All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
01:45:10
National Citizen's Inquiry FINAL REPORT with Ken Drysdale! Meanwhile in Canada... Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
When's the last time you've been up there?
I don't go up there anymore.
You refuse, right?
Yeah, I just fucking...
What they've done up there, what they did with the trucker rally and what Trudeau's doing with guns and what they're trying to clamp down on censorship on the internet, that guy can eat shit.
Like, that place needs 100% an overhaul of government.
They're sliding down that dangerous road of communism that scares the shit out of me.
When's the last time you've been up there?
I don't go up there anymore.
You refuse, right?
Yeah.
What they've done up there, what they did with the trucker rally and what Trudeau's doing with guns and what they're trying to clamp down on censorship on the internet, that guy can eat shit.
That place needs...
100% an overhaul of government.
You say that it needs an overhaul of government.
Them is insurrectionist words up in Canada, Joe.
You can get locked away for that.
Have your bank account taken away for that.
Frozen.
They might lock you up in one of them government-designated quarantine facilities.
Funny thing is, I posted that video on Twitter and then I get some responses.
I won't call them Justin Trudeau bootlicking sycophants.
I would if I didn't know them.
I actually happen to know one person with whom I'm engaging on Twitter who says, you know, her retort is Canada was rated the number two country in the world to live in.
I don't know how they measure these things.
I don't know how you, like, what goes into the top countries to live in.
I mean, America's number five.
Australia is number four.
Canada seems to be number two on the list of best countries in the world.
Look at this, it's very scientific.
The overall ranking of best countries measure global performance on a variety of metrics.
Switzerland is the best country in the world for 2023.
Okay, Switzerland.
Canada.
Switzerland, GDP per capita, 83,000 bucks.
Canada, 58,000.
Sweden, 65,000.
Not that money is everything.
Australia, you know, if you're not getting locked into your five-kilometer radius in your house during Dictator Dan's reign of terror during COVID, you know, it's a pretty nice place.
When you can leave your house, it's a nice place.
United States, number five.
All right, so, you know, some...
I don't know what the question was.
What's the best?
All objective metrics.
Crime, green space, environment, tyranny.
You know, can you operate a bank account without risk of having it frozen?
Can you have a 13-year-old kid who can go to the cinema without having to show a vaccine passport?
You know, detailed questions.
But then I'm like, okay, show me the poll.
I'd like to know the question.
And I get the answer.
Oh, the U.S. News rated it number two.
I was like, well, that's interesting.
That's interesting.
I mean, I guess it depends on what question you ask and who you ask it to.
This is from December 9th, 2023.
That's three days ago.
Canada's surging cost of living fuels reverse immigration.
You know what reverse immigration is called?
Exodus.
It's the best country in the world, it's just that record number of immigrants who came there between a certain year are leaving.
It's a record, it's the number two country in the world to live in, but people from foreign countries who left, you know, communist-style countries who left tyranny to come to Canada are leaving.
Hmm.
It's such a great country that there's a mass exodus, not just of new immigrants, but of Canadians.
And the only way to compensate for that is to open up the borders to mass immigration so the government can say, well, look, we're still have a net positive.
We're still growing because we've opened our borders because we have a massive amount of immigrants, new immigrants, who are leaving.
I mean, I can anecdotally, I can tell you that I knew of immigrants.
I won't specify the country because I don't want to get anybody...
Identified.
Who came to Canada, who were literally being paid to live in Canada, in Quebec, and learn French.
And they said, I'm going back to the country that I left because I hated here so much.
And it's not just the cold winters, people.
It's the cold communism.
So, Justin Trudeau, Should Eat Shit, is probably a great intro to today's stream, which is going to be with Ken Drysdale from the National Citizens Inquiry.
I think everybody watching knows roughly what that is, but I don't think people understand the scope of it, the tenor of it, what they did, what evidence they adjuiced, and what they produced by way of final report.
I testified during one of the hearings.
It was fun.
It's always fun to tell your story.
So we're going to talk about that.
But before we get into that, so we're going to do the National Citizens Inquiry.
We're going to move on over to Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com sooner than later.
Should have checked this earlier.
Are we live?
We're live and we're all good.
Volume is too low.
Maybe that was on my volume just compared to Joe Rogan's.
I'll put up the volume a little bit.
Are we live on Viva?
Okay.
So vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
They were talking about the volume too.
Yeah, that's frustrating because sometimes the audio clip is very loud and I don't hear it.
I don't have real-time stuff.
It doesn't matter.
We are live on Rumble.
We are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we're live on YouTube.
For those of you who don't know me, Viva Fry, Viva Barnes, here we go, Montreal litigator turned Florida rumbler.
We start on YouTube Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're going to end on YouTube sooner than later.
Not strictly because of the subject of conversation.
I'm probably going to post this entire stream to YouTube later.
But because Rumble is the free speech platform.
And when a platform is getting attacked from China, from overseas, DDoS attacks, whatever, politically motivated attacks, you know they're over the target and you know you have to support them through the good times and the bad or the frustrating.
Being down for eight hours is a first world problem.
It's a very, you know, it's a serious business interruption.
We have to bear with them and we have to support them because the fact that they are under attack means that they're doing something right.
Okay, and before we get into anything, before we get into anything today, hold on, now I hear myself in the background.
You may have noticed that it says this stream contains a paid promotion, which it does, people.
And if you want to shed the shackles of big tech...
Oligarchy?
Is that the word?
Or big tech corruption?
Google YouTube oversight.
They know your moves.
They know you better than your spouse knows you.
You know, your spouse can probably know what to get you for Christmas because they'll Google it and then you'll get recommendations.
If you want to break free of the shackles, you can start with start mail.
Are you fed up with targeted phishing emails?
Fed up with spam cluttering your inbox?
I can tell you that I am.
It's my own doing.
I signed up for one of those.
I donated money somewhere.
And I think they sold my email address and I'm just getting inundated.
It happens to be GOP stuff and I have to go unsubscribe from each one.
I'm fed up with that.
Concernable companies like Google and government spying on your private conversations, then it's time to switch to Startmill.
Startmill is a secure alternative to Gmail that lets you send emails like they're in a sealed envelope.
I think the word is encrypted.
Making sure your communication stays private and secure.
Services like Google collect your data and use it for targeted ads.
If the product is free, you're the product.
The problem with Google is it's not even free anymore if you want to maintain your...
Your dad, you have to pay whatever, three bucks a month.
Startmail is strictly ad-free service that does not collect or share data with third parties for advertising or tracking.
Your Startmail account comes with all the features you need, including something you might not even know you want, disposable email addresses to protect your inbox from phishing scams and hacking attempts.
Switching to Startmail is super easy.
If you're worried about old emails, store it on Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, etc.
People still use Yahoo.
They've got you covered.
Startmail hassle-free migration tool lets you move your emails and contacts with just a few clicks.
No technical knowledge required.
Over the past decade, Startmail has become a trusted name in email privacy, so why wait any longer?
Do it.
I wait.
Do it.
Do it.
Switch to Startmail Experience security.
By the way, what do you get?
You get 50% off your first year subscription if you go with startmail.com slash Viva.
The link is in the description.
And the way to break free the shackles of big tech spying and tyranny is to support the companies that don't do it.
And with that said, we'll be heading over to Rumble sooner than later.
The link to Startmail is in the description.
And I see my guest in the backdrop removing this.
I hope I didn't cuss too much already for the guest.
I don't think I have.
I think he's got a sense of humor.
Although they do say on YouTube you're not supposed to drop the F-bomb or the SH-bomb within the first 60 minutes, but F that.
All right.
Ken, you ready to come in?
All right.
Here we do it, people.
We're going to do the intro, and then we're going to go over into, let's say, six or seven minutes.
We'll go over to Rumble.
Adding Ken to the stage.
Sir, how goes the battle?
Wonderful.
Good morning, everybody.
We had a bit of a snowstorm here in Manitoba last night, but everybody seems to be digging out and they're happy.
What's a bit of a snowstorm?
How many inches?
Well, you know, it wasn't inches.
It was blowing like mad.
Because I can tell you, we live an hour out of Winnipeg, and I went last night to see the new Godzilla movie.
Everybody should see it.
It's fantastic.
But driving home at 10 o 'clock at night, the wind was howling at it.
You just couldn't see it.
And this is straight, flat roads where you get snow blowouts very easily.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know it, man.
Oh, yeah.
See, I've driven to Calgary.
Let me just think about this.
No, I've driven to Winnipeg from Montreal, but then not further west.
And then I've driven from Calgary all around.
So I've never actually driven through the Flatlands Plains, but I've now driven from Texas or through Texas to New Mexico and to Alabama.
So I've seen Flatlands, but never out there.
Ken, for those who may not know who you are, and there might be a lot of them because I have got a big American audience, and the question's going to be...
Making the American audience appreciate all of the work that has been done through the National Citizens Inquiry and updating Canadians who may not have followed it to the end.
Who are you?
Well, the National Citizens Inquiry was initiated by the citizens of Canada.
We felt that they needed someone to step up and actually investigate what the heck the government did during the pandemic and the lockdowns and all the mandates.
And they didn't trust the government to do that.
And I'm sure that's not a surprise to your audience.
You know, we saw enough, what I would call...
Biased or even criminal investigations carried out by the government.
There was the investigation into the Emergencies Act and lo and behold, that found that the government did nothing wrong.
There was the SNC-Lavalin issue.
There was all kinds of different scandals and issues with this government that happened in Canada and every single time it was investigated, either it was no problem or...
All they did was scold the government, and there was no consequences.
So the Canadian people are tired of that.
They're fed up with that, and they wanted somebody to come in and figure out just what happened and what the consequences of that was.
And that's where NCI picked up.
That's what they did.
So now the NCI, if I'm timelining it right...
