insights from behavioral sciences.
	Systems model.
	Okay.
	A systems model is used in family therapy to explain organizations, to explain child development, and essentially states that Interaction occurs between multiple different systems and affects development at multiple levels,
	affects function and development, which means everything that's going on now, everything that goes on in general, is affected by multi-levels of interaction.
	So there's the individual.
	The individual interacts with the family, with the health system.
	This is at the micro level, so with the health care center, with the school.
	That's the media at the next level.
	All those systems, by the way, interact with one another and the individual, and the individual influences the systems, and the systems affect the individual.
	There's the media at the higher level.
	There's different systems, health system, educational system, the legal system, politics, and all of these are affected by our beliefs, the belief system.
	So our beliefs...
	can be affected at the individual level and go up all these levels and by the same token the belief system will then go down be in all the different systems along the way and then affect the individual and this is i based this um this model here on Bronfenbrenner's model and Bronfenbrenner didn't originally have the chronosystem in later he added it and the chronosystem means we can look at history means events
	over time which means to me I'm good that we can assess events by also looking at the events in history so that's a systems model Please bear that in mind as I now go to the different levels.
	And I'm going to look at the individual by using developmental models regarding social and emotional development.
	So what is human development?
	It's a change over time in multiple body systems, meaning that all the different systems also affect one another.
	And we have developmental tasks and sensitive periods.
	This means that Specific events have to take place at a time when the organism, meaning the child or the adult, is ready.
	And if we miss it, there might be problems.
	Resilience.
	Resilience implies that one can bounce back.
	And one's ability to bounce back is dependent on a balance between protective and risk factors.
	So there's diverse, interconnected domains of development.
	The domains?
	are associated with specific areas in the brain, and there's specific neurons, and there's interactions between the neurons, and that's how development occurs, and that's how these functions take place.
	And I'm going to look specifically at social and emotional development, because social has a lot of meaning for what we've been going through in the past three years.
	Let's look first at emotional development.
	Emotions are feelings, affect, mood.
	Emotions take place from birth and become more complex.
	Yes, little tiny newborns have feelings.
	There's emotional regulation.
	That's also a process.
	So we understand we have feelings, also feel, and we're able to emote properly in the context.
	Emotions affects all domains, including the capacity to learn.
	So in other words, a child who's very...
	Anxious, feels stressed, feels sad, might have problems learning.
	Social interaction, therefore, plays an important role in emotional development.
	What's also very important is that emotions are associated with specific neurotransmitters or hormones.
	And what's really interesting is these emotions either enhance or reduce immune function.
	So we would want people during a time where there's pathogens to engage in actions that are going to enhance their immune function, not stress that reduces immune function.
	So, social well-being.
	Those are the emotions and all the neurotransmitters and the hormones.
	Social well-being is also central to overall well-being.
	If you know Maslow's hierarchy of needs, There are needs such as physiological needs, water, food, air, essential.
	Essential?
	Think about it.
	Essential.
	Security means job security, for example.
	That's the next level.
	Love and connection means social needs means social connection, not distancing, and so on.
	These are the three.
	Lower needs means that they are very...
	Basic to human function.
	And we start off with symbiosis with mother, meaning, of course, pregnancy.
	That's the primary relationship.
	You could have a primary relationship, of course, with an adoptive parent and with the partner, the father or the other partner.
	We have individual capacities and needs.
	Individual capacities and needs vary over the lifespan.
	There are critical periods.
	Such as infancy, adolescence, and older age, when social interaction is extremely important.
	Social interaction, then, is a protective factor.
	It's a determinant of health.
	As I said, when you feel good, you have enhanced immune function.
	Loneliness, sadness are risk factors.
	As you can see, these are some of the researchers who looked at social isolation and loneliness.
	And by the way, to the panel, I have sent, I think it's a 40-page list of references for everything I'm presenting today.
	So this is the research on social isolation, loneliness, which is a risk factor for multiple pathology.
	Now, I knew that.
	In 2020, and I would think that most people who are in similar professions to the ones that I have would also know that, because this is a known fact for many years.
	It's a known fact because it's based on research.
	So stress increases the HPA axis.
	So one of the reasons that...
	These researchers, as well as others, believe that people of older age are more at risk for cardiovascular risks, cancers, reduced immune function, and other diseases.
	And death are due to stress, stress due to loneliness being separated from significant people.
	As I said, all of this was known before 2020.
	And here's some evidence, if you don't believe me.
	The evidence is that we changed the hospital system.
	Initially...
	We didn't have visitors all day long.
	Until 2020, people could bring their families in.
	And it's not because the nurses and the physicians loved the families so much.
	It was because they knew, because the research stated, because they engaged in critical thinking, they knew that bringing the family in makes people healthy or prevents illness.
	Just to show you how important social-emotional function is, I'm going to show you social-emotional development in infancy and early childhood.
	And we're going to talk about sensitive interaction, proximity behaviors, and neurobiology.
	These are some of the researchers.
	You can see, you probably can only see little black dots.
	These are only some of the researchers in this area, which means there was loads of research.
	On the importance of maternal-infant proximity, smell, touch, everything that I'm going to talk about before 2020.
	And if you could see these references better, you'd see that some are even, well, Melanie Klein, she didn't know about neurobiology, but she did research and she wrote about her theory, object relations, in the 1920s, starting in the 1920s.
	I'm going to focus specifically on infancy and early childhood, for one reason, because it is my area of specialty, but also because we barely have spoken about infants and young children during the past three years.
	The first 45 months of life are the most rapid stage of brain development, so it's a very critical period.
	And during that time, like other periods of development, the child, the infant, Sensitive to specific stimuli.
	Factors that affect development, of course, are intrinsic, so genes and temperament.
	But there's also extrinsic factors, and they work together.
	Nature and nurture work together, and that's environment and parent and epigenetics.
	Changes to the gene expression based on the environment.
	The most important factor...
	Is a toned, sensitive relationships with the primary caregiver.
	Also in other models called holding, containment.
	And this is the capacity of the parent or caregiver to notice, interpret, and match responses to the infant's cues.
	And cues are conveyed through interactional components.
	Visual, to see each other.
	Hearing, hearing well.
	Tactile, olfactory.
	And just being close and listening and smelling and touching.
	Sensory.
	It's very sensory.
	Face-to-face interaction is vital at the beginning of life.
	So here's what happens.
	The first task is we need to make connections between the synapses.
	And when there are connections between the synapses, we then have optimal development.
	Synapses, the connections between the nerves cause the messages to flow.
	The messages to flow together with myelin that makes the messages flow quicker mean that this person, this little person, this growing person can engage in multiple tasks.
	The brain controls the tasks that we engage in.
	Trauma, for example, will cause over Abundant synapses in the amygdala, meaning this happens for adults as well, but this is at the time of the development when the brain is structured.
	So a traumatic or an anxious, depressive situation will change and alter the child's, the human's brain.
	The brain is plastic and can change.
	However, there's specific tasks that are more difficult to change.
	Such as lack of early interaction, appropriate interaction in early life.
	Factors that protect interaction are calm and confident parents, a positive birthing experience, sense of being supported.
	They need support.
	They need to be with people and smelling and seeing and...
	Touching, all of these are very important to the infant.
	An uninterrupted interaction, uninterrupted breastfeeding, the ability to engage in synchronous, mutual, and intersubjective interaction.
	Intersubjective means shared emotional interactions.
	But look at this side.
	If a parent is anxious or worried, they have birth trauma, if they have to birth alone without their support system, if they believe that the birth experience was Terrible.
	If they have birth trauma, they have lack of support, limited touching, face cover, distancing from infancy, from the infant, then this puts people at risk.
	It's a risk factor.
	Not all mothers are going to have difficulty with those risk factors.
	It's multiple risk factors that occur at the same time.
	So...
	I spoke about that, but I'll just go over.
	It's proximity behaviors, tactile interaction, cue-based breastfeeding.
	And here's really interesting.
	This is Shore's work.
	Shore, I'm sorry I didn't put it here, but it is in the reference list.
	Shore found that when mothers and infants are looking at one another, their brains fire at the same time in the prefrontal cortex.
	In other words, when mothers and babies are engaging in facial interactions, Both brains develop.
	The sense of being heard, engaging with the primary caregiver, these all lead to adequate synaptic connection and pruning.
	Pruning means getting rid of the cells, the area that we don't need.
	Right?
	So instead of connection, we take out, like in the garden.
	Effects are Actions that are perceived as traumatic or anxiety-provoking may affect memory, especially implicit memory.
	That's the memory, like a feeling memory.
	So here's what we need.
	I see your face.
	And here you see a father and a son.
	And I said there, I'm not sure what you're feeling.
	Because we have to learn.
	How do we learn what others are feeling if we don't see their faces?
	So healthy interaction versus blocked, answering cues, joint attention means we both look at the same thing at the same time, intersubjectivity, we share emotions, sense of self, all this leads to a sense of self, emotional regulation, social capacities, cognitive development and learning.
	And what we don't want...
	It's a hidden face, limited interaction and connection.
	The interactual components are stifled.
