Will Dove 0:01 Dr. Mark Trozzi gave up a 25 year practice as an emergency surgeon in 2021 to bring people the truth about COVID and the vaccines at his website DrTrozzi.org. He sold his house and lost everything in this fight. And now the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons is threatening to take away his medical license. Dr. Trozzi was one of the doctors who stepped up to help when Dr. Crystal Luchkiw had her license suspended by the CPSO for telling her patients the truth, and cautioning them not to take the COVID vaccines Within hours of stepping into Dr. Luchkiw's practice. Dr. Trozzi's license was also suspended. This interview is an update on past interviews I've done with Dr. Trozzi, and lawyer Michael Alexander, who also represented Dr. Luchkiw and Dr. Patrick Phillips, both of whom have since had their licenses revoked. Michael is a smart and realistic lawyer. He understands what he's up against: a medical college that has no interest in protecting the health of the people of Ontario, but rather in maintaining a dictatorial power structure where all doctors must follow their directives or lose their license to practice. But Michael is playing a clever trap for the CPSO. And in the end, there will be justice. Will Dove 1:29 Michael, Mark, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Mark Trozzi 1:32 Thanks, Will, nice to see you. Michael Alexander 1:33 Great to be here. Will Dove 1:35 Now we're here to give people an update on the case with Dr. Trozzi and the CPSO, we did an interview not long ago where we discussed Dr. Trozzi and of course, Crystal Luchkiw and Patrick Phillips and what's happened to them. But Dr. Trozzi's case was taking a little bit longer. So, Michael, I'm going to ask you to fill us in on what happened with that. Michael Alexander 2:00 In July, we had what is called a discipline hearing at the College of Physicians Tribunal in Ontario. The hearing lasted five days. Expert witnesses were heard and legal arguments were made. We made a very strong argument for free expression, Mark's right to freedom of expression under the charter, but we used pre-charter and post-charter jurisprudence that we drew on almost 84 years of case law regarding free speech and free expression that made very robust arguments that I don't think had been made in any court here in Ontario during this COVID Or really in the country during this period of opposition to COVID measures. So the decision of the tribunal was published on October the 6th, that's a 51-page document. And they determined that Mark is guilty of professional misconduct in writing medical exemptions for COVID-19 objections when people raised the issue that they felt coerced. And they also feel that his statements about the pandemic and COVID-19 science are incorrect. And therefore, he has been spreading misinformation, which has caused some sort of undefined or inchoate public harm. So then we had once they reached that decision, then we had to have a second decision about penalty. The College wants to revoke Mark's license. So of course, we're arguing against that, that hearing took place last Friday. And the case law around penalties at the college establishes quite clearly that revocation is reserved for people who are serial offenders, chronic offenders, willful offenders, people are clearly a criminal, sociopathic. And it's it would be very unusual to take that case law and apply it against Mark, who has no discipline history, and has not violated any undertaking any word or any decision of the college ever. I said never had a complaint prior to his statements about COVID-19. So he has nothing in common with these other chronic offenders. So the case law does not support reputation. So I argued that and the question will be: is Mark's conduct so egregious that they can make an exception to the case law which they can do under the rules of the tribunal. So what's interesting is that they asked for expert submissions on free expression. So I can't imagine how I can make more thorough submissions that I've already made. But the college will argue against Mark's right to freedom of expression regarding COVID-19. I will argue again for his right to freedom of expression, and these written submissions will take place over the next two to three weeks and then the Tribunal will make a final decision, which could probably be coming mid to late December. Will Dove 4:53 Mark, how long have you been in this process now? Mark Trozzi 4:58 Will, I mean which part of the process. So it was, it was at the end of 2020, when I realized that the injections were not simply vaccines, that they were dangerous genetic experiments. It was at that point that I took a sabbatical from all my work. My license was in no trouble. I wasn't investigated anything. I had, as Michael mentioned, totally clean record. 