It was not in response to, but it came subsequent to Commissioner Rulo's finding, or did it start before that?
It came subsequent to.
It was originally initiated in 2022.
As a thought experiment, I think they did one day of hearings.
That was before I was involved.
And then the way the NCI happened really started in the end of February of 2023.
And it culminated just now on November 28th with the final report.
Because what happened for those who may not be aware of this?
In Canada, the whole world went, I'll swear a little bit, batshit crazy during COVID.
Tyrannical crazy during COVID.
There was no real, I mean, there has yet to be any form of accountability.
We still only get redacted contracts, redacted agreements after FOIA requests or the equivalent in Canada of the government.
So we have no idea really what happened.
We thought we would get some transparency or some look under the hood during Commissioner Rouleau's...
What do they call that?
It was the Commission to look into the invocation of the Emergencies Act required by law.
It went on for six weeks.
I mean, it ended up looking like and basically being, I don't know, like, it basically let Justin Trudeau off scot-free.
We didn't really get many answers from it, and people were left very angry.
A despondent.
And so in response to that, you said, well, we're going to get our own commission.
We're going to get our own inquiry, because if the government's not going to, you know, it's going to lift up the hood and say, oh, yeah, there's a wipe off a little bit of the dust, but not go into the mechanics.
We'll do it ourselves.
Who had the initial idea to do this?
And then how did it get going?
Well, there were a number of people that got together.
I believe Preston Manning was involved at the very beginning and Brian Peckford had some involvement at the beginning.
And then they just pulled together a group of interested people.
And I want to emphasize to the audience that these are everyday Canadians that got together.
You know, there was no government funding.
There was no corporate funding.
There was no pharma funding.
It was Canadians that got together and had enough and they really wanted to know what happened.
So they chipped in.
It was all volunteers.
I think we had thousands of volunteers and I think there were three people that were paid.
One of the assistants was paid and two other people, I believe.
But everything else was by volunteers.
The chat is saying one of our mics is too high and too low.
I want to figure out whose it is.
What's the binding precedent?
I mean, people are going to say, okay, good, so you get a bunch of citizens together to look into this, and you carry on some inquiries, some investigations, testimonies, etc., but ultimately there's no binding value to this report other than what it fleshed out in terms of its own evidence.
Well, you know, Canadians in particular have to stop thinking that they look to the government.
You know, I've been asked this question many times, you know, what's the point of this?
Is it just a document sitting on a shelf somewhere?
Well, it could be.
But Canadians can't expect the government to pick this thing up, which is very condemning to all levels of government about what they had done.
It's up to Canadians to pick this up.
And the first thing they need to do is they need to educate themselves as to what happened.
You know, I was fairly well-versed with what happened in Canada before I became a commissioner in the NCI.
But it was order of magnitudes of the information I found out and how it affected Canadians.
You know, we had over 300 witnesses give sworn testimony in this hearing, and it was conducted like a judicial hearing.
So there was a spectator gallery.
There was the...
There was the witness, there was lawyers that questioned and cross-examined, and then there was the four commissioners, and we also questioned or cross-examined the witnesses.
Again, it was all sworn testimony, and it was all recorded, and it was all transcribed, yeah, every word of it.
So we've created this incredible historical document.
Which you can go pick up and you can hear the words of everyday Canadians and you'll hear horrific stories that people I didn't even imagine happened and happened.
And so the first thing that this report should do is you should start waking people up.
You know, there's an old quote from Admiral Yakko.
Yamashita, I think, in World War II, who said, they said, well, what do you think this raid has done?
And he said, well, I think that all we've done is awakened the sleeping giant and filled them with a terrible rage.
And I hope that's what this report does.
I hope it wakes up sleeping Canadians.
And those sleeping Canadians wake up in a really bad mood when they find out exactly what happened.
Chat is going to tell me if the audio is...
I'm tinkering with your audio versus mine because apparently you're coming in loud and I'm coming in soft.
While I tinker with that, though, your background is in engineering.
Yes.
40 plus years.
I mean, professionally, flesh out your professional experience and how you came to have the role that you had with the National Citizens Inquiry.
That's what it stands for, people.
NCI is the National Citizens Inquiry.
Well, as you said, I am a professional engineer for over 40 years.
I've owned engineering companies.
I did a lot of work over the 40 years in what's called forensic engineering.
And what that is, for folks who don't know, is when something falls down, blows up, doesn't work, or somebody gets hurt, they'll come and hire me to do an investigation.
And I would look into the circumstances of those failures or those accidents, figure out what went wrong.
Write an expert report, and then I would have to defend that in trial or in adjudication or some other form of judicial hearing.
So I had that kind of experience for 40 years.
And then prior to the NCI actually happening, I got involved and I wrote an initial report called An Investigation into Alleged Criminal Actions of the Government.
And the folks can find that.
It's on a website called TheTrueFactsC19.com.
And that report, it simply looked at statistics.
So it took the numbers that Statistics Canada or the government of Canada was reporting with regard to mortalities.
And it looked at your odds of dying.
So it looked at your, if you were between a certain age, we looked at the odds, according to Statistics Canada, of you dying of just any reason.
And then we compared that to the odds they said you had a dying of COVID.
And it was shocking.
Well, we found out, you know, if you were 18 years of age and younger, your risk of dying of COVID was like 1 in 4 million.
And your risk of dying, just dying, I think it was 1 in 5 or 6,000 of any cause.
So that was my initial involvement in the movement, so to speak.
And then about a year later, the National Citizens' Inquiry approached me if I would become involved as a commissioner with their inquiry.
All right, now what we're going to do is we're going to move it on over to Rumble.
So the link is there, everybody, and I hope I've tinkered with the audios.
Okay, we're going to go over to Rumble right now.
So the link is there.
Share it one more time.
If anybody wants to come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, we'll have our...
Do it now, ending on YouTube, because we're going to get into the thick of this.
The findings of the report, who they allowed to testify, or who they had testified, ending on YouTube in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and Rumble.
Now, okay, so actually, before we even get there, funding.
How is this funded?
How much did it cost?
Were the organizers compensated?
Just to quell any concerns that people might have about that.
Well, it was completely funded by the citizens of Canada.
So regular people would go onto the website, which is nationalcitizensinquiry.ca, and they would make donations.
So it was all small donations.
No government donations, no pharma, and no large corporation donations at all.
As I said before, most of the thousands of people involved were all volunteers.
I could speak for myself as a commissioner.
My contract says I get paid $1.
And I haven't gotten paid it yet.
I was going to say, one dollar.
For how many hours did you put into this?
A thousand hours?
So you're getting, you know, you're getting, it's a joke.
It's not remunerated above and beyond hard costs of doing all of this.
No government funding, which is going to quell any concerns about government influence.
No big, no pharma funding, obviously.
So, ah, that dog.
Okay, so, yes, sorry, carry on.
You know, it was an interesting process because it cost us about $30,000 per.
City hearing.
And what I mean by that is, for those who didn't know, we went from coast to coast in Canada, stopped at eight cities, and in each city we held hearings for three full days.
So we had 24 days of hearings.
And you know, in true Canadian fashion, as we were rolling along...
We really didn't have the funds to do the next one.
So we were doing everything we could to keep our costs down because, of course, the mainstream media was suppressing anything about us and we were relying on independent media to get the word out.
And that usually takes a little longer to get the ballroom.
So I remember we were doing everything we could.
So when it stopped in Winnipeg, where I stayed, of course, my expenses were almost zero.
And then when it went to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, I drove, my wife and I drove.
And we paid for that ourselves.
And then when it went to Alberta, to Red Deer, Alberta, my wife and I drove and we paid for that ourselves.
We were really, this was really folks of grassroots movement, you know, that, I mean, you know, you can't believe what they were doing to us to stop us.
I mean, we had venues that were canceling on us the day or two before.
So we booked venues, and some people might ask the question, why were we in Truro, Nova Scotia?
Well, because we had venues booked in Halifax, and then they canceled on us a few days before, and we couldn't find anyone else who would host us.
So we ended up in Truro.
Toronto, similar.
We couldn't find a lawyer in Toronto.
That's why Sean Buckley got involved.
Okay, first of all, so you book venues, and then how many canceled, and what reasons did they give for canceling?
Well, I wasn't directly involved with the cancellations, but the number that cancelled, let me think.
Halifax cancelled, Toronto cancelled, Montreal cancelled, because we ended up in Quebec City.
Saskatoon cancelled.
Vancouver, we couldn't find a hotel in Vancouver, so we ended up in Langley, BC.
So, a lot of them cancelled.
Any reason?
You've booked it, I guess you've put a deposit down, and then they say, what, a day or two before?
We're cancelling?
Absolutely.
And what reason?
Any reason whatsoever?
What reasons were given?
I don't know, because I wasn't involved in that.
But you know, and you should also know that we had witnesses cancelling because they were still free.
And that tells you what was going on.
People were afraid to stand up and speak in public because they were afraid of their employers.
Maybe they'd get fired or if they worked for the government, they were afraid of that.
I can tell you that when we rolled into Saskatoon, Saskatchewan to do our first day of testimony, and I didn't know this was going on at the time because the commissioners are separate from the operations.
And when we sat down to do hearings, all of our witnesses had canceled that morning out of fear.
And so we had alternates, and we were phoning alternates, and you never saw that in public because the people who were organizing just did it so well.
We got the alternate witnesses in, and it just went on along, and the commissioners had no idea what was going on in the background.
Okay, so you go various cities, not city to city, but how many cities, locations, did you have hearings in?
We had eight cities.
So we went in Truro, Nova Scotia, to Toronto, Ontario.
And these were consecutive.
So we would go week number one in Truro, week number two in Toronto, then Winnipeg, Manitoba, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Red Deer, Alberta, Langley, British Columbia.