	So if you don't believe me, then again, I'm bringing in some research.
	Touch, loving, seeing, and feeling are essential for healthy growth.
	And by the way, touch causes the secretion of oxytocin.
	Oxytocin is a hormone that makes us feel good.
	It does a lot of other things as well.
	And it causes people to attach to one another, feel good about one another.
	For example, a father does not have to breastfeed a child in order to make the connection.
	They can just take off their shirt and there will be a connection forming due to oxytocin.
	But, on the other hand, maternal deprivation leads to anaclytic depression, which is depression in infants.
	They look...
	Totally muted.
	Loss is detrimental for life.
	This still-face experiment that I won't be able to show you here, that I had hoped to show you, I will explain in a moment, is more evidence about the importance of the face-to-face interaction.
	And the loss-sensitive period, I spoke before about neuroplasticity, but there's specific tasks that the brain cannot correct.
	And one is lost interaction.
	And Nelson Fox and Zina did research on that.
	They looked at children adopted from Romanian orphanages.
	And even those children were adopted to wonderful, caring families.
	There were specific tasks that they could not...
	they had problems with.
	And because that part of the brain was not developed at the right time.
	And a very important...
	Part of the interaction is the parent's feeling, and parental anxiety and depression lead to muted affect, lack of stimulation, maybe hyperarousal and anxiety in the child, which impairs learning, trauma.
	These are only some of the researchers in that area.
	What is the Stillface experiment?
	If you're watching now, you can press that YouTube link.
	You can watch this experiment.
	This experiment has been replicated multiple times.
	In this experiment, the mother or the father sit opposite the child in a normal way, and all of a sudden the experimenter tells the parent to stop using expressions, to stand like this, opposite the child, opposite the infant.
	They're about 18 months.
	And the baby who's used to interaction gets very, very upset.
	And you can see how they're trying to bring the parent in, and they're unable to because the experiment is that kind of a face.
	A child who has a secure attachment will immediately return and be okay.
	They're resilient.
	Even though they just went through that momentary trauma.
	But it's very upsetting to see that.
	I always used to warn students before I showed that video because it is upsetting.
	Now think of this.
	What happens to our infants and some of our young children during the past three years who didn't see faces for hours?
	For hours.
	So watch that experiment if you can and you'll see what I mean.
	Now, what happens to the mother?
	The mother needs to be very sensitive.
	So let's look at the mother during pregnancy.
	Look at all this stress that she's had.
	Threat.
	You might have to birth at home.
	Because some parents over the world, for example, one of my references here, I believe it was the Jewish general in Montreal, where they didn't allow birth partners to come in.
	Now, here in Ontario, where I live, Mothers could only bring one person, so you had to choose between your doula, who knew how to support birth, and was a woman, and maybe gave birth, and the father who loves the child or the other partner, but might not have given birth.
	So mothers had that difficult, and I know from experience many mothers struggled with that.
	And they hear, danger, danger, danger!
	Inject, inject, inject!
	You're going to harm your baby!
	If you're going to get a virus, you could die.
	Because mothers who are pregnant are more likely to die from COVID-19.
	The virus is going to harm your unborn baby.
	Strangers covered, that's what you're supporting.
	Lots of risks.
	Fear.
	You can harm your baby.
	Your baby can harm you.
	Imagine that.
	No support.
	Separation.
	That's what our mothers went through and how they started this.
	So, I'm just going to go quickly through these.
	This is one, if you are pregnant, recently pregnant, you're more likely to get sick.
	The reference, sorry, do you need to see the reference?
	No, okay.
	This is one some people might remember that the Almonte, if I'm saying that right, General Hospital, asks all moms to have an epidural when they arrive, just in case they need a cesarean.
	Imagine that.
	What does that tell you about birth?
	Birth is dangerous.
	You're already nervous.
	Birth is dangerous.
	You might need a cesarean.
	Get the epidural.
	Who cares about natural birth?
	And Blakely's work on the hormones during the birthing process and so on.
	Birth alone, and this is a petition by some Canadian mothers who were afraid they were going to have to birth alone.
	And they asked not to.
	And this you won't believe.
	But some mothers, some parents, first of all, some fathers could only FaceTime with their mothers during birth.
	This is, I wish I had time to read you all these quotes, but I don't.
	But this was on CTV, and they were talking about parents who were FaceTiming with their newborns who were in the NICU.
	Imagine that, imagine that.
	Now compare that to what I just told you very briefly about what young humans require.
	Imagine, you're in your mom's uterus, you come out, and hello?
	There's no mother there, but she's on FaceTime.
	I just have to read you this one quote.
	We were asked if we would like to FaceTime to see our daughter, and it's been amazing, said 28-year-old Mayred McKenna, who recently gave birth to her daughter Harper at 26 weeks.
	But I'm also struggling so much not seeing her.
	That's not just a struggle.
	That's essential for human growth and development.
	This is from a professional journal, just to show you some of the messages to breastfeeding mothers.
	So if everybody notices, look carefully at the picture.
	Notice there's no faces.
	And notice the messages.
	Faceless, no interaction, hygienic.
	Use a mask during breastfeeding.
	This is a mother with COVID-19.
	Yes, but before this, we had mothers with strep and staph and all sorts of things, and we didn't tell them to wear a mask.
	And we just told them, nurse a lot because your antibodies will go through, right?
	Isn't that we, the public, were told?
	Anyhow, so this is a mom with COVID-19.
	Use a mask.
	Wash hands and clean.
	Passive immunity and breast milk.
	Will they even say it?
	And here's a mom breastfeeding with a mask on.
	Yes, this really did happen.
	Might still be happening.
	And this is from Health Canada, advises keep the baby at a distance and hide your face.
	Once a baby is born, they can get COVID-19 from other people, so it's important to limit their contact with others.
	To protect yourself and your baby, you should continue to follow recommended individual public health measures, such as wearing a mask, improving ventilation, maximizing physical distance from others, cleaning your hands, We recommend breastfeeding when possible.
	It has many health benefits, though in the breastfeeding world they started talking about risks of not okay, but that's okay, and offers the most protection against infection and illness throughout infancy and childhood.
	Breast milk isn't known to transmit COVID-19, yet we're scaring them.
	And then, of course, the mRNA COVID vaccine have antibodies.
	Apparently mothers having their breast milk.
	These are the messages to the new mom.
	And if you've ever worked with new moms, you know, and if you've ever been a new mom, you know that the transition to parenting is difficult.
	So we have a disrupted family and support system.
	Families aren't supposed to visit.
	Grandmothers aren't supposed to come over.
	I'm a grandmother.
	That would be...
	Terrible.
	Visitors after your baby is born, and this is a whole, just visitors should be limited to reduce the risk of possible exposure to COVID-19.
	This can be very difficult, but it's important to keep your baby safe.
	Look at these are the messages.
	These are some of the findings so far.
	I don't know if the research, you know, how great the research is or not, but they're saying that obstructed interaction seems to affect And they're looking specifically at apparent decline in cognitive performance in children and so on.
	I'm not sure if it's true or not, but these are references, and we can check them out.
	We should.
	In other words, we have failed development.
	We're at risk for failed developmental milestones, disrupted social-emotional interaction, and risk for reduced capacity for emotional and behavioral regulation.
	So, I'm just going to talk very briefly about other children, older children, I should say.
	The main thing to remember is that there are specific developmental tasks for each level, each age group.
	Children development at different rates, but throughout the years.
	And these developmental tasks were forgotten during this time, or they were not, the people who worked with children did not display that they remembered.
	Or that they took enough steps to protect children at the time.
	There was a wonderful bulletin put out by the Hospital for Sick Children in June 2020.
	It was about the return to school.
	It was great.
	It noticed everything about development.
	It was based on sound critical thinking and research and development.
	And it was cancelled a month later.
	They put out a different brochure.
	Children, the main point there is children need scaffolding support, which means you can't just put something on the computer online and expect a child to learn.
	They need someone to support them.
	And Time In, this is a book by my, well, he was my, the most wonderful, late Professor Otto Weininger, and he talked about how timing out children It's very detrimental to the well-being.
	It says to the child, you're so bad, even I don't want to be with you.
	And so timing out, timing out, I'm not talking about isolating.
	Timing out is very difficult for children.
	So we should bear that in mind.
	Concrete to abstract thinking.
	So let me find here.
	The fearful idea killed grandmothers.
	So one teacher told me that one day she saw a child at the end of the school day who was hiding and didn't want to go home and sat crying.
	She said to her, why are you crying?
	And she said, because my grandparents are coming to get me and I'm afraid I'm going to kill them.
	And that's a true story.
	At the concrete stage, children also, when they see a rule, for example.
	A rule is a rule.
	So if you don't wear a mask and it's a rule, you're bad.
	Things like these kind of ideas.
	A risk measure that goes with the opposite of time in is self-isolation.
	And I have some examples here of Public Health Ontario, or this was Public Health Ontario.
	Where they advise people how to self-isolate, how a child has to self-isolate.
	Imagine, a child has to self-isolate.
	We're punishing that child, and some children do not understand, did not understand why.