25 years. Good record, good doctor. And at the end of 2020, I realized how wrong everything was. I realized the danger that people are in, all of us. And so I set down my income, sold my house. And it worked. As you know, both of you know, I've worked very hard, and I continue to work very hard, not for my license, for the well being of everyone, for the future for our grandchildren. And so that's when I started being a full time activist and public educator researcher, that's when I started studying, while I'd already was studying COVID Science quite deeply, but just I've been studying and working in this forum constantly since that time, including, including supporting prosecutions and investigations based on the science based on the autopsies of the dead people who died from these injections. And as you know, there's lots of those. It wasn't until I issued about 20 exemptions. Now, this was a strange period in our history, because most people should know that, according to international law, national law, provincial law, and the rules of the college as well as basic morality, it is a crime to apply any medical treatment to someone that they do not want, even if they are coerced. So in the case of these COVID injections, lots of people did not want them. And lots of people were coerced, you want to keep your job, you want to feed your kids, you're 16 you want to be a hockey player, you want to keep your university degree going, et cetera. So that's called coercion. And by all standards that I am one of the people insisting still exists, even though it's inconvenient for Bill Gates and Fauci and the likes, it is against the law, it is a form of assault, to do anything medically to someone that they don't actually want, even if you just realized that they're being coerced. Plastic case, girl comes in the hospital says she wants an abortion, something doesn't seem right to the doctor. He gets her alone, so we can talk to her and she says my boyfriend said he'll kill me if I don't get the abortion. That's coercion. And it's actually a crime for me to be involved in any way of advancing that girl's path to an abortion. My job is to protect her not to assault her on behalf of her boyfriend. So my 20 exemption notes, after much consultation with legal experts, basically said this person is being coerced. And that means that they cannot be injected. It's a form of assault, whether I do it or anyone else, and therefore, in essence, they are exempted. But remember, people were terrified. They didn't want to be injected with this stuff. But they needed a piece of paper that said exemption. And meanwhile, the college, sadly, was on a hunting spree for anyone who dared to write an exemption, which is why many doctors said to their patients, sorry, I can't exempt you. Or said sorry, I can't tell you what I think about these injections. Because the college put out some apparent suggestions, the doctors could not see anything that went against the COVID propaganda. The doctors could not prescribe alternative treatments like safe and effective ivermectin, and that doctors couldn't write exemptions, except for very rare circumstances. So those are suggestions. I don't know how they're justifying the prosecution of now hundreds of us, hundreds of us across this country over this, that's that's the background to this. And as for what I've said, you know, as you can see, I have a very good record. I'm not looking for trouble with anybody. But I also have basic moral convictions I do unto others as I would want done to me. I would by no means want a doctor to stick a needle in me or my kid without reading the ingredients and telling me the history of Coronavirus and pegylated nanoparticles and messenger RNA, which should have anyone run from that needle. So I think I want to be very clear, the college has this unusual thing where they draw some conclusions by ignoring science, by disqualifying extremely good expert witnesses, by ignoring 40-page reports, by ignoring 29 scientific references, by telling us that Peter McCullough, one of the top experts in the world, doesn't know what he's talking about, he contradicts himself. But they don't put it on their website and say Dr. Trozzi didn't agree with the COVID agenda. And Dr. Trozzi wrote exemptions, they put there Dr. Trozzi unprofessional, incompetent, etc. I think that's very misleading. Will Dove 10:43 I think there's no question. It's misleading, Mark. We're gonna get back to you in just a minute. Michael, you made reference earlier to some very robust arguments, and to the government or the CPSO's 51 page response to that. Could you give us some details on what those arguments are and what the response was? Michael Alexander 11:04 Sure. Well, first of all, before we ever had the Charter, which came into force in 1982, there were two very seminal cases on freedom of speech in this country, in 1939 about a reference case, and then a 1953 case, both Supreme Court cases, a 1953 case called Saumur vs. Quebec City. And in both those cases, the Supreme Court recognized that freedom of speech is inherent in the very idea of parliamentary government. You cannot have parliamentary government without freedom of speech, not only on the part of the people's representatives, but on the part of the people themselves. And so it's recognized as as embodied in our very