Then we went back to Quebec City, Quebec, and then we ended in Ottawa.
And the hearings themselves were scheduled for how long in each given city?
There were three days, and the days went...
Some of those days went 14 hours.
You know, at the end of the day, you were just toast.
You were tired.
You were emotionally drained.
You were physically drained.
But we gave it all our all, you know, right from the beginning.
We gave it everything we could.
Eight different cities, three days each, give or take.
One city a week.
So this spans eight weeks.
And the witnesses, how did you get the witnesses?
An open call for witnesses, volunteers?
Did you reach out to people?
There was an open call for witnesses.
So we got, I think, thousands of witnesses.
We actually had over 300 testify.
About 100, I can't remember exactly the number, 100 and some of them were experts, world-renowned experts in various different areas.
You know, it might be a doctor, an epidemiologist, a genetic researcher, could be a financial person, believe it or not, psychiatrists, international law.
We had a huge variety of experts, and then from lay witnesses, we heard people's horrendous stories about how they lost their jobs, how they couldn't do anything, how their families broke apart, how they had horrendous vaccine injuries and were vilified by the medical profession when they went and said, listen, this has happened to me, and they were just vilified over it.
So we had...
A huge spectrum of testimony and that's why the report is so broad-reaching because we were tasked to use the testimony to prepare a report and make recommendations and so the breadth of that testimony is directly reflected in the breadth and the size of the report.
Okay, so you have witnesses who testify to, like witnesses of facts who testify to their own experiences under COVID.
You have medical experts.
I think what is going to interest people the most is going to be the medical expert testimony, who you had in terms of evidence or testimony as relates to safety and efficacy, studies that were done.
And I know there's a, I was watching some of your clips, that there's some issue, you know, there's some...
Specific questions about safety and efficacy for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, etc.
I guess getting into the report and getting into the most incredible, the most relevant, the most important findings, how do you break it down?
How many pages is the final report?
Well, the final report is about 53, a little more than 5,300 pages.
I think it's closer to 5,400 as of today.
It's broken down into 11 different sections.
And I know that when I say that the report is, you know, over 5,000 pages, that's going to freak a lot of people out.
The analysis part of the report is about 643 pages, and then the rest are transcripts.
So there's over 4,700 pages of actual transcripts of every witness.
So, I mean, that's even, frankly, that's even...
A little bit scary for people to pick up something that big.
So this is what I say to folks.
I say, the first thing you want to do is you want to go to section 10, section 9 and 10. And there are only like three or four page sections.
And what they are is one section.
Section 9 are the conclusions.
And section 10 is a statement of commissioners to the people of Canada.
Read those first.
It's like eight pages long.
And then the next thing I say is go to the National Citizens' Inquiry rumble page and pick three testimonies.
I don't care which ones.
You know, there's over 300 testimonies.
Pick three and watch them.
And that will change your life.
Then the next thing I tell folks to do is now let's go take a look at the report and go to the table of contents of the report.
And there's Section 8, 7, and Section 8. Go to Section 8 in the Table of Contents and just scan through it.
And you can see that it's all in different categories.
It approaches the...
So if you page up to Section 8. Keep going.
That's Section 7. Keep going.
Keep going.
Section...
Table of Contents is long.
Oh, there we go.
Section 8. So we designed this report to be very, very user-friendly.
So Viva is going through that right now.
You can see there's a section called Civil, and that's got to do with Civil Law.
Sorry, that particular copy you've got there, those links aren't functioning right now, so it just took you back to the front.
But the Section 8 is about Civil Law, and then you can see it's broken down into all kinds of different things.
What we're suggesting to people is go into there and just look at the headings and decide maybe you're interested.
You can see there's one there.
Canadian courts, constitution, coercion, emergency planning.
And if you keep rolling down, you'll find out that it's split into four sections, civil, social, economic, and health.
So if you want to know about propaganda, there's a section we just went by there.
There's an effect on COVID on the military, education system, media.
All kinds of things.
So what I'm saying to people is, first, go to Section 8, find something that you're interested in, and just read the recommendations.
Section 8 is just a bullet list of the recommendations.
Now, once you've done that, go to the very same section in Section 7. The numbering is the same.
So Section 815, for instance, it's in Section 715 is the same item, but except in 7, we discuss all of the testimony, we discuss...
All of our reasonings and wherefores, we have conclusions, and then we list the recommendations.
So this should be really, really user-friendly to be used if you look at it in these terms.
You know, look up in Section 8 first items that you might be interested in, because your listener might not be interested in, I don't know, the impact in the military, but they might be interested in the impact in the church.
It's an amazing thing.
For those who have lived through it, and we're not paying attention, but we're delving into it in real time, the military, the article in the Toronto Sun, Citizen, whatever, the Toronto Citizen, the military saw this as a good opportunity to test propaganda on Canadian citizens.
And then you had the story.
What did they do in Nova Scotia where they had some viral story about wolves running wild?
Do you recall that?
No, I don't recall that one.
I thought all the wolves in Canada were in Parliament.
It was one of the propaganda schemes that the military was testing during COVID.
We'll go pick randomly.
Military propaganda used during COVID.
I don't want to put you on the spot if it's not all fresh off the top of your head.
What were some of the findings in terms of what propaganda was used on Canadian citizens?
Well, specifically with regard to the military, what we looked at, we had a number of witnesses testified about what happened to them, including one lawyer.
And so we didn't look at that side of the military, but we looked at what they did to the members.
And what we found out was that you have to go back as far as World War II.
To have a time when so many members of the Canadian military left the military or were injured, and that was due to the vaccine mandates.
Now, we did get into the issues of propaganda when it came to the mainstream media and the CBC, and there's a whole section on that, and we make recommendations of what has to happen there.
But with regard to the military, our focus was on what did the organization do to their members and how did that affect military readiness?
I'm trying to find the article about the propaganda of the wolves.
I'll find that later as we continue talking.
The courts.
Let's go over the courts.
We'll go over the medical stuff.
We'll go over what we were told in terms of safety efficacy and what we know we did not know or still don't know despite what we were told.
The findings of the courts.
I was trying to go through some of these court decisions to find the passages in various court decisions where judges...
They say, what do they call it?
Took judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the jab.
The courts...
Did nothing to come through for Canadians.
At the federal level, they declared those government-designated quarantine facilities non-constitutionally violative.
They didn't violate your charter rights.
They violated your rights when they took you there without letting you consult an attorney, but it was not a charter violation to whisk you off there in the first place.
There were lower court cases where they were denying visitation rights to parents who were unvaccinated.
Flesh some of that out for us, for those who may not know.
Well, there's a lot of things.
You just mentioned a whole lot of things, and I'll try to take it in a reasonable way.
In Canada, it's very different the way drugs are.
I'll talk about that drug approval process first.
In Canada, it's very different than it is in the United States to get drugs approved.
In the United States, everybody heard of the emergency authorization.
That's not how it works in Canada.
What they did was they did an interim authorization here.
Under the rules of the Food and Drug Administration or Food and Drug Act in Canada, there's very specific requirements to prove safety objectively and to prove efficacy objectively.
Now, it's worthwhile to explain what objectively means.
If I ask you an objective question, an example might be, what is 2 plus 2?
And the objective answer is 4. If I want to ask you a subjective question, and I'll say where that's important, a subjective question would be, how do you feel about 2 plus 2?
So objective is 2 plus 2 equals 4. Subjective is, how do you feel about 2 plus 2?
Under the Canadian food and drug regulations, before a drug can be imported or used in Canada, it has to objectively prove it's safe and objectively prove it works.
And so what Canada did was, in the interim order, they relaxed that requirement and turned it from an objective test to a subjective test.
So with regard to safety, they said, the pharmaceutical companies have to provide enough information that...
You might be able to conclude that it's safe.
And it's the same test with regard to efficacy now.
So they didn't have to prove it.
They only had to provide information that might lead you to believe it is.
And then they approved the darn things on that basis.
Now, to make matters worse, in Canada, that interim order only could last for 12 months.
And when it was done, they then...
Took those new rules for COVID and actually codified them, put them into the permanent law.
So if you go and look in the food and drug regulations in Canada, now there's a caveat in there that says, oh, by the way, COVID-19 vaccines don't have to prove that objectively.
So that's the first thing.
And then they went out and kept telling people that they were safe and they were effective, and they never proved it.
There was no objective proof of it at all.
So they misled Canadians there.
And they knew they misled them, frankly.
So, go ahead.
Go on.
I was going to interrupt you with something about Anthony Housefather, but keep going if you had something to say there.
So then when we look at what did the courts do, and I think it's really, really important for folks to understand that in Canada, judges are appointed, they're not elected, and judges are kind of similar to university professors in that they have tenure.
In other words, if they make, they can't be fired.
For following the law and doing their rulings.
You know, they could be fired if they get caught doing something illegal, but they've been given tenure, they've been given protection from being fired by the government so they can make independent judgments and that Canadians, when they stand before the courts, are supposed to be able to rely on the rule of law.
And what the rule of law means...
Is that if Ken Drysdale is standing in front of a judge and the government of Canada is opposing him, I can be assured that we will be treated as equals, the government of Canada and Ken Drysdale.
And that's not what happened here.
The judges, for whatever reason, started to use things like judicial notice.
And for folks that don't know what judicial notice is, or at least the way they've been using it, is that...
They will look at certain things that are under discussion, and the judge will decide that, oh, we can't argue that.
That's just the way it is.
That's correct.
And judicial notice was never intended to be worked that way.
Judicial notice was to identify certain issues that both parties agreed to and just say, we don't need to spend time arguing that because both parties agree.
So that was corrupted by our Canadian courts, where judges were saying, You can't question the COVID-19 narrative because the government says so.