	And some parents might not have been able to contain properly because they were trying to follow the rules.
	And for some children, that might be traumatic.
	So some things, for a child, wear a mask.
	If you have children, you know that it's not so easy for a child to wear a mask, keep it clean, not touch it and so on, might not be comfortable.
	They advise children over the age of two, even children coming for therapy to wear masks at the age of two, try getting a snowsuit on.
	So how can you get a mask on?
	Anyhow, so self-isolation for children really did happen.
	The proof is here.
	This is from Peel Health.
	I think they're called Peel Health, not Peel Public Health.
	What to do if your child is dismissed from school or childcare?
	The child must self-isolate, which means stay in a separate room.
	These are real.
	And for those of you who are watching this 20 years from now, this really happened.
	So there's that one again.
	Okay.
	Yeah, imagine this.
	If a child must leave their room, they should wear a mask and stay two meters apart from others, and so on.
	Okay, so I'm not going to go over all the tasks just for time.
	Can anybody tell me time?
	You have roughly 20 minutes remaining.
	Oh, okay.
	But we'd also like to save some time, or some time for the questioners.
	Okay, yep, okay.
	So I'm just going to, actually, are there any questions from the commissioners at this point?
	Okay, we'll save them for the end.
	Okay, so I'm not going to go over all of the different stages.
	Just to let you know that, as I said before, developmental tasks were not taken into account and an appropriate risk-benefit analysis of the condition and child development did not take place, to the best of my knowledge.
	And why?
	Why?
	So I've tried to figure out why, and I looked at bioethics.
	I love bioethics.
	It's something that I actually read about and I'm interested in.
	And here are a few researchers, if you are interested in looking at researchers, just to understand more about bioethics.
	Beauchamp and Childress is very easy to understand if people just want to start reading about this.
	And bioethics are there because there's a power balance between people who are healthcare providers and And the people they serve.
	And by the way, I use the word person.
	I don't use the word patient.
	You can if you wish.
	Sometimes client.
	And I just heard lately the word participant, one that I really like because it's very respectful.
	And the principles that all healthcare professions follow, albeit in different ways in accordance with their scope of practice, are autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-malficence.
	And this applies to direct interaction, of course, between the healthcare provider and the person.
	And also public health.
	Public health, it's interesting because public health don't, unless they're a public health nurse or physician, they don't serve individuals, only they...
	Look at the population.
	So I looked at different research on this issue.
	How do we deal with this?
	And apparently they should still be engaging in a benefit analysis that takes into account these four principles.
	This quote I took from the book Doctors from Hell, Horrific Accounts of Nazi Experiments in Humans.
	This is Abrams into the book by Spitz, 2005.
	And they state, need to care for the population need.
	This is not a quote, I'm paraphrasing.
	Still need to look after the population need and good citizenship.
	But it's a slippery slope when physicians, and I'm saying physicians here because the book was written by a physician, that, I'm sorry, the person who wrote this was a physician, when the physician, and I'll add their healthcare provider, begins to exclude or uses professional skills against people.
	And Parasides and Fairchild wrote, a lack of adequate, there has been during the past three years, a lack of adequate involvement of ethicists.
	This is a quote, might have to embed ethicists in public health teams.
	Apparently, there weren't enough involved at this time.
	Remember again, I started with a system.
	So when we have failed ethics, that's related to chaos at all levels of the system.
	Risk for harm at all levels.
	I'm going to focus mainly on autonomy because autonomy is part of all of the other principles.
	And autonomy talks about regard for the person.
	The person is worthy, and this part is very important, able to make decisions about their health.
	And the healthcare provider must respect the person's goals.
	They must gear the treatment towards the person's goals.
	We have dignity, privacy, confidentiality, informed decision-making.
	Informed decision-making, a lot of people talk about informed consent.
	You can't talk about informed consent without knowing and talking about autonomy.
	Informed consent does not stand alone.
	Autonomy upholds the health system.
	So let's look at respect for humans as worthy beings and compare it to compliance.
	Trust and authority follow without question.
	Dignity.
	Dignity means it's compassion, respect.
	One does not only ensure that the person is covered physically, but we also think about their needs and things that are important to them.
	And dignity also implies birthing, thinking about the needs of birthing and sick, dying people who need people near them and the families who are left behind.
	That's dignity.
	Privacy and confidentiality.
	So, Dr. Leighton talked a lot about what the regulatory colleges...
	Are doing, including demanding files of private citizens.
	They are also, so here are two cases Dr. Leighton referred to the case where of the clients or the people who tried to stop their private files from being viewed by the CPSO and so far not being successful.
	And of course there's also Dr. Mary O 'Connor who was threatened with prison for not showing her files, for not providing her files.
	So, now informed consent or informed decision-making, informed choice.
	One, actual informed decision-making means we use clear, tangible.
	Tangible means you don't show people to wash their hands like this, that's the wheels on the bus.
	You show how to wash hands.
	And it's my understanding that healthcare providers learn how to wash their hands.
	They also learn how to wear masks.
	And we were not taught that.
	And it's valid, reliable, current, but it's also, Different views.
	Second opinions.
	We listen to the person.
	We engage in respectful discourse.
	Respect.
	And respect for the person is a worthy being.
	Able to make decisions.
	Let's compare that to censoring.
	Prevented, and here's the really important one that Dr. Layton also talked about, prevented healthcare professionals from viewing diverse viewpoints.
	Sanctions.
	You should know that there are, that all Healthcare providers from all provisions have been reported, investigated, some not just about informed consent, but about things that would never be considered in regular times, and yet the investigation went on, goes on.
	And tomorrow, for example, there's two tribunals going on, one for a nurse and one for a physician, tomorrow.
	The public can view it.
	And the public can't discuss what we really think.
	There's only one view.
	I'll show you.
	You saw the letter from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
	Actually, the nurses were the first people to get their letter.
	And it says, nurses are expected to adhere to standards of practice in carrying out their professional responsibilities.
	Nurses have a professional responsibility not to publicly communicate.
	And now look at these terms.
	Anti-vaccination.
	Anti-vaccination.
	Masking and anti-distancing.
	Statements, you'll see later on why the word anti is a bit problematic.
	Doing so may result in investigation by the CNO and disciplinary proceedings warranted.
	And there's a statement about the physicians.
	Physicians, as Dr. Leighton said, also received a lot of information on how to talk to patients, people, and...
	One model that they were told about was to use motivational interviewing.
	Motivational interviewing is actually a very respectful model.
	It comes from Rogerian, client-centered therapy.
	But if you read the material, if you go to P-R-O-C-T, let's see if I have, that's a letter where the physicians were told to engage with what Dr. Layton was talking about, how to speak to your, they would say patients, I would say to their people.
	You can look this up, P-R-O-T-C-T.
	All of this is online.
	There it is.
	And it really, in short, tells physicians how to speak to clients.
	And I'll just give you one sentence.
	Starting the conversation with a presumptive statement, talking tip.
	I will get, and I've already gotten the COVID vaccine, and I'm happy to help you get it, too, so you can protect yourself and your loved ones.
	And it is my understanding that healthcare providers don't immediately disclose.
	Disclosure is fine if it can help the person, but that is not the way that one would probably start a person-centered conversation.
	And there's more points.
	You can look that up if you're interested, and I think we should all be interested.
	And you might notice this is...
	Also from the PROCT, and they're saying, "What do you think of the COVID-19 vaccine?" And it goes, tells the physician how to speak.
	And you might notice, oh, if you were my students, I'd ask you, "What do you notice here?" Do you notice they don't have faces?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	And, you know, what do you think about that?
	How warm and fuzzy is this interaction when everybody's covered out?
	We don't really know what they're thinking because you can't see their face.
	So...
	I want to remind everybody that telling healthcare providers not to speak with one another, not to speak their view, is not the way things were.
	Yes, there were arguments.
	Yes, people disagreed.
	But they were allowed to speak.
	Otherwise, we might still be spraying DTT on people.
	And as Dr. Layton, it's interesting we both use the same example.
	Stomach ulcers, the change, the...
	Treatment has changed.
	Imagine if we couldn't speak about it.
	Mothers are no longer put to sleep in birth with twilight sleep.
	And they weren't allowed, they weren't allowed, they weren't birthing alone from the 1960s.
	Reverence for artificial feeding destroyed breastfeeding.
	It was actually the healthcare professionals who destroyed breastfeeding.
	And put mothers to sleep at the beginning of the last century.
	And allergies were perceived as mental health.
	There you can see a quote.
	And my father was actually one of the first allergists and immunologists, my late father, I should say.
	And I know from my own experience how he was always told that allergies, it's all in your head.
	And we know now that allergies, that whole field is very well developed and accepted.
	So, just very quickly, the other principles, beneficence means we do good, and we advance the health status.
	So I saw some of the witnesses who spoke talking about not being able to go to parks and so on.
	Nobody told them about nutrition.
	Well, that's a violation of beneficence.
	Justice means health equity, and that means everybody can use the services.
	So think about all these people who couldn't use computers.
	So how do they even get to speak to someone about health?
	And non-alphacens means do no harm.
	I think many people here have spoken about the harm.