forming of government as a fundamental right. So, and the charter says in Section 26, that the charter does not extinguish any pre-existing rights. So the right to freedom of expression is entrenched in our Constitution, without any reference to the charter. And that's very important, because under the Charter, the government has the right to place reasonable limits on freedom of expression, if they can tender enough evidence to prove that the public good is to be for, to be preferred, in a situation where somebody's rights might be infringed. So we don't have to get into that analysis of looking at whether the government has evidence to prove the case for placing reasonable limits on fundamental rights such as free expression, because this right is a free standing right already within our Constitution. The charter should not come into it. However, even if you'd go to the charter, there's a very, very strong case law to establish that people have a right to be mistaken, to say things that happened to be wrong, and even to fabricate. In fact, there's a case, R v Zundel, decided in the early 90s, where the Supreme Court essentially says people have a right to lie. People can lie to each other, they can lie to the government, the government can lie to them. How do you make sense of that? Well, it is that each person in a democracy is the best judge of what is true and what is false. And the Supreme Court in Zundel was essentially saying, we do, we will not have state censorship in this country, it will be up to each person to determine what is true and what is false. So if you look at the entire scope of the charter jurisprudence, since 1982, I think what you will find is that there are only three situations where government truly has a right to regulate free expression. That is, if expression falls into the category of child pornography, or hate speech against an identifiable ethnic or religious group, or if the speech threatens to cause clear and immediate physical harm. So there, we're talking about somebody who might say something inflammatory, say at a political rally, which incites a riot. There's a very, very clear and close nexus between the speech and then physical violence and the possibility of physical harm. So clearly, Mark's statements don't fall into any of those three categories. The College wants to argue that public health is an exception, the college is an exception. And we can we should have a reasonable limit on speech regarding important medical and scientific matters. I don't know how you reconcile that with the case. Will Dove 14:36 But I gotta interrupt here, because they're trying to say freedom, you know, this freedom of speech, the medical area, it's an exception. Michael Alexander 14:44 Right Will Dove 14:45 On what basis do they say that's an exception? Do they have any kind of legal foundation for making that statement? Michael Alexander 14:51 Well, they don't really grapple with my arguments. I mean, they do recognize the R v Zundel case, which is they've essentially recognized Yes, people have a right to be wrong and mistaken. So if they, if the College wants to say Mark is wrong and mistaken and is accused, that's not a basis for attempting to regulate his right to free expression. But But so, but they, they want to argue that in matters of public health in the context of a medical crisis or emergency, the so-called pandemic, that is the one situation where they have a right to intervene and control what doctors can say. Now there's a case out in Saskatchewan, decided by the Court of Appeal there, it's called Strom - S T R O M - that was decided just a couple of years ago, maybe less than a couple of years, in which the courts essentially said that people who are involved in the health professions are the people who should most be able to criticize what they refer to as our opaque public health system. They have the knowledge, they have the experience. And so they are the last people who we should attempt to censor, when we're talking about a fundamental issue going to public health. Will Dove 16:09 Mark, I want to get back to you. You said earlier that you wrote 20 exemptions, were those just for those masks and shots or just shots? Mark Trozzi 16:18 For the shots. Will Dove 16:20 All right. And during what time period did you write these exemptions? Mark Trozzi 16:25 Michael, can you recall? Was that August 2021 or thereabouts? Michael Alexander 16:30 Yeah, it was, uh, it was late summer, early fall 2021. Will Dove 16:35 All right. And what happened as a result? Because you said, I mean, if you you wrote 20. And then you stopped, something happened to stop you? What was the something? Mark Trozzi 16:44 Well, no, it really wasn't that. I mean, again, that's the funny thing that people think I'm in this fight, because I want my doctor income back. That's clearly not the case, because I laid down my doctor income to do what I'm doing for the last three years. But at that time, of course, I was very interested in the issue, that there was an experimental genetic injection being called a safe and effective