And that's a complete corruption.
And then they also used other things like mootness.
And so what they were doing was they were removing the rule of law in Canada and they were abrogating the responsibility to ask and answer very difficult questions.
And Canadians were left holding the bag on that.
Do you remember the video where Anthony Hell's father explains the procurement process, why they had to black out certain details in the contracts with government workers, how Canada was desperate to get a vaccine, and so they agreed to terms and conditions that were very favorable to the pharmaceutical companies?
Do you remember that video, or did you see that?
Not at the time, but subsequently?
I have seen a few videos like that that, again, wasn't part of our commission, not because it was outside of our scope, but just because we didn't have any testimony.
Did any politicians testify or did they agree?
Did you summon any or ask any and how many came to testify?
Well, that's a very good point.
You know, we had thousands of experts and Canadians worldwide coming in wanting to testify and we sent out what's called non-judicial subpoenas to the government because we wanted a fair and unbiased report.
So we sent, I think it was 60-some-odd, 65, 63. Non-judicial subpoenas to various government representatives on all different levels of government.
And I think out of all of them, we had one response saying they weren't coming and the rest just ignored them.
And that should really tell Canadians that their government, what their government thinks of them.
You know, thousands and thousands of Canadians putting in thousands or tens of thousands of hours and spending their own money to get an investigation.
And the government just...
To the Canadians.
Now, I do have to correct myself because there's one or two politicians that did testify and they were politicians that actually stood up for Canadians and refused the vaccines and were thrown out of the legislatures or thrown out of caucus because of it.
If I'm guessing, the only ones that testified, Roman Baber?
If I had to guess.
And I don't know, did Maxime Bernier testify?
No, no, no.
Okay.
So Roman Baber and who else, if you can remember offhand?
I'm going to have to look.
One fellow was a member of the Ontario legislature.
I don't recall his name because, of course, I'm not from Ontario.
Let me bring this up just so everybody can bask in the...
I can only find it on Facebook, but it's good enough.
I'm just going to bring this up here.
These agreements require employees of the government of candidates that access these documents to sign confidentiality agreements.
And why is that?
Why is there much more reductions, as my colleague said, in these documents than in other documents?
It's because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic, when everybody was desperate for vaccines, when companies were being told to rush vaccine production, do testing in an unprecedented way, in a way they normally don't do it.
So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market than they normally would.
Because they didn't do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market.
They did it all in less than a year.
So that's why these companies said, if I'm going to deliver you this product that I haven't tested in my normal way, I want to have different conditions.
And with countries around the world competing with each other to get these, the countries had less leverage than they normally do.
For example, if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts.
Or monkeypox contracts or other things that were normally available, this would be a different issue.
But these are already signed.
They were signed at a time the government didn't have that leverage in negotiations.
We just wanted to sign as many vaccine contracts with as many producers as possible because Canadians were desperate for vaccines.
And in the end, it worked out.
We got vaccines and we were one of the countries that got to vaccinate everybody the fastest.
I think that's it, eh?
Okay, good.
Let me close that down.
You know, going back to judicial notice and some of these cases where judges were saying judicial notice is something that is so patently obvious, the judge can determine it as a matter of fact without adducing evidence.
The sun is round.
The sun is hot.
You don't have to bring in evidence for that.
The earth is round, despite what some people think.
Judicial notice.
The sky is up, etc., etc.
You know, World War II started and ended roughly in 1939 to 1945.
The judges were taking as judicial notice the safety and efficacy of the jab.
That's correct.
And now you hear Anthony, that's relatively recent.
I believe that that video, that speech that he gave is subsequent to the hearings, but not necessarily to the final report, but whatever.
Let's speak to the safety and efficacy and what evidence was adjuiced during the inquiry.
Offhand, I mean, I know some of the experts have testified, but...
If you don't remember by name, what was the tenor of the experts that testified, the tenor of their testimony, and the finding of the commission, or the inquiry, as relates to safety and efficacy of this experimental mRNA jibby jab?
Well, you know, it's a lot scarier than folks know.
And now it's starting to come out.
But with regard to some of the experts, I'm just looking at a list.
There's a list of experts on the National Citizens Aquarium website.
Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Patrick Phillips, Dr. Laura Braden, Chris Milburn, Dr. Chris Milburn, Dr. Joseph Friedman.
We had Jessica Rose.
We had Deanna McLeod.
We had David Redman, Dr. Eric Payne, and that's just a few.
You know, we had, I think it was like 150 or 160 world-renowned experts come out.
I mean, and it's a lot scarier than folks understand, you know, particularly...
I think it was on the third day of testimony in Truro, Nova Scotia, a doctor by the name of Dr. Laura Braden testified, and she's an immunologist, a geneticist.
And she was talking about, this has now been announced by the CDC and Health Canada, that there's errant strains of DNA in these vaccines.
They're contaminated.
They stratify.
In other words, When they were putting the batches from, you know, they create these vaccines in large batches and then they bottled them.
And they were finding that depending on where they extracted the vaccine from within the batch, it varied in strength and effectiveness.
And everything that folks know or believe they know about the reactions that people were having, it was incredible what happened there.
People were having, you know, they'd get the shot.
They would immediately have a reaction.
They'd go to their doctor or go to the emergency, and the emergency department or the doctor would say, oh, no, you can't be having a reaction to the vaccine because that's not a reported issue with the vaccines.
Well, the vaccines are brand new, brand new technology, never been tested in humans, and they're telling them what they should or should not be when someone's coming in with some horrendous issue.
It's incredible.
But again, I don't want to miss the point about the genetic side of this thing.
Dr. Laura Braden was one of the scariest testimonies, and there were some other doctors that testified to the same thing, but they were saying that these vaccines, we have no idea yet what they may or may not do to us in the long run, because they're monkeying with the genetics.
And what DNA is, so when I say genetics, I mean the DNA is actually the blueprint that your body uses in order to make new cells.
And there is a potential here that some of these vaccines are causing damage to that blueprint on cells, and that could result in all kinds of things, diseases.
I agree.
Aggressive cancers, which I know that we have been seeing, as a matter of fact, now they're going to chalk it up to, well, people didn't get screened for the last three years, as though that would be an acceptable alternative explanation.
Okay, it wasn't our poison jab, it was our neglect and traumatizing you to go get your ordinary screening.
So at least it's not that screw-up, it's another one.
Yeah, and they never tested for any of that.
You know, they only tested this damn stuff for a couple of months, and the initial tests only used healthy people.
So they didn't use the elderly in the test.
They didn't use pregnant women.
They didn't use children.
And then all of a sudden they released it and they were telling pregnant women to go take this.
In fairness, Ken, they did use children.
And then the ones that got sick, they excluded from the results on the basis that something unrelated, we got to get that person out.
And that he mentioned on the, we're going to get into the pregnant stuff.
I want to bring this.
It's a tweet, but it's the link that is the more important part.
This was in the UK.
When we talk about doctors here saying safe and effective, if you're pregnant, go ahead and get it.
This was as relates to, and I'm fairly certain, this is the Pfizer shot.
This is from the UK government website where it said in the toxicity conclusions, women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated.
These judgments reflect the absence of data at the present time and do not reflect a specific finding of As if the absence of evidence isn't a finding of concern itself.
While they were simultaneously, hold on, I think it's in the original part of the tweet.
While they were simultaneously telling pregnant women to go get So what evidence that was remarkable was adduced during the NCI as pertains to the lack of data on statements that they were making publicly?
Oh, gosh.
We went into that in great detail.
There's, I believe, a section in that under Section 8.5, which deals with recommendations for health.
I mean, they absolutely had done no testing on pregnant women at the time.
And there were some incidental pregnant women who were in the...
Sorry, when they did their original testing, they didn't test pregnant women.
As a matter of fact, if you became pregnant, they were excluded from the study.
But in February of 2001, when Pfizer was reviewing the data with regard to people who had vaccine reactions...
You mean 2021?
Yeah, sorry.
I think it's 2001.
I wasn't sure if this was a prior vaccine.
Yeah, 2021.
After they wanted 75 years to release their data, they're looking over their data.
Oh yeah, they're looking over their data and they're finding all kinds of things in their data with regard to people, pregnant women having miscarriages, people dying.
And the numbers aren't right on my memory right now, but if I recall, in that review of VAERS data, which Pfizer did in February of 2021, They found that, I think there was about 42,000 people in that review.
And I think, I can't remember the numbers, but it was like thousands and thousands of people.
They didn't even know what the outcome was.
And I believe there was 1,200 people that died.
But there were thousands of people.
You know, this is supposedly being scientific and reviewing it.
And I think it was, and again, I'm going by my memory, if folks can correct me here, but there were thousands of people, they didn't even know the sex of the patient.
There were thousands of people where it was still ongoing, and they didn't know what the end result was.
And there were people they just didn't know, they just lost track of.
And these were thousands.
These weren't like five or six.
There were thousands and thousands of people that they didn't know.
And yet, they didn't stop the darn thing.
They didn't discourage.
People from taking it.
And they knew all this information.
I mean, you know, even the initiation of this whole thing was a scam.
In Canada, when they declared the public emergency, it was in March of 2020.
One, I think he was 81 years old, one 81-year-old person in Canada out of a population of 40 million had apparently died from COVID-19.
One.
And they had like 1,200 plus or minus cases that they said were infected with COVID-19.
That was enough to shut down the entire country and lock people down and take away their human rights for one person, 81-year-old or 82-year-old person having supposedly died.
And I don't know how they verified that, if they verified it or not.
While simultaneously euthanizing 10,000 people a year.
It's so...
It's comical in the sense of tragedy.
It is.
I mean, it's incredible.
And they knew.
We had testimony at the National Citizens' Inquiry.
I don't remember which testimony it was, but they showed the data that the government had in January 2020, February 2020, going into March 2020.