	But an important way that we do no harm is, or healthcare professionals do no harm, is by engaging in a risk-benefit analysis.
	And that was my first question, by the way, in 2020, was, but where's the risk-benefit analysis?
	Research on humans, I'm not going to go over.
	We all know that.
	But one of the main ideas there is that it's voluntary.
	It's the same as autonomy.
	And what I found very interesting, and you might find it interesting as well, is that the main theme is autonomy, respect for human beings, their goals and capacities to make personal decisions.
	So notice the similarity.
	The code for research on humans is different than codes for...
	It's different than bioethics.
	They're different.
	What is not in the ethical code is trust.
	Trust can also mean it's wonderful if you can develop a trusting and mutually respectful relationship with a client.
	But it's not always there.
	And that's not our goal to get them, to get the person, to get us, the people, to trust them.
	That's not what it's about.
	Because that kind of trust is trust versus mistrust in infancy.
	Adults are not infants.
	But there's also transference.
	Transference means that the practitioner might seem to be someone else to the client.
	So you're not going to have trust there, and that's okay.
	Or if the physician is the person who tells the client, do you have cancer?
	That client might be very angry at the physician.
	What, are you going to stop treating them?
	No.
	Trust also must be earned.
	So our goal is not trust.
	It's not trust.
	That's not what it is.
	And what also is not in the ethical codes?
	Follow orders.
	Now, I'm sorry, Dr. Steve Gilboa.
	I know that you have much more information.
	This has been very interesting, but we only have a couple of minutes left.
	Oh, my God!
	I didn't do the nudge.
	I have to get to nudge.
	You know what?
	I'm sorry.
	We just don't have time.
	But that's so important.
	I really have to speak about the nudge.
	I'll do it fast.
	I won't show the pictures.
	You have three minutes.
	Three minutes.
	If you wonder, it's not my psychosis, everybody.
	There's a real program.
	It's called Nudge.
	It's behavioral insights.
	You can read about it.
	The government told us about it.
	What is the Nudge program?
	Oh, no.
	Go to Impact Canada.
	What is the Nudge program?
	It is all over the world.
	It is a program based on behavioral science.
	Impact Canada is the group in Canada who work on it.
	They did things like they used language, sounds, sounds quiet to induce fear, jubilance, because it's not just fear.
	Everybody talks about fear, fear, fear.
	No, it wasn't just fear.
	They also used euphoria, images, people standing in line, circles, the same messages all over the world, stay home, stay safe.
	Foot in the door, that means hear you, hear you, there's a virus, but we only start with a little thing.
	Boil the frog, we slowly increase the restrictions.
	Priming, oh no, this is what to do if a child has a heart attack.
	That means we begin to realize that heart attacks are normal.
	That's priming.
	Information without information, you'll see the graph there, there's no numbers.
	There's another one, no numbers.
	Precious threat and sanctions, but that's not really part of the original Nudge program, but it's there now.
	Stay home, false equivalents, stay home, stay safe, which doesn't mean safe.
	They used messenger effect, which is specific people that we supposedly value and listen to them.
	Emotion, please note again, they didn't only use fear, also euphoria and hope, and it's really important that we know this, so we're mindful.
	So, emotion.
	We do not always know.
	Okay, wait.
	Okay, that's an example.
	And social interaction.
	And this is a quote from the Impact Canada.
	Emphasizing collective action, altruism, moral responsibility.
	Emphasizing that self-isolating, physical distancing, altruistic.
	In other words, that whole term, social responsibility.
	That's part of the Nudge program.
	There was a continuum.
	Let me just show the continuum.
	Normalize and idealize distancing so that eventually we will also be prejudiced and segregate.
	Stay home, physical distancing, conform, breathing barrier, small groups, cohorts, and discrimination.
	And these are just quick people standing in line.
	Lines were used.
	I'm almost done.
	Just quickly going through these pictures.
	Line up, circle.
	We're in this together when we're not really.
	No faces.
	And I showed that throughout.
	There's no faces.
	By the way, the facial coverings were actually used to part of the Nudge program to make sure fear stayed there, that we're reminded, stay safe, be kind, be COVID, and so on.
	You remember this one?
	For the future generations, they really do tell us to have intimacy with the mask on.
	And that's about it.
	I'll leave it at segregation.
	Thank you very much.
	I apologize that we had to rush through the end here, but just so the commissioners are aware, we will be entering your slides as an exhibit, so they can have some time to review that at their leisure, so to speak.
	I just want to make sure that I didn't put any here.
	No.
	Okay.
	Very good.
	Now, I believe we're out of time for questions.
	Is that correct?
	Oh, okay.
	We have time for short questions, if any.
	I don't have a question.
	I just have a quick comment to add to your presentation.
	I think between Dr. Leighton's presentation and yours, I'm probably traumatized here.
	But I just want to add that there were parents having newborn babies until the mothers...
	COVID test came back, and I can think of one example where that baby was taken away for 36 hours until the COVID test was returned.
	And I'm just thinking, I wonder what happened to that baby in that 36 hours because they weren't with mom.
	So your examples are very real, and I think it should be a wake-up call for all of us to think about exactly what that messaging that was sent out by so-called health authorities has done.
	And the other side of this is we've heard testimony as we travel across the country that talks about the generation that we've lost, and that's our children.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	I have no further questions, and Dr. Karen Epstein-Galboa, I would just very much like to thank you for your testimony here today.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for doing this.
	It's very important.
	Thank you.
	So our next witness is attending virtually, Mr. David Friheit.
	David, can you hear me?
	I can hear you.
	Can you hear me?
	We can hear you and we can see you.
	And I probably pronounced your last name incorrectly.
	And I know you're known with your online commentary as Viva Frey.
	Is that right?
	Viva Frey.
	No, my last name is Freyheit.
	Freyheit.
	Freedom in German.
	So it's a good name to have.
	So, David, can you state your full name for the record, spelling your first and last name?
	Yep, David Andrew Freyheit, D-A-V-I-D, Andrew Freyheit, F-R-E-I-H-E-I-T, F like Fred, T like Tango.
	David, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
	So help me God, yes.
	Now, you have a very interesting background.
	So you were a lawyer.
	You used to practice in litigation.
	But you've gone on to other things.
	You've become quite a celebrity as an online commentator.
	I've heard of you from individual after individual after individual.
	And I actually got to know your brother a little bit on...
	On some Zoom calls to see if I could get him to be volunteer counsel for the NCI.
	So I'm very pleased to meet you.
	And you're being called primarily to talk about your experience with the trucker convoy, because we're in Ottawa, and that was an experience that was really significant to people living in Ottawa.
	And so I'm wondering you to share kind of, because you weren't living in Ottawa at the time, how you got involved and what your experience was.
	Well, I'll let everyone out there know I didn't always look like this.
	I didn't always have the grimmest wrinkle of a world gone mad on my forehead.
	I used to be a clean-shaven young lawyer.
	And some people might have seen me online from like old videos like the squirrel stealing a GoPro.
	But yeah, when the world went crazy, I had already started doing online legal analysis, sort of like explaining lawsuits, breaking things down.
	Then the world fell off a cliff in 2020.
	If I may start with...
	I'll share screen for one second.
	I'll just start with...
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	I didn't make a PowerPoint presentation, but I've got my backups here.
	And, you know, for what I'm about to talk about, it's worth starting off with a quote from Benito Mussolini.
	This is not the exact quote, but it's close enough.
	The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.
	And what I have lived through and what we have all lived through over the last...
	starting March 2020...
	It's been fascism not in the juvenile sense of throwing the word around.
	It's been fascism in the actual Benito Mussolini sense, where I've witnessed the government working in tandem with corporations, working in tandem with the media, not to inform, not to control information, but to purvey and propagate disinformation.
	And can I just actually slow you down?
	Because actually, fascism is a term that is used very loosely now, and it's used actually...
	To deflect and to make people that aren't fascists at all be not heard from.
	It's almost like the term anti-vax or climate denier now.
	My understanding, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is the word corporatism just simply refers to where...
	The state interests and the corporate interests have largely become one, and the two are working together.
	And I guess Mussolini is very famous when people would be talking about corporatism, saying, no, no, you should call that fascism.
	And so you brought that definition up.
	And so fascism, just so when people understand who are watching your testimony today, when they see the word fascism, they need to understand that that...
	That actually just describes a state of affairs where the state interests and the corporate interests are intertwined and working together.
	Is that right?
	Well, that's my understanding of the actual historical definition, not the way it's used this day.
	Like, you know, everyone's a fascist if you don't believe in and not to get too distracted.
	If you don't believe in certain things, you're a fascist.
	It's thrown around today, but it actually has a meaning.
	And it's a meaning that I've come to understand the importance of, which is corporation.
	And government working in tandem because they have shared interests.
	And I've now witnessed firsthand in my evolution how this happens.
	I was young enough to remember people saying defund the CBC, you know, pre-2016, and I had no idea what that meant, why it was being said.
	And now I understand because we've lived through this together.
	We lived through the shutdown of the world.
	We lived through, literally, it's come out now, and I'll bring up some articles if the world needs to see the homework.