With regard to infections and deaths that they were attributing to COVID-19.
And it was exactly what we know now, you know, that the vast majority were in the 80-plus age range.
And yet they locked everybody down.
So they knew this before they did the initial lockdown, that it was affecting elderly people with comorbidities.
They already knew that in March of 2020.
And yet they did it anyway.
And this was despite the fact.
That United States had it.
Most developed countries had it.
Canada certainly had an influenza COVID, sorry, not a COVID, but an influenza pandemic plan, which was authored partly by our famous Fauci equivalent, Theresa Tam.
Now, the recommendations contained within that Canadian influenza pandemic plan.
Which pre-existed COVID, it was there just in case something like COVID was going to happen, said don't use masks, don't do knockdowns, and don't do most of the stuff they immediately did.
That was contrary to the plan.
And so you have to ask yourself the question, why did we throw out that plan?
And the plan also said that we should be using...
All kinds of other anti-influenza drugs that were available at the time.
Canada stockpiled millions and millions of dollars of these drugs, and yet we ignored it on the first day, and we just threw it all out the window, and it turns out that it was right to begin with.
I'm just bringing up Theresa Tam's Google search results.
Born in China, not that that makes any difference, but some people can have some questions as to...
Conspiracy, loyalty, and other.
In movies, by the way, if anyone hasn't seen that clip, her infamous clip, Outbreak, Anatomy of a Plague.
The woman who suggested that you cut...
Was she the one who suggested you cut holes in sheets?
Oh, no, that you wear face masks while having sex during COVID.
Because that would reduce the chance of transmission.
I think it was Bonnie...
Bonnie Henry.
Bonnie Henry, who suggested using sheets with holes in it if you're going to, you know, glory holes for sex during COVID.
Well, you know, one of the interesting things about Theresa Tam was, of course, she was the main author of the Canadian Influenza Pandemic Plan, which said don't do all the things she did.
But in 2010, she did a documentary with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
You can find it online.
I'm going to look right now.
Where she's talking about...
All of the things that they should do, this is in 2010, all of the things they should do, like arresting people and putting bracelets on them that they could track them, this is what she was saying in 2010.
And CBC did a documentary on it.
It's incredible.
And we've done our best, not as the NCI Commission, I'm speaking for myself now, I've done my best to figure out what her credentials are.
And from what I could gather was she graduated out of one of the Alberta universities in like 1996 as a baby doctor.
And then I don't believe she ever practiced medicine.
And then she went to the government.
And around 2004, all of a sudden, she was now a guru in epidemiology.
And so I don't know how a pediatrician becomes an expert in epidemiology in a few years, and she was ahead of a couple of things on pandemics at the WHO.
So now there may be other qualifications out there, but we sure as heck couldn't find them looking for them.
So it's incredible the people that they had in charge and what they knew or did not know.
Yeah, it's absolutely unbelievable.
Teresa Tam's a quack.
She's an absolute nutcase quack.
There's no but to that.
They all are, however.
I don't know how we end up getting governed, or these people get into government.
Kieran Moore, not much better.
He's back with COVID scare now after having talked about the very small risk of myocarditis, 1 in 5,000, ignoring all the other potential adverse reactions.
Teresa Tam...
Quack, wear a mask while having sex during COVID.
Bonnie Henry, who was the one that lied about the 14-year-old kid who died from COVID?
The one who was washing her hands.
I forget her name now.
That was the one in Alberta.
That was...
Oh, I just can't think of her name off the top either.
I'll get it in a bit.
How did we end up getting governed by these idiots?
Okay, but...
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
I don't want to leave that one.
We know how that happens.
We are not a meritocracy anymore.
In other words, you don't get the job necessarily because you're the best at it.
You get the job because you meet certain criteria.
Look, just to get off medical for a little while, when this whole thing was going on, the head of the RCMP, and for our American audience, the RCMP is kind of like the FBI, you know, it's our national police force.
And the head of that was a lady by the name of Brenda Luckey.
And she was supposed to come and testify about...
Do you have a gun registration in Canada and restrictions?
And they wanted to take guns away from Canadians.
So she knew she was going to Parliament to testify.
And one of the very basic tenets in Canada is you have to have something called a PAL, a possession acquisition license, to own a gun.
So the parliamentarians or senators or whoever they were were questioning on that.
She didn't know what it was.
She did not know what the fundamental license in Canada was just to own a hunting rifle.
Well, the PAL applies to the small arms.
The long arm is a non-restricted, so you don't need the PAL for that.
No, no, no.
PAL you need for all of it.
You need a restricted license for a handgun.
But in Canada, possession acquisition license is for any firearm.
And then there's another layer for handguns.
But she didn't even know what a PAL was.
And she's testifying, well, you know, I don't really know what that law is.
Now, look, you can't expect the head of the RCMP or the head of the FBI to know every law.
But if they're going to Parliament or going to Congress to testify about a particular subject, you think they would have taken the time?
It sounds like the woman who was just testifying before Congress in the States, the head of the Civil Rights Division of Biden's Justice Department, not aware of the Missouri versus Biden civil rights lawsuit of the century.
By the way, it was Dina Hinshaw.
It was Dina Hinshaw.
Just to show the psychopath that Dina Hinshaw, and I called her a psychopath, and I will.
She might have OCD and other mental disorders.
You cannot be the chief doctor and be acting like this.
Psychotic.
work.
Psychotic.
It makes me angry.
Although she's got to disinfect her hands again after having taken her own mask off her own face.
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming today.
Psycho.
Now she finishes talking.
She hasn't touched anybody.
She hasn't gone anywhere.
She's doing her hands again.
You know what?
I guess she didn't get the memo from the Premier of Alberta at the time who was partying on the roof.
Of a restaurant when the restrictions are open.
Yeah, Jason, Kenny, and then the other one here.
She's got to do it?
She can't even pretend that she believes the bullshit that she's doing.
Look at her face.
All right, I got to do this.
Yeah, here we go.
Psychopaths.
Psychopaths.
Okay, so that was Dina Hinshaw, the people who are making the medical decisions governing all of Canada.
Dina Hinshaw is the one who lied, outright lied about a 14-year-old kid, now the youngest teen to die from COVID in Alberta.
The sister of the kid had to come out and say, my brother had stage 4 brain cancer, was in a coma when you decided to test him, and then he died.
Go to hell, all of you.
Then she comes out and apologizes.
We had the doctor, we had that child's doctor testify at the National Citizens' Enquirer.
What was his testimony?
Just exactly what you said.
This child was in terminal cancer.
And they'd already removed food and liquids from him because it was at the end stage and they were just waiting for him to die.
And then somebody went in and tested him for COVID.
And so then he died a day or so later and they announced it was the first childhood COVID death, which was complete fabrication.
I want to swear so loud.
I mean, these mother...
It's...
It's evil.
It's not, like, you read the books, The Banality of Evil, Hitler's Willing Executioners, and say, oh, don't compare it to that because the numbers aren't the same, the method's not the same.
I don't know what the numbers are at right now.
The methods are definitely not the same, but that's why history rhymes.
It doesn't repeat.
The people that have been killed as a result of these insane policies, these egregious lies, it's mind-blowing.
So the kid's doctor testified.
I would be scared to testify if I were that doctor.
Did he get reprimanded or did he face any backlash?
With regard to him, I can't remember.
I don't think so, but there were a number of doctors that testified who said that they were fired.
Or they lost their licenses because they were reporting adverse reactions to the vaccine.
There was one doctor in Truro, Nova Scotia, that testified.
I think he had reported 10 or 15 different adverse reactions, and most of them were rejected, and then he was reprimanded for reporting them.
I mean, we had doctors, particularly in Alberta, Who were telling their patients would get the first shot, and then they would have a reaction, and the doctor would tell the patient, don't get another shot.
And then some invisible public health nurse from Alberta Health would phone the patient directly without consulting the doctor and say, oh, you've got to go get your other shot.
So, you know, the whole patient-doctor...
Sanctity and confidentiality was completely destroyed, not to mention informed consent.
And I think informed consent is a really interesting discussion because most folks believe that informed consent in medical only means that the doctor has to tell you, you know, everything they know about the thing, about the drug or the procedure and you make a decision.
But in Canada, there's another piece to that.
And it's not just a suggestion.
It's actually in the regulations.
If a doctor...
Is under the impression that the patient is being coerced or influenced by a third party to take that treatment, then they're obligated not to give the treatment.
How can the doctors say that they didn't know that people were being threatened with their jobs or people were being kicked out of school or people were being...
Forced by other family members to come in and take this thing.
They knew this.
And to make matters worse, this one really, it's in our report.
This one, I couldn't believe when I read it.
Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.
So if you go on their website, you can see all the talk about what informed consent means and, you know, making sure patients are being coerced.
And then during COVID, they added a section.
And the section essentially said, well, if you're a doctor and you have someone who doesn't want to take a shot, you should prescribe psychiatric drugs for them and get them counseling.
Yeah, well, I remember that, Ken.
I mean, I say in fairness to play devil's advocate because it's quite literally what I'm doing.
They were saying, they cloaked it in the text, in the phraseology, that if they're not getting it because they have a fear of needles, consider therapy and medication.
So it was like, if they don't want to get the COVID jab because they're afraid of needles, consider psychotherapy and medication.
Oh, it's not necessarily the needles that one's afraid of, but rather what's inside of them.
Oh, and by the way, Ken, here, I found it.
I found it while we were talking here.
Dr. Tam, here we go.
From her documentary.
This is from, by the way, from 2010 National Film Board of Canada, predictively programmed documentary, Outbreak, details the government of Canada's plans for future outbreak.
This is...
Ten years earlier.
It's a short video.
Let's just enjoy.
Let's bask in the wonderfulness of Dr. Tam.
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential.
You could track people, put bracelets on their arms.
Does she not look like an actual demonic villain from a horror movie?
Arms have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
Pepper spray them in the face at a Tim Hortons.
Whisk them off to government designated quarantine facilities.
It's better to be preemptive and precautionary and take the heat of people thinking you might be overreactionary, get ahead of the curve, and then think about whether you've overreacted later.
But it's such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.
It's demonic.
Is she going to talk again?
Police checkpoints are set up.
We can scrap that.
That's enough.
This is real life, people.
Ten years prior to the government actually doing all of this.
And it's the same person.
And just a few years before that, she padded the pandemic plan for Canada, which says you shouldn't do any of that because it's ineffective.
Yeah, I really have suspicious thoughts about her.
Motivation, influence, who she's beholden to.
But then I think the same thing of Justin Trudeau.
They're probably puppets to the same puppet master.
Okay, so the doctor for the kid, that's amazing in the bad way testimony.
I didn't realize that when they take someone off food, it's palliative.
They're gone.
It's just let them pass peacefully.
That's exactly it.
All right.
I mean, if you had to pick some things that absolutely stick out in your mind that you want everyone on Earth to know from the NCI, what would a few of those be?
Or what would all of them be?
Well, we haven't got enough time for all of them, but I will tell you two.
And I will do my best.
I'm not usually a person that gets emotional.
And I'll do my best not to.
You need to know...
Your audience needs to know a name.
You need to know a name.
Sheila Lewis.
Sheila Lewis was a lady that needed an organ transplant.
And I'm prohibited under court order to tell you what that organ transplant was because they're protecting, in my mind, the murderers.
I can also not identify which hospital it was.
It was in Alberta.
So Sheila Lewis needed an organ transplant in order to live.
She went through the year or two process.
Of getting to the point where she was now going to get the organ.
And during that one or two year process, which occurred during the COVID pandemic, you know, starting in 2019 or 2020, they discovered or they could not find her childhood vaccination records.
So she agreed to get all of her childhood vaccinations again, you know, as she's waiting for her transplant.
Now, in the fall, Late summer and fall of 2020 and that date is very important and I'll come back to it.
They decided to tell her that she needed to get a COVID-19 vaccine or she would not get her transplant.
Now she was terrified of the COVID-19 vaccine because she knew about all the reports of injuries.
She knew that it hadn't been tested properly.
So she went out and got herself tested and they found that she had all the antibodies to COVID-19.
In other words, she'd had COVID-19 and survived and she now was immune to it.
She had antibodies, which was better than the vaccines.
For refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccines, those doctors took her off the transplant list, which was a death sentence.
Now I'm going to go back to the date.
You know, this happened in late summer and fall of 2022.
They already knew that those vaccines were ineffective.
They already knew they did not prevent infection.
As a matter of fact, the CDC says one of the main side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines in the first 14 days is COVID.
People were dying of them.
She already had immunity.
So they knew all of that.
This wasn't in January of 2021.
This was in fall of 2022.
They took her off of them.
So she's going to die.
She went to court and the court upheld the doctor's position.
And I can get into all of that, but that's going to take time and I'm not a lawyer.
It went to the appellate court.
The appellate court did not overturn the first judge.
And then she tried to go to the Supreme Court of Canada and they didn't bother to hear it.
So we interviewed her.
And I remember she was telling us the story.
And we asked her, you know, what do you want?
And she started to cry.
And she only wanted to see her grandchildren grow up, graduate school, get married.
And I don't want to swear.
But she stood by her guns because she believed that she had the right to bodily autonomy.
She knew factually that she already had antibodies to COVID-19.
She was afraid of taking this drug into her body.
And she died.
She died when we were preparing the report.
And I can tell you, we were doing our darndest to get this thing out.
And perhaps naively, I thought that if we could get it out, it might have some influence.
And I'll never forget when it happened.
The commissioners had a progress meeting that day, and it did not go well.
The first time that it did, and it was my fault.
Because people ask me about...
You know, the burden that we had in putting together this enormous report, and I say that the work wasn't a burden.
The burden was 300 Canadians came to us, and they trusted us, and they told us their stories, including Sheila Lewis.
And the burden that at least I was carrying at the time was, we need to get this out.
It might help her.
And we need to get it out for all those Canadians that came forward and said, I'm not worried about losing my job or losing my bank account or being fired or being ostracized.
I'm coming out anyway.
So we had an obligation to these people to first tell their story in an unbiased way and give fidelity to their story.
So Sheila Lewis is a Canadian hero, and they should be building statues for that woman.
She knew what she was facing.
The courts turned their backs on them.
And in my opinion, my personal opinion, those doctors have blood on their hands.
They murdered this woman for no reason.
They already knew that those vaccines, first, they're not vaccines.
They already knew that these biological treatments had all kinds of side effects, that they weren't effective.
And yet, for whatever reason, they forced, tried to force her.
And she said no, and she died.
You know, she is a true Canadian hero.
She was actually, Ken, we had her on the channel.
Well, obviously, we had her on the channel, couldn't talk.
We did a lengthy interview, and then this was after the Supreme Court had ruled they weren't taking it up.
The Superior Court, which is the first level, said, we're not getting into the charter questions because this is a medical question and we're not interfering.
Court of Appeal said we're not reviewing that decision, but even if we were, we would say that this is not a charter violation because it basically is her own decision.
Supreme Court signed her death warrant when they said we're not taking it up, and then she was raising funds to go get the procedure in Texas.
At the time, her give-send-go had gotten over $100,000, and then she passed away without even being able to go to Texas to get it done.
And she's not the only one.
I forget the name of a young man in Ontario.
Young as in middle-aged.
I was denied a kidney transplant, I believe, and passed away as a result.
It's disgusting.
It's Hitler's willing executioners thinking that they are morally righteous in imposing these arbitrary and utterly ludicrous.
Like, okay, she doesn't want to get the jab.
So we're going to kill her?
We're going to let her die and then say that we somehow have not killed her by taking her off the organ donor list?
It's criminal, but it'll forever go unpunished, at least on this earth.
Well, you know, one of the interesting things about the appellate court is they did talk about a bunch of different things.
And one of the reasons they said that the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms didn't apply was because those doctors were not a part of or employees of the government.
And the interesting, it's a really interesting thing.
Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm an engineer, but I have been in business for many, many years.
And the Canadian Revenue Agency, which is similar to the IRS in the United States, has a rule as to how they discover whether or not you're an employee or not of a company.
And that's critical to them because if a person's working for you, they're not an employee, you don't have to collect.
Well, when the appellate court in Alberta ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't apply to these doctors, they said, well, they weren't part of the government, they weren't employed by the government.
But had they used the rules that the Canadian Revenue Agency has been using for years, they would have easily...
Found that they were employees of the government.
You know, they have one client, the government.
They work in a government-controlled hospital.
They're directed on policy.
I would have been flabbergasted if that ever were to have held up because, you know, the Charter of Rights applies to federal entities or federally regulated entities.
But it never got there.
I mean, it was almost an obiter.
They just said, yeah, well, we're washing our hands of it.
And in any event, the Charter wouldn't have applied.
And this was her give, send, go before.
It's atrocious.
It's murder.
It's state-sanctioned murder.
The government doesn't care.
They've been state-sanctioning, murdering now 13,000 Canadians under maids.
It's just this was coerced maids.
It was involuntary maids.
Well, were those maid numbers, does that include all of the new numbers that they've discovered that they weren't reporting as maid?
Oh, I doubt it does.
First of all, the 13,500 in 2022, I'll state it.
I don't believe it.
I said it at the time.
I don't believe that number.
It's probably closer to 20,000 easily.
Yeah, there's a new report come out now that they weren't reporting them properly.
And so I haven't seen what the new number is, but apparently it's much, much larger.
Wow.
So Sheila Annette Lewis' story, and what's another one that you absolutely want the world to know about?
The other case shocked, really shocked me.
I remember sitting there, that was testimony we heard in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, I can't call which day.
And it was a lady recounting her mother's experience.
And her mother was, if I recall, she was in her mid-50s or late 50s or early 60s.
And she decided she was going to go get the COVID shot at a local drugstore, pharmacy.
So she got in the line.
There was a big line of people there to get their shot.
And, of course, it got to her turn.
And there was still a line of multiple people waiting.
And she went and got the shot.
And it waited a minute or two.
And she dropped dead on the floor of that pharmacy.
And not a single person who was in that line got out of line.
So they're sitting there in line waiting for their shot.
The lady gets the shot and she's sitting there.
They observe them for a few minutes.
And this lady who just got her shot falls down dead.
And nobody who's waiting in line to get their shot gets out of line.
That is the power of propaganda and terror.
That's what that is.
On that subject, Ken, let me just pull this up here.
This is now from the Globe and Mail.
It's from August, so maybe it's outdated.
More people than expected are dying in Canada in 2023 for reasons that are not yet clear.
I mean, COVID cases are down dramatically from a year ago, according to federal data.
Hospitalizations are higher during the first few months, but hovering around the same.
And there are now fewer than 30 COVID-19 deaths reported across the country.
But owing to limited testing, By a different measure, one is trickier to interpret.
More people than expected are dying for reasons that are not yet clear.
It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a conundrum.
Isn't it amazing?
We shouldn't lose this point.
So you've got a young man in the hospital who's dying of cancer.
He's on his deathbed.
And they test him and say he died of COVID.
And then you've got...
All of these people who have shots or whatever and they're dying and we can't relate it to COVID.
Our COVID vaccines, I should say.
By the way, the Ontario man dies after being denied kidney transplant for being unvaccinated and his name, let's get his name, Garnet Harper.
No, no.
And then they're going to say, well, it might be the residual effects of COVID.