	A world in which the government decided the pandemic was a good time to test propaganda techniques on the citizens that they were currently locking down, shutting down, subjecting to unconstitutional and unconscionable restrictions.
	And what way to do that?
	Well, it helps when you have the media in your hand.
	And so how did all this happen?
	I had my YouTube channel.
	I was doing legal analysis, trying to keep my opinion out of it.
	You know, thinking you can make everybody happy by not sharing your own personal opinion.
	And little did I know that at some point silence became violence.
	And then the world shut down and I started, you know, I didn't want the channel.
	I didn't want my entire life to turn into COVID stuff.
	But lo and behold, there was nothing left.
	We were shut in our homes for years, literally for years.
	I was in Quebec where we had five and a half months of curfew.
	uh in 2021 and then because it worked so well and it was such a good idea we had another month and a half of curfew in 2022 despite Arruda the the chief medical officer of Quebec saying you don't use curfews to fight a virus and so all of this culminated in the trucker protest which was for a great many people not the light at the end of the tunnel but the only ray of sunshine that they had seen in years and i mean that's where that's where my Awakening comes into this,
	and my experience in Ottawa, which was life-altering and trajectory-altering, where I'm doing my daily stuff complaining about the lockdowns in Quebec, the tyrannical governments, doing my VIVA walking on the streets, and it started off with people in my chat saying, "VIVA, why aren't you covering the convoy?" And I'm sitting there saying, "What convoy?" Because I now understand the same MO, the same modus operandi that happens every time as first...
	A media that is reliant or adherent or subservient to the government.
	Well, their system is the same.
	Ignore something until you can't ignore it.
	Minimize it once you can't ignore it.
	Demonize it once you can't successfully minimize it.
	And that's exactly what happened with legacy media in Canada.
	So can I get you to slow that down?
	Because I think you're saying something really important.
	Quite a large audience, and the demographics actually mimics vaccine injury, which is quite interesting.
	So there will be people watching your testimony that will never have heard what you just said.
	So I'm just wondering if you can say it again, but kind of slow it down to parse that out, because it's somewhat important, and then carry on with explaining kind of how you found out what was really going on.
	I was doing my best to slow things down.
	I've been told I talk fast.
	Step by step, it's the MO of the media.
	When they have an interest and they want to propagate a narrative, ignore.
	Ignore until the point that you can't ignore it anymore, and then you either minimize or distract.
	Minimize or distract to the point where you can no longer do that because it's gained sufficient momentum, and then you have to move into the demonized and lambaste.
	You can see this over and over again for populist movements, political candidates.
	It's the classic MO.
	So I was doing my daily rants on the street because I was allowed out of my house because I had a dog after 8 o 'clock.
	The joys of COVID.
	And so people are telling me, Viva, why aren't you talking about the convoy?
	And this is a month or two before the convoy, maybe a month before, and I'm saying, I haven't even heard of this.
	Because the CBC and the state-subsidized, state-funded legacy media wasn't talking about it.
	Then I start going on CBC to see what's going on, and then, after the ignoring, we had the distraction.
	CBC starts reporting about an alleged convoy in British Columbia going from one British Columbia town to another, but they're protesting road conditions, nothing to see here, move on.
	Then I noticed the CBC at one point updated that article and said, That convoy is not the one that's headed to Ottawa.
	And that's when the CBC understood that this convoy going to Ottawa was too big to ignore, too big to distract or misrepresent.
	And so what did they have to do?
	Step right up to item three, demonize and land-based.
	And for the viewers watching, or for everybody watching, if they don't truly understand, CBC Radio-Canada subsidized to the tune of $1.2 billion a year.
	Under the federal law.
	It is true that the federal law was enacted prior to Trudeau.
	In theory, it's whatever federal government's in power at that time that subsidizes them.
	But when you see the indirect, distorted interests of the media to placate or favor one government that doesn't want to defund them and to demonize the other, you'll notice that the CBC once upon a time sued the Conservative Party of Canada for copyright infringement.
	For using some of their material for a campaign ad, but never sued the Liberal government similarly.
	Using our taxpayer dollars to sue a political party, one of the two big federal political parties.
	Understanding this now, the CBC could no longer ignore this convoy that was coming from all corners of Canada.
	And so once they can't ignore, once they can't misrepresent, they then have to move into demonizing.
	And that's when they start demonizing the truckers as extremists, anti-science, anti-vaxxers, yada, yada.
	At this point, none of us really understood how big it was ever going to get.
	And, you know, they're doing their best to try to ignore the young children and the people with their flags of hope on overpasses across the country.
	And I'll just stop you there, because people that are watching internationally, they won't understand.
	When the truckers started moving from different parts of the country and driving towards Ottawa, the citizens would literally line up along the road and every overpass covered in flags and placards and they couldn't buy a meal and they couldn't pay for their diesel.
	People were supporting them along the way and that was part of the experience that Canadians had.
	Because we have people watching internationally, I just felt the need to jump in and fill that in.
	Please, don't worry.
	And they were doing it everywhere.
	I mean, they did it in Montreal.
	They would stand on overpasses.
	You had these wonderful images of hope and people standing behind the truckers, the truckers who would ultimately become an international movement, which obviously upset Justin Trudeau even more.
	So the media has to demonize them.
	And so they start calling them all sorts of names at first.
	But at this time also, nobody understood what this protest was going to turn into.
	And you had truckers driving across the country not knowing how they were going to pay for fuel or not knowing...
	Just enough is enough.
	We're going to the capital.
	People also should appreciate it.
	Ottawa is not a random town.
	It's the capital of Canada.
	It's where protest occurs when protest needs to occur.
	And so all this is happening, and I'm starting to pay attention to it, starting to understand this is turning into something special.
	And then as luck would have it, or bad luck would have it, although I think it all ended up well...
	I was in Florida for a Project Veritas event back before Project Veritas turned into what it is today.
	But then people are saying, you know, Viva, what are you doing at a Project Veritas event?
	Get your butt to Ottawa.
	And so I'm like, okay, well, I'll get back to Canada and I'll go.
	And in the meantime, I'm starting to see what the CBC and other legacy media are reporting from Ottawa.
	I'm seeing reports of Nazi flags.
	I'm seeing reports of Confederate flags.
	I'm seeing reports of defacing...
	The Terry Fox Memorial.
	People urinating or desecrating the war memorial that's in, you know, downtown Ottawa.
	But I'm simultaneously literally getting, you know, tweets, messages, video clips from people on the street saying, this is all a big fat lie.
	And I'm sitting there, it's like, I'm seeing not one screen, two films.
	I'm seeing, someone's telling me that, you know, they're seeing blue when it's red.
	And so it's like, OK, well, I'm going to get to Ottawa the Monday I get back, which is after it started on the Friday.
	And I had never done this before.
	You know, I did live stream or talk about subjects, but I've never done like a walking around real time live stream.
	I said, look, I'm going to drive down to Ottawa.
	I see what the CBC is saying.
	I'm going to drive down and I'm going to live stream.
	And if there are Nazi flags there, the world's going to see it for good or for bad, for right or for wrong.
	If there's Confederate flags and violence and mayhem, the world's going to see it in real time as I see it.
	And I get down there.
	I drive down from Montreal.
	I drove down there and back every day except for one night when I tried to stay in a hotel.
	But that was when I think the government either bought up all the hotel rooms or forced them to cancel reservations because they canceled my reservation.
	I get down there and you understand them.
	It's like...
	Eyes wide open for the first time ever, I understood we're being lied to.
	And not just lied to, because it's one thing if you know someone's lying to you.
	It's a more insidious type of lie when they try to make you think that it's reality.
	And it worked on so many people.
	I get down there, the Monday after, when we had been reading news about Nazi flags, desecrating the War Memorial, desecrating the Terry Fox Memorial, and at this point, let me bring up one of my...
	My footnotes here because the article about the desecration of the Terry Fox Memorial.
	This is CBC, and this is how they reported it.
	And it's so subtly insidious.
	Anger over defacement of Terry Fox's statue, a sign of his, quote, unique legacy, says mayor of Icahn's hometown.
	When I talk about the fake news, and people are going to immediately think of the Trumpian term, this is government-subsidized propaganda.
	And you'll notice through all of these CBC articles that I'm going to bring up, the tactic.
	They make a statement, but then they quote someone else.
	Says Mayor of Icahn's hometown.
	So they're not making the statement, but they're saying the statement, referring to another government official who makes the statement.
	It's misleading, and it's utterly dishonest.
	And so you read the headline, for anybody who gets past it, you might see this picture of the defacement of Terry Fox.
	Words have meanings.
	As a lawyer, my father always said words are the tools of your trade.
	Defacement typically means something semi-permanent, more permanent than a cap, even if one were inclined to think that a cap is defacing a statue.
	They don't show you the bottom of the statue, at least yet.
	And so anybody who gets this far and says, oh my goodness, well, even I thought this at the time.
	There must be something going on on the bottom of that statue, spray paint, dirt, something along those lines.
	You get down to it, once you scroll down far enough, And this is the defacing of the Terry Fox Memorial that they were complaining about.