We don't know.
I mean, more people are now dying.
There's more excess deaths now than during the pandemic.
Wow.
I mean, oh, it's the lingering effects of COVID infection and not potentially something else that we know, according to Dr. Kieran Moore, is a therapeutic that, at the very least in young men, causes myocarditis, setting aside all other adverse events.
Did anybody testify as to why...
Why the governments were no longer relying or placing any weight on the Canadian version of VAERS.
What's the Canadian version of VAERS?
CAFIS.
CAFIS.
Did anyone explain why, miraculously and all of a sudden, doctors and government stopped paying any attention to those signal markers in the reporting system?
Well, we've got a whole section in the report on CAFIS, on the reporting system.
But before I get into that, You know, when the government announced safe and effective, they also told us, and you can look it up, it was a December 10th press release from Health Canada, where they announced safe and effective.
They also announced robust monitoring of vaccine effects so that Canadians could feel safe.
Now, CAFIS is similar to VAERS.
It's a voluntary system.
But one of the problems that happened in Canada was that we had testimony from multiple doctors who said it wasn't working.
So when they would go online and try to enter something, it didn't work and they couldn't get it to work.
So then they started printing the forms off and it would take hours and hours to report one case.
So then they would go into the provincial reporting system.
Each state or each province in Canada has a reporting system.
And what they found was is that Their reports were being rejected by health officers in the government and not even getting into the system.
So you had a voluntary system that wasn't working, and then you had public health officials getting in between and stopping doctors and even punishing doctors.
We had testimony on that for reporting adverse reactions.
And then on top of all of that...
You had these healthcare professionals, and it wasn't just doctors, but healthcare professionals who were filtering what they thought was a reasonable report of a reaction to the vaccine, even though we had no track record with this vaccine.
It was a brand new technology.
And by the way, it's not a vaccine.
It's a biologic.
So they had no experience with it.
It had never been used in humans before.
And yet they were telling you, oh, no, no, that reaction you're having, that can't be due to the vaccine.
They had no way of knowing.
So most people couldn't get anything entered into it.
So the data that they had first was useless, but still it was showing problems.
But they were saying, you know, essentially they were saying, oh, that can't be, you know, that can't be.
That's got to be some kind of an abnormality.
And we had multiple testimonies on that.
It's amazing.
The woman who drops that, I'm sure everyone in line is like, oh, she fainted.
She'll be fine.
They, like, whisk her off, like, and the Simpsons drag her under a curtain, and then everyone's like, oh, okay.
I didn't see anything.
And then they're going to say, okay, well, she died.
It's too close.
It couldn't be as a result of it.
It just happened contemporaneously.
It's bad luck.
Happened six months later.
Oh, it couldn't be related.
It's too far down the line.
Two weeks later, oh, it's COVID.
It's motivated reasoning.
Motivation is the driver of reason, and they want to explain away all of it because they're too far into it.
This is the question that I know everybody's going to be asking.
The NCI, it's a citizen's initiative.
You know, you issued subpoenas, lying under oath, wouldn't have had any legal ramifications.
At the end of the day, you come up with recommendations.
Not to be Debbie Downer.
What's it all worth and what's it all good for?
Well, a couple of different things.
First, it's a historical document, and for all time it will stand.
We have Canadians saying what happened to them.
We have contemporary experts saying exactly what happened to them.
So it's a historical document.
Second, there's multitudes of lawsuits happening right now, and people are now using it as a reference in lawsuits.
So they're referring to so-and-so's testimony, or they're being able to identify that.
So-and-so had this kind of a reaction or they have this to say, so now we can go to them and get testimony in lawsuits.
And secondly, and the most important thing of all, is that citizens, either Canadians or Americans, you have to stop expecting the government to come in and ride in on a horse and all of a sudden say, "Oh, we did all this wrong and we're going to fix it." This should be motivating.
First off, Canadians should use it to educate themselves.
They should use it to hand off to other people, to ask questions about.
And then they should use it as a motivator to get involved in the political process.
You know, I'm involved in a group, or I was a co-founder in a group called Manitoba Stronger Together.
And it's got a website,.ca.
The power back away from the politicians and in the hands of Canadians and citizens.
And it's the same in the United States.
We have this in both United States, Canada, and even in Britain and other places.
We've been all fooled.
We've been tricked by this shell game called the party politics.
I mean, does it really matter?
Think about it.
And I think I give a speech on this about in my province or in my state of Manitoba.
What's happened to us as a state or a province over the last 50 years?
And it didn't matter whether it was the green government or the blue government or the red government or whatever the heck it was.
It's like a baton race going to the bottom.
And people don't understand that before you vote, a candidate swears allegiance to their party.
And the party knows they're going to get your vote.
They don't really care what you think.
You know, we had an election here just recently, provincial or state election, and 55% of the people voted.
And I compared that.
We had a state election in 2019, just before the pandemic.
And, you know, with everybody complaining and everything that happened to the pandemic, you know how many voted in 2019 in the same election?
55%.
So people aren't taking a hold of this themselves.
If you want something to happen here, elect people that are representing you and demand that they do something.
You can't expect the thief to feel guilty tonight when they're home and bring back your stuff that they stole or the murderer to go come back and say, I'm sorry for killing somebody.
I mean, it's that bad.
And so my hope is that this is...
It wakes Canadians up and they're mad enough to actually do something about it.
And right across Canada, there's all kinds of groups springing up that have this in mind and they have a similar formula.
You know, the political parties have an extremely tenuous grasp on power.
If you really look at how many votes it takes to get somebody elected and how many people vote and all that kind of good stuff.
And I've done that analysis.
To be motivated to do something legal and not violent, people.
Politically, I mean, you know, and I'm going to kind of smear language here because I know a lot of your audience are Americans, but in the state of Manitoba or the province of Manitoba, we have a legislature just like you have in the United States in different states.
And within that legislature, we have 57 representatives.
Each representative is elected by a group of citizens.
You know, a geographical area or a constituency, you might say.
And each one of those constituencies in Manitoba has about 15,000 voters in it.
Well, you know, so 57 seats in the legislature.
14 of those seats were elected by less than 1,000-vote difference.
Some were elected for 100-vote difference.
Then another 14 or 15 in this past election that happened a month ago were elected for a margin of less than 2,000 votes.
So can you imagine targeting some of those constituencies?
Like the guy only got in by 100 votes.
He got in by 110 votes last time.
Get 400 people out of 15,000 together.
You've now just captured that seat.
And the person who gets elected knows it.
And so the condition of you voting for them, this 400 voters who now control that seat, is that you represent us.
And they agree.
Of course, they always agree.
They lie.
But you monitor them through the next three or four years, and when the election comes up again, you've got a report card, and you say, well, Mr. or Miss Candidate, you said you were going to do this.
You didn't.
You did this and this and this.
Guess what?
We're voting you out.
And we don't care if you've got a green armband or a blue armband or an orange armband or what party you represent.
You're gone.
And when you look at the numbers here, that's extremely achievable.
People need to get on board with those things.
And they have to take back their government.
And then once the criminals are out, we can then bring justice.
And we have to bring justice.
There has to be criminal investigation.
Because what we found, I mean, we've scratched the surface, you know, but what we found is we have a whole section on what they did to seniors.
They took seniors.
And they locked them up for months at a time in their room.
Wouldn't let them have any human contact.
Wouldn't let them visit.
And they murdered these people.
Wouldn't they have...
They lacked people to rotate them, to turn them.
They got bed sores.
I believe my grandmother-in-law died of a broken heart.
She didn't die of COVID.
She died from loneliness.
After 18 months, not able to see family.
The one time we got to see her outdoors, like wearing hazmat suits.
Yeah.
And we did a whole section on that.
And we had multiple experts in senior care.
We had folks who were just testifying about their mom or their dad or a spouse.
I mean, there's a horrendous story that testified.
This lady, her father was in a senior place and he was going downhill.
She was living in Costa Rica.
So she flew up to Canada, took over his care, nursed him back to health.
He was robust again.
He was doing great.
But she had to go home, you know, after six months or eight months or whatever it was.
So she went home and a few months later, they had isolated him again and he had applied.
For MAID.
MAID is the medically assisted aid in death.
So the government euthanized him because they were abusing him after she saved him and brought him back to health.
They abused him for so long that he wanted to die.
And they killed him.
I'm reading the chat in Rumble and people say that almost as a sick joke or as a direct observation.
Pushed people to the point of despair while wildly expanding euthanasia, mercy killings.
I'll go with the Hitler version.
And they're doing it.
And they're doing it.
Now, I want to ask you one question here, Ken.
I don't know if this is a sore spot or anything.
I'm just going to ask it here.
It's coming from TB202101.
Viva, the provincial public health emergency orders specified pandemic influenza.
To my knowledge, there was zero data to support this, but the NCI did not mention this in their report.
Please ask why.
I don't understand the question that I'm reading, so I don't know if you can make I don't quite understand it, but I can tell you that we did talk about the Canadian influenza pandemic plan.
We did talk about the health orders.
But again, we had an unlimited scope.
But we were limited in who came and testified.
So I couldn't just start talking about a subject that we didn't have testimony on.
So whoever testified, we talked about that.
But I couldn't just bring in extraneous information.
When you do a public or like a Royal Commission hearing or something, you have to base it on the facts that are presented to you.
Supposedly the same as the judiciary.
And we modeled it after the judiciary.
So again, I'm not quite sure that I understand the question, but section 8.5, 7.5 of the report talks about a variety of subjects in the pandemic and influenza.
Excellent.
So I appreciate the answer in terms of what is to be done with this report, what purpose it's going to serve.
Yes, it's not binding.
Nobody's going to jail.
There's no sovereign arrests, sovereign courts.