	Now, again, they didn't make the statement.
	They're just quoting the mayor of Terry Fox's hometown.
	Why is this so bleeming insidious?
	That's defacement.
	And when you want to talk about a media that has a vested interest to demonize one group while lionizing another, this is a tweet from Sheila Gunn-Reed from back in the day.
	Let's see if I can find this.
	Can we see that now?
	Yes, we can.
	Okay, I can't.
	It's tucked down here, somewhere behind all this.
	You have a tweet from Sheila Gunn-Reed which compares, you know, historical defacements of the Terry Fox, sorry, alleged defacements from the convoy with what is otherwise just celebration.
	And it's the same media that's doing this in that they'll take two images which are by and large the same.
	And demonize one based on ideology while lionizing another based on ideology.
	And who does it benefit?
	Well, it benefits the government.
	And it benefits Justin Trudeau in effectively shaping, and I should say, not just Justin Trudeau, but Doug Ford, all of the provincial leaders.
	It helps them mislead an entire population as to what's actually going on for anybody who gets past the headline, which is already a very small percentage.
	And even then, it's buried in there.
	And they do this so that they can create, promote a narrative that favors the government, a government which subsidizes them, and then people see this and think that they're informed.
	I knew people in Ottawa, not to identify anybody who doesn't want to be part of this, I've known people who live in Ottawa who thought what was going on was what was being depicted in the CBC.
	None of them stepped foot in downtown, and they all believed that they knew what was going on and that the truckers were Nazis.
	That they were desecrating statues, urinating on them.
	I went down there with my camera, and I ran around.
	I mean, literally everywhere.
	And I go past the memorial.
	It's clean.
	It's shoveled.
	There might have been what looked like coffee on the side of it, but by that point, the lie has traveled around the world, and the truth, as they say, is still putting on its pants.
	And I did this for, I mean, I did it for 13 or 14 days.
	Just drive in, see what's going on, talk to people.
	Talk to people and hear them in the same way that they're talking now.
	And sharing their stories with the world now because our elected officials refused.
	They didn't even have the courage or the dignity to come down and talk with any of the protesters.
	People who just wanted to be heard and share their story after two years of what can only be described as unconscionable, inhumane abuse.
	They didn't have the courage to step down and talk to them.
	And I just went around hearing people's stories.
	See what was going on firsthand.
	And it wasn't to misrepresent.
	It was just to show without a filter.
	Without a filter, what was going on?
	And that, without a filter, led to CTV News, W5, attempting to, you know, make me look bad, as if to say, this guy goes around with a camera with no filter and just, you know, he's very popular.
	What's going on?
	Why are people watching this?
	Without understanding that that's exactly what the people want is just the truth of what was going on.
	And I went down there and I saw it with my own eyes.
	You know, when the CBC was talking about kids.
	Hold on, I'll bring this one up as well.
	Kids being among the crowd, making it hard for police to do their numbers.
	Here, let's just, I think this is it right here.
	Yes, this looks like it.
	Look at this.
	CBC, notice the tactic.
	They make a statement.
	Large number of children among protesters hampering response.
	Police say, oh, well, we'll just unquestionably and unquestioningly repeat what the police say so that we can then continue with demonizing, and not just demonizing, by the way, Because there were actually, I was there seeing people in tears because the implicit threat was that the government was going to come in and take children away.
	This is not just demonizing and calling people Nazis or whatever.
	This is saying these parents are putting their children at risk, using them as human shields.
	But CBC says it again.
	Large number of children among protesters hampering response.
	Police say.
	CBC's not saying it.
	They're just repeating it for and on behalf.
	of the government, to the benefit of the government.
	And look at this.
	If anyone thought...
	Is this the right one here?
	Yeah, this is it.
	Ottawa police.
	This is what...
	CBC is just repeating the Ottawa police.
	Repeating it and not condemning it.
	When the Ottawa police come in and say, protesters have put children between police operations and the unlawful protest site.
	They deemed a constitutional right unlawful, just like that willy-nilly, but set that aside.
	The children will be brought to a place of safety.
	To me, that is a very, very sinister threat of government-sanctioned kidnapping.
	It didn't actually get there, but not for lack of trying from the CBC media.
	And so I'm down there.
	Oh, goodness.
	Well, I'm just wondering, describe what you saw.
	So you're telling us about all this demonizing, and you're telling us you were down there.
	So what did you see?
	I said I wasn't going to cry because I think it's weird when people cry.
	And I cry when I get upset, but I also cry when I get really, really frustrated.
	What I saw there was one of the few times where I...
	It was on the verge of tears because of how magnificent it was.
	It was noisy.
	There's no doubt about it.
	There were horns, and the horns, there was a beauty in the horns.
	But it was nothing but the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.
	For those of us who had spent two years under psychological, economic, financial, spiritual abuse, the previous witness talking about how the Peel region was talking about locking kids up.
	As young as five years, if they just came across someone who's...
	We had lived through that.
	I saw people smiling, hugging, and I'm never one to hug.
	I'm a bit of a germaphobe even before all this.
	I started hugging.
	You saw people smiling.
	You saw people wearing masks, mingling among the crowd, but the media was saying that the chalkers were demonizing people who were wearing masks.
	Another grotesque lie because a lot of people, known to everybody there...
	We're wearing masks so they wouldn't get identified and fired from their jobs for participating, partaking, or even being at the protest site.
	I saw kids playing hockey.
	You know, there was the jacuzzi towards the end of it, the hot tub.
	Kids playing hockey, dancing, smiling.
	There was a section by Wellington and the main intersection.
	They're right in front of that hotel, the fancy hotel.
	I called it the Dance Dance.
	It was, say it again?
	Elgin?
	Elgin Street, yes, absolutely.
	There was a section called, I called it the Dance Dance Revolution, because they had trucks, they were playing dance music, people were dancing.
	I'm not saying this because I don't look at people and immediately see race, religion, identity, sexual irritation.
	I'm saying this because for a group that was called misogynist, there were women all over the place.
	For a group that was called racist, I interviewed...
	I don't know if they're Canadians.
	There were people of all races there.
	They were called anti-trans.
	I interviewed a trans person who was at the protest.
	Ari was their name.
	I interviewed this person.
	And we had a good time.
	And Ari said that the only time that they felt any form of hatred was when they crossed the line from the counter-protesters to the protesters when the counter-protesters realized, oh, this is no longer an ally.
	Ari is an enemy.
	I interviewed people from all over the world.
	I interviewed Big Bear, a native man.
	And I'm listening to the media say that this group of trucker protesters was anti-black, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist.
	It was hogwash from day one.
	And I learned that after day one.
	And Trista Souk, day one, I meet a beautiful young woman who's walking around with a guitar.
	I had no idea who she was.
	She says, I want to sing you a song.
	And this was at the far end of the protest.
	And I was nervous for her because I was worried it was going to be like an America's Got Talent bad audition.
	She started singing and she sang Amazing Grace and it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever heard.
	And this was what the protest was.
	And then for two and a half weeks, you had the CBC running around with that lone picture of a swastika on a flag.
	No one ever knew who that person was.
	But, you know, very fortunately, there was a professional photographer right near him, so he could get that shot, you know, diffuse it to the media, who would then run it around and say, oh, we're just reporting.
	There are people, for anybody who doesn't know, that one scene on day one, when someone was there with a swastika flag, the media ran with that, politicians ran with that, Mark Mendicino ran with that, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, they all ran with it.
	The media helped them, and they had their Disinformation laundering campaign perfectly set up.
	It's unclear what that person was even doing, because there are some people who suggest, the person was there with the Nazi flag, to suggest that Justin Trudeau's regime was behaving like previous Hitlerian regimes.
	Others are saying he was applying.
	Who knows?
	Bottom line, that flag existed on one person for one moment, never came back, and after that it was nothing but love, peace.
	And a sense of joy that Canadians had not felt and the world had not felt in two years.
	Sorry, I heard you wanted to say something.
	Well, no, and you answered my question because we've all seen that image because the mainstream media just kept repeating that image.
	So, you know, it's now a famous image in Canada, and it's burned into our minds, regardless of whether we bought into the government narrative or not.
	And so I was just going to ask you, because you were literally walking around live streaming day after day, if you ever saw a Nazi or Confederate flag.
	I never saw one.
	I didn't edit anything.
	I went for five and a half hours sometimes every day, and I saw what I saw.
	And it's not just that I saw what I saw.
	I asked cops.
	I asked the police and said, have you guys seen any vandalism?
	Have you seen any violence?
	They said, no, it's cleaner and it's safer now than it's ever been.
	And I should add this.
	I'm very familiar with the city of Ottawa.
	I never felt comfortable in the city of Ottawa.
	I might be a bit neurotic and nervous in general, but nobody liked downtown Ottawa at night because it's not a place where you would go walk at night.
	And no judgment.
	There might be reasons why the government has sort of failed the homeless population and the addicts of Ottawa.
	But it's not a place where you would walk around.
	The Rideau area, it's not a place where you'd walk around at night.
	I had never seen the downtown core of Ottawa cleaner, safer.