It's going to go down in history as the testimony, much like I'm going to draw comparisons that some people might find offensive, and I don't care.
They kept the survivors of the Holocaust testimony on record.
They keep victims of war's testimony on record.
You document it.
If nothing else, when justice occurs 10, 20 years down the line, when documents come out to show what some of us believe and know to be true now, the testimony of the Sheila Lewis's of the world will be there for an eternity.
Yes.
What are you doing after all of this?
What are your plans for the future now?
Oh, gosh.
Well, the National Citizens' Inquiry has started the next phase, and the next phase for them is they've got action teams right across Canada, and they're making sure that every single level of government...
Every institution that they can gets copies of this report.
They're holding educational seminars.
They're doing all kinds of things.
Their website now is at 28 million views.
They're getting 2,000 views, I think, on their Rumble page a day, or it might be on their website a day.
So they're into that stage.
For me, I'm still supporting what the NCI is doing through these kinds of educational processes, but I'm also shifting into the solution.
So the NCI is what the heck happened, what's wrong with it, and what do we have to do?
And then what I'm shifting into now is an organization called Manitoba Stronger Together, and it's a template that we're going to use across the country.
We're getting it right in the state or the province of Manitoba right now.
And essentially, it's what we were talking about just briefly earlier, about how can citizens take back the power in their government?
And we're creating communities of voters, we're creating educational processes, and we're actually taking action right into the...
Party level, where we're starting now to have influence over the actual political parties, and we're educating people and getting them to get their mindset out of the shell game of party politics and start voting for the person and start punishing them if they don't do at the ballot box, start punishing them if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
And so that's what's taking up a lot, starting to take over for me right now.
Okay, fantastic.
And are you still working as an engineer or are you retired at this point?
This is time-consuming stuff.
I mean, this is like taking a year at least of your life.
Absolutely.
I actually retired from full-time practice.
That's kind of funny, you know, after being a professional engineer for 41 years, two days after my retirement, I went back to community college and became a certified welder.
Hold on a second.
You were an engineer for 41 years.
If you started at 18, that puts you at 60. Now you'd be 64?
I'm 65 now, yeah.
My goodness.
I don't know if you have a filter on.
You look very young.
You don't look a day over 50. I might even say that.
I'm just telling you, 41 years?
That's a long, bloody time.
Holy cow.
Yeah, so, you know, and that was an experience.
So I became a welder, and then I also run a music studio and a video studio.
My wife's a performing artist.
And, you know, so those things were keeping me really busy.
And when NCI came up, you're right, I had to put it aside.
But as an engineer, I still do forensic work.
I'm doing an arbitration right now.
I'm doing an investigation of a small building collapse and a couple of other things.
It's an interesting experience.
It's fantastic.
I might DM you after this with some audio questions.
Someone in the chat way back on YouTube said maybe get a compressor.
I've got a Cloudlifter and I've got this Behringer thing.
One of these days I'll figure...
One day I'm going to snap in the goods and just figure it out once and for all and get one of those boards and maybe two computers and all this stuff.
I'll get a team.
Ken, ordinarily I would end and we would talk for a few minutes afterwards, but I'm going to go over to locals to take some of their questions there.
Can I call you?
I'm going to call you like in a half an hour and just thank you for all of this.
If you could, I have some of the links, but could you send me all of the links?
I'll put them in the pinned comments so people know where to find you, NCI, everything else.
Is there anything that I forgot to ask you or anything that you absolutely wanted to say that I did not give you the opportunity to say?
Well, you know, I just want to emphasize to people, please take it from me.
Don't be intimidated by this report.
You know, go through it the way I mentioned.
You know, watch some of the videos, go to Section 8, just through the table of contents, find something you're interested in, read that, and then go to Section 7 and read it.
And that'll make it really understandable.
And we wrote it that way so that it was very user-friendly because we knew it was going to be a behemoth report.
So please, don't be intimidated by it.
You're more than capable of doing it.
Just go on the table of contents and search out those things you're interested in and just keep going from there.
Yeah, well, especially even 600 pages is easy enough to navigate through.
Once you know that thousands of pages are transcripts, that'll bring down the intimidation one step.
But the propaganda, I mean, the propaganda is one thing, but the safety and efficacy in the studies or what was known at the time and what was not disclosed to the public.
Is shocking.
I've had Jessica Rose on at least a few times now to talk about most recently the discovery of DNA particles or matter in the jab.
And we can understand now having pieced that together with Anthony Housefather's explanation.
Rushing through production, rushing through research.
Hey, little bits of stuff are going to make it in there that shouldn't be there.
But there is a point on that too, you know.
If it would have been a product that you had...
They told you that these were the shortcomings and it was up to you to take it.
That's one thing.
But when they were forcing you, threatening your job, threatening that you couldn't go out of the house, you know, taking away your bank accounts in Canada.
I mean, when they were doing that, that's a whole different level of responsibility that they took on, you know.
And in my opinion, they're criminals.
So they need to face justice, criminal justice.
I had said it in a tweet.
I was slow to get on the Nuremberg 2.0 bandwagon, but I'm thoroughly on it.
And the glee and the pride with which they try to twist their tragedy into victory.
Had the unvaccinated just done it earlier, then we wouldn't be in this position.
Now, they're criminals, period.
But they're only criminals once they're recognized in a court of law and not through extrajudicial condemnation.
And they should also not be, they should be dealt with politically and no other means because you do bad things to them, then they get to, in addition to being criminals, cloak it in being victims of the bad men who just don't understand that they lash out.
So political retribution and in front of the courts.
In a decade, it will be in front of the courts.
There'll be class action lawsuits against the pharma companies and the government will be arguing immunity.
But we will get there.
Absolutely.
Ken, we'll keep in touch, and you'll let me know if ever.
Come back on for updates, let us know what's going on.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much for coming on.
Thanks again for having me.
All right, I'll talk to you soon.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Everybody, that's your dose of what's going on in Canada today.
The National Citizens Inquiry Report is out.
You forget about, I mean, not you forget, but you interview so many people and the stories of the tragedy.
Sheila Annette Lewis.
Delved into the Ontario Garnet Harper who also was denied.
They went after people to make examples of them at the highest levels.
People often talk about human sacrifice.
Well, we don't do that anymore.
Yeah, we do.
And there's human sacrifices in the sense of placating the proverbial gods.
And then there's human sacrifice as in setting the example for all others out there.
You want to be a badass and rebel and say you're not going to take the jab that the government's taking you?
We will literally let you die.
And they did.
And Sheila died.
She had gotten to $125,000 on her Give, Send, Go to get the procedure done or to get the initial testing done in Texas and never got there.
A hero is one way of describing her.
Some people would, you know, just get it.
What's worse than the death that you're guaranteed?
Well, a death with lack of conviction and a death having been turned into a subservient servant of the state.
All right, let me see if I got any chat in the chat before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the...
Let me just put the link here if anybody wants to come.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com WeedNerd says, lest we forget.
BucklebrushJones says, we need Fortnite to sue Pharma.
They beat Google and Apple.
So that's the news.
I'm going to have to look into that and then we'll talk about that tomorrow.
Stand for something or fall for anything, says Big White Dog.
Canada will send troops meat grinder.
Time to get out.
That's probably in reference to Ukraine.
Listen to what the government says.
Big Pharma Fascism says RDS 45. Viva, it's happening in America too.
It's hell here.
Cecilia 14. Depends a bit on the state.
Maple Syrup 123, who I presume is from Canada, says thank you.
Maple Syrup, good to see you again.
Most people are cowards, says Unknown Citizen 2020.
Mass jabicide, says Rinket.
All right, so that's it.
What we're going to do now, we're going to end it.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
What do we have on for the rest of the week?
Good stuff.
Interesting stuff.
But today was strictly Canadian.
Stuff that anybody who starts watching this might not know why they need to know it.
This is what was done in Canada.
The courts did not come through for the people in Canada.
In the States...
Slow to, in some cases they did and in other cases they didn't.
It's institutional capture.
Some might just call it fascism in the purest sense.
The courts, working with the government, not as a check and balance to the government, working with the media, not as a check and balance to the media.
Propaganda, laws, abusive unconstitutional laws, a cowardly court system that is doing nothing to rein in the abuse on all fronts.
Cecilia14 knows the way to my heart by saying God bless you.
Thank you very much, Cecilia.
Alright, I'll take that.
And we'll end it on that bit of a white pill.
And come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're going to have our after party.
I might run and get an energy drink.
And I will see you tomorrow at some point.
I got a doctor's appointment tomorrow, so I might...
I don't know what time I'm going to go live.
And I had something in the morning as well.
Oh yeah.
Wasted days with...
Stuff that is not productive.
Although I'll get to listen to podcasts while I'm waiting for the doctor.
Gotta take the car in, so I'll get to do that.
Alright, it'll be useful, but I'll go live at some point tomorrow, so stay tuned for that.
Everybody, Viva Frye on Rumble.
The Viva Fry on Twitter, vivabarneslaw.locals.com on Locals, where we have an above-average community.
Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year if you want to support the work that we do.
I've picked the winner for the next iteration, the next edition of the Locals chat, Locals Convo, where we have, once every week or two weeks, a conversation with a local supporter, just like this, like a back-and-forth discussion interview, and they're phenomenal.
Thus far, we've done eight or nine, maybe ten.
With our locals supporters, just one random picked local supporter, they've been amazing.
A young woman who is a violinist, amazing.
We had a forensic psychologist recently, amazing.
Those are all in our locals community, so if you want to go over there, go.
And if you don't want to go over there, I will see you on Rumble tomorrow.
Ending the stream now, at least for Rumble.
See you on locals.
Peace out, peeps.
All righty.
What do we got here, locals?
Let me see.
I'm going to go to view all before we get there.
And let's see.
▲
Export Selection