	The homeless people were being fed.
	And so when you read these bogus, rubbish stories coming out that the truckers went and harassed a homeless shelter and demanded food, they were literally cooking food on the streets and feeding the homeless people.
	And it was just, it was so in your face and so shocking what I saw.
	And I went to ask the cops, have you guys seen anything?
	At one point, one of the policemen said to me, yeah, actually, there's a broken window across the street.
	I was like, oh, where?
	And then he giggles.
	He's like, I'm joking.
	That had nothing to do with the protest.
	It was...
	You could not understand what it wasn't unless you had been there.
	But they did a good job doing what they're doing in terms of making people think they understood what was going on.
	And it has its impact.
	And I always say, like, you know, the toxicity...
	It's a trickle down and a trickle up.
	Let me play a clip.
	I interviewed a counter-protester.
	I'm just going to play one section of this interview.
	Let me see if I can bring it up here.
	It is this.
	And I'm not bringing this up to mock the person.
	I have no idea who the person was, ironically enough, wearing masks and nobody cared.
	But listen to what the protesters said.
	I thought this rang interesting.
	Get vaccinated.
	Listen.
	occupation Where she says, without facing the consequences.
	says she goes on to say get vaccinated or there'll be consequences Where did we hear that terminology being used?
	I had to go back and double check.
	So this is a counter-protester.
	This is, you know, just so it's clear for everyone watching.
	This isn't anyone involved at the trucker convoy.
	But they were counter-protesters, and you went and interviewed this counter-protester.
	I interviewed a couple.
	Again, I wasn't there to pick fights or start fights, but I went to interview this counter-protester.
	The one thing people should remark from that interview is that you could hear it.
	And this was barely four blocks down from the core of the protest.
	So when everyone...
	She went on later to say that it's torture, the noise.
	We were conducting an outdoor interview on my iPhone.
	And you could barely hear the horns from up the street.
	But get vaccinated or there will be consequences.
	And I said, where did I hear that terminology?
	This was February 2022.
	Well, lo and behold, this was the exact terminology Justin Trudeau had used in August 2021.
	I had to double check the dates to see which one came first.
	And you see how this all works.
	It comes from the top down, recycled and regurgitated by the media that doesn't hold the government's feet to the fire.
	You know, I've been saying now that the Canadian media has gone from being the government watchdog to being the government lapdog.
	And so you get the government, you get Justin Trudeau, the highest person in political power in Canada.
	If you don't get vaccinated, there will be consequences.
	You don't get a media grilling him for this Nuremberg-level violation of everything that history has taught us.
	And then it trickles down, recycled, and then lo and behold, you get your citizens regurgitating and re...
	Repeating what would otherwise be, you know, atrocity-speak in different ages.
	But I interviewed this protester.
	You could hear the interview.
	They were claiming it's an occupation.
	She said, you know, the horns, it's torture.
	It's a violation of international law.
	And I asked her if she knew about the Nuremberg Code, and lo and behold, you know, CBC wasn't exactly teaching people about the Nuremberg Code.
	But that's what happened, is I walked around, I talked to people, and I heard their stories.
	I heard their stories.
	I interviewed a woman whose two sons died of overdose during the pandemic.
	And she...
	You can't listen to something like that and not have your heart hurt beyond any way that you can ever repair.
	But, you know, Jagmeet Singh, who goes down on Parliament Hill to protest with the federal workers, didn't step down.
	They like to use the word step up.
	That's the propaganda term, you know.
	People step up.
	The government wouldn't even take a foot down into the protest to listen to these people.
	A woman who lost both of her sons to overdose during the pandemic, and she was telling me how they were good.
	They got their lives back on track, and then everything shut down.
	They lost their jobs, and they relapsed and died.
	The government doesn't have the courage to talk to her.
	The media doesn't have the courage to talk to her.
	You get the CBC down there, and this I saw also.
	The most interesting thing is it was not just seeing the distortion of reality.
	But seeing how they do it.
	And so you get the CBC and others.
	I mean, I don't want to only pick on them, but they really deserve it.
	You know, looking for the drunkest people to interview.
	Then interview the drunk people and then say, look at this representative of the crowd down here.
	It's a bunch of bums drunk and they're just looking for excuses to do this.
	They look for the exceptions to make the rule and they don't actually talk to the people themselves.
	And it was revelatory.
	Well, let me bring this one up.
	This is just something that the world needs to see, speaking to what the CBC does in terms of reporting.
	This was an actual article.
	We're talking about state-funded media that is there to parrot and condition the population to accept unconscionable government measures.
	Why?
	Because they're subsidized by them, directly and /or indirectly.
	This was an article, CBC, the pleasure and peril of snitching on your neighbours during a pandemic.
	And their only problem with it, by the way, the only problem?
	Experts say reporting on neighbours offers a sense of control, but adversely affects minorities.
	And you can see how this, this is Canadian media, fully subsidised by government taxpayer dollars.
	And what they're out there doing is parroting, I'm saying, you know, persuasion, planting the seeds, preconditioning.
	People to accept the unacceptable and normalize it.
	You know, it's interesting that reporter obviously hadn't learned what we learned in Manitoba because when the commission has been traveling to different provinces, we've had one of our video people assemble news clips of the government speaking during the pandemic.
	And in Manitoba, they didn't call them snitches.
	They called them ambassadors.
	It was really Orwellian.
	I mean, it was upsetting to watch what the government was saying.
	They're basically encouraging people to snitch as if we were in East Germany and there was a Statsy.
	And it's the Orwellian newspeak, like the previous witness was saying, we're closer together by being further apart.
	It's ignorance is strength, war is peace.
	What is it?
	War is peace, freedom is slavery.
	Ignorance is strength.
	I forget the exact order, but it is nothing less than Orwellian Newspeak.
	But just to show some receipts as well, this was the CBC.
	And notice the tactic again.
	It's the third time we've noticed it.
	Protest convoy had, quote, worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country, anti-hate advocates says.
	So the CBC is not saying it.
	They're just repeating what someone else says without holding their feet to the fire, without challenging it.
	And it's...
	The worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country.
	This is, I like to say, confession through projection on my channel, accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing.
	This is the worst display of propaganda imaginable.
	You have the CBC, not saying it, just repeating someone else who the anti-hate network has its own problems in terms of reputation, but just repeating it.
	The worst display of Nazi propaganda the country's ever seen.
	And I went down there.
	Didn't see one Nazi flag, and it wasn't for lack of trying.
	Didn't see anything but the most beautiful unification I had ever seen.
	And as I'm down there, I should say, it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen until Justin Trudeau deployed the Stormtroopers after having invoked the Emergencies Act.
	I didn't see a lick of violence until the cops came in.
	The police, I should say, the police.
	The RCMP, Sudbury police, OPP.
	Who are the other ones?
	Sûreté de Québec from Québec.
	It was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen until the government said, we have been embarrassed enough, and then called in the police.
	And I was down there the Friday and the Saturday when they broke it up, and they came in at the direction of Justin Trudeau, like literal stormtroopers, in flank, one step at a time, knocking people, what do they call it, the shove and grab, knocking people over, arresting them.
	I was there the day that they had assaulted.
	Violently arrested Chris Deering.
	I think it's Afghanistan war veteran if it's not Iraq.
	A war veteran who his body had been literally destroyed in battle where his other mates did not survive.
	Violently arrested.
	Cuffed.
	Had his hands behind his back for two hours.
	Then they drove them outside of the city and dumped them off like trash and let them make their way back.
	I was there the Friday and the Saturday and they had Snipers on roofs, drones in the sky.
	They were detonating concussive grenades.
	I was like five feet from a concussive grenade as it detonated as they're clearing the streets one after the other.
	Because, you know, Justin Trudeau, who promotes protests in India, promotes the rights of the citizens to protest in China, it wasn't even a question of negotiating.
	We now know from the commission that they had effectively negotiated some form of an agreement whereby the trucks would leave.
	But Justin Trudeau was so desperate to turn this into a quasi-January 6th.
	Let me just stop you, and I do want you to continue, but I just want the people that are watching your testimony to understand.
	So what you're communicating is, so the Emergency Act was being invoked, so people understood that the troops were coming, so to speak, and the truckers had arranged to negotiate and had communicated, we will leave.
	So it wasn't necessary for the police to come in, and we've actually had one of the, I think, two witnesses that were involved in those communications that we will leave.
	So I think it's important for people to understand, especially those that watched the troops come in, and there's still the videos online, that that was completely unnecessary, that basically the truckers had agreed to leave and disembark and vacate the capital.
	Yeah, I'm sort of taking for granted and wrongly that everybody knows exactly what I'm thinking.
	Yes, because the protest goes on for near three weeks and peaceful, but it wasn't ending.
	The Windsor Bridge blockade, which everyone knows because that was, you know, blockaded the border between America and Canada, Ontario and Michigan, that had already been resolved via court order.
	But Justin Trudeau was hellbent on invoking the Emergencies Act, which is the, you know, it used to be the War Measures Act, which is the invocation of last resort for when there's a national emergency for which existing laws are inadequate to remedy.
	And so Trudeau was hellbent on doing this, and we now know this from the commission, which revealed that, you know, they were discussing it.
	And even though a negotiation had been reached between the truckers, And the city to at least clear up certain areas, that settlement was basically stayed, if you want to call it that, had already been resolved via court order.
	And so it, just in truth, I don't care what the Commissioner Rouleau concluded, unconstitutional overreach to invoke the Emergencies Act for an issue of national security, national crisis that cannot be resolved by existing laws as relates to a protest.
	In a four block red zone in pinpoint geographically limited to Ottawa.
	If nobody knows what an overreach that was, I've broken it down quite a bit on my channel.
	He invoked the Emergencies Act and then the police start coming in and everybody knew it was like it was going to end badly or more badly.
	And the police came in in flanks.
	You had multiple police.
	You had some with no identification badges coming in on the Friday, the Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
	Setting up fences, which people thought were for kettling, which is like, you know, crowding people in so they can get arrested.
	You had heavily militarized police, armored vehicles, police people in no badges.
	You didn't know who they were, just numbers.
	You don't know where they came from.
	And then all hell breaks loose of violence on the Friday and the Saturday when they decide it's over.
	And, you know, I said during this event, if this event does not end, In reshaping and revolutionizing where the world is headed, it'll be the biggest black pill following the biggest white pill that I've ever had.
	And the day that this protest was violently ended, violently suppressed, it was one of the darkest moments for me after having seen the last three weeks of peace, love, beauty, nationalism in the best possible way.
	Canadians proud to be Canadians again.
	And the amount of people who said it to me while I was down there.
	I've never been prouder to be Canadian.
	I've been depressed and sad for the last two years.
	I've driven 13 hours from Nova Scotia.
	I've driven 12 hours from Northern Ontario.
	I've driven from Vancouver.
	And the people were happy to be among other people.
	They were proud to be Canadians yet again.
	And then it was suppressed.
	And the way it was suppressed also further illustrated the government subsidized propaganda to Downplay and deflect from the egregious, over-the-top violence.
	There was an image, accidentally caught by the CBC, I think, of the police beating the ever-loving Mercy, just kneeing a human being as though they were a sack of potatoes that they were trying to turn into mashed potatoes for dinner.
	And it was accidentally caught live.
	They never spoke of it again.
	And the media is covering this, talking about violence that could possibly warrant this action when there never was.
	At one point during the protest, the police cordoned off the cenotaph, the war memorial, to protect it, to suggest that the protesters, who were military veterans in large part, Many wearing medals at the time and telling the police that they were not going to be violent.
	Wearing their medals when Chris Deering was violently assaulted.
	He lost one of his medals in the snow when they shoved him to the ground, when they met and assaulted him.
	They were wearing their medals.
	They were, and I learned this by being there and asking them, because CBC sure as hell was not reporting on this, they had set up 24 /7 video surveillance of the War Memorial.
	They were shoveling the snow every time I was there, salting it, because the city was no longer salting.
	They had a drummer in front of the War Memorial, you know, doing the military drums.
	And then...
	The police come in and section it off as if to suggest that it was out of control and that people were desecrating it or vandalizing it.
	And the military veterans that I was talking to, I've never served.
	I don't have this experience.
	I don't have this, you know, reflex of my soul.
	They were outraged.
	They said this monument is a monument for me to go pay tribute, honor to my fallen brethren, and now I can't go step on it.
	Because the government is doing this as a sick ploy to make us look bad.
	Did the media ever talk about how it was the military?
	It was spinny.
	I interviewed these guys, shuttling the snow, salting the walks, watching over the war.
	Viva, I need to focus us and somebody just flashed that we have five minutes left.
	I want to give the commissioners an opportunity to ask you questions because you've...
	You've brought us a very, very important perspective.
	And the fact that you actually went there to deliberately see what was happening and contrast it with government narrative is of vital importance.
	So I'm just going to ask the commissioners if they have some questions.
	And they do.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Freiheit.
	We had previous witnesses who were at the protest in Ottawa.
	As you were.
	And you were talking about how the CBC only presented certain pictures and so did the rest of the mainstream media.
	But that area, Elgin and Wellington, in and around and in front of the Parliament buildings, is probably the most surveilled, videotaped place in the whole country.
	Have you seen or have you asked for or has anybody to your knowledge demanded that the government of Canada release some of that surveillance tape so we can see using the government's own video cameras what happened?
	I would say I haven't done it.
	There's no need to do it because with all of the live streamers there who captured all of this in real time, there's no room for doubt.
	And thank you for reminding me of another fake news story that the media ran with but only corrected once it was well too late.
	The arson.
	The alleged arson that the truckers had attempted to carry out on an apartment building, it had nothing to do with the protest, nothing to do with the protesters.
	And by the time they go to correct that story or attenuate it, it doesn't matter.
	It's already left its impact.
	And when I was talking to the counter-protesters, they were just repeating the same things.
	They were just repeating the same things.
	People getting assaulted for wearing masks, the harassment.
	It was nonsense.
	But you don't need to be to ask the government for these videos.
	Everything was documented in real time.
	And the only issue really became, I would say, like, algorithmic suppression or soft censorship on social media, where that video of the police meeing the, I think it was a veteran, in the torso as they're arresting him, and that systematically gets demonetized on YouTube, which affects its visibility to others.
	But it was all captured.
	The only violence that occurred, in my experience and that I've seen, was at the hands of the government that came in.
	To end this peaceful protest in the most non-peaceful way imaginable.
	Well, my only point with...
	And I agree with you.
	It was documented by many, many people, including yourself.
	But my only point in getting the government videotape is it would be nice to hear from the voices of the government themselves showing their own cameras with their own cameras shown.
	It would be difficult for people to say that the government...
	Edited or selectively videotaped when they have hundreds and hundreds of cameras.
	It reminds me a little bit of the Tucker Carlson thing earlier this year with their January 6th fiasco.
	It would be hard for the government to deny their own camera feeds, I think.
	Absolutely.
	Also, some of those camera feeds might show stuff that the government doesn't want you to see, like there was a video of the police while arresting someone appearing to...
	Butt them repeatedly with the firing end of a gun.
	I'm reflexively a back the blue type person, but what I saw on the days when the protest was crushed violently was just following orders type conduct, which will leave a lingering bad taste in my mouth.
	Thank you.
	And there being no further questions, David, what a pleasure it has been to have you share your personal testimony with us on behalf of the National Citizens' Inquiry.
	I sincerely thank you for coming and testifying today.
	Thank you for having me.
	I wanted to do this during the commission, but I think too many people wanted to do that as well.
	But thank you for having me, and I hope everyone really appreciates.
	It's attributed to Denzel Washington, but I think it's more Mark Twain.
	If you don't read the news, you're uninformed, and if you read the news, you're misinformed.
	You have to know the tricks in order to understand how to digest what's being fed to you and make more people wake up to what is actually going on.
	Thank you.
	Hello?
	Hello!
	Hello!
	Hello, Anita.
	We're on right now.
	Can I please get you to state and spell your name for the record, please?
	Hello, people.
	Anita Krishna.
	K-N-I-T-A.
	Last name is K-R-I-S-H-N-A.
	Okay, I'm removing Anita.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to the National Citizens Inquiry.
	I do.
	Very good.
	Now, I understand that you're here today to tell us about your determination from Global News, from your position as a control room director.
	Is that correct?
	Correct, yes.
	Before we get into that, I would just like you to tell us a little bit more about yourself.
	Anybody wants to continue watching this?
	Go here.
	I have a bachelor's degree in radio.
	Everybody, I'm going to bring myself out.
	Okay, well, the fact that everyone can see me here.
	Okay, I'm schvitzing.
	I'm schvitzing.
	I got nervous, people.
	I'm going to get ready for the live stream tonight.
	Go check out, if you're going to continue watching this, go to the NCI's own Rumble feed for that.
	Back in there.
	Great job.
	Thank you.
	I hope I wasn't all over the place.
	It's not the curse of knowledge, but it's taken for granted that everyone is as immersed in the last three years, or at least the last two years as I've been.
	Okay.
	I got 35 minutes to get ready for tonight.
	Don't cut the Canadian hair until we are free, Viva.
	I might end up looking like Alex Jones's lawyer.
	It's an amazing thing at the season of the day.
	Thank you.
	Hair.
	Like, what was going on?
	It's only this portion right here that was protest hair.
	Just this part.
	And look at the color of it now compared to what it was.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Okay.
	And I didn't cry.
	I was on the verge.
	I was on the verge.
	Out of frustration.
	Out of frustration.
	Okay.
	So I'm going to end all of this now.
	I'm going to go maybe pee.
	Not that the world needs to know that before the stream tonight.
	And we got another stream at 7 o 'clock with Blair White.
	I'm not going to put too much emphasis on the white because some people might not appreciate the Stewie Griffin joke.
	But that's it.
	Done.
	It's out there.
	It's out there forever, people.
	Okay, so I'm going to end this.
	I will see all of you in 35 minutes for tonight's interview.
	Blair White.
	Everyone, go.
	See you soon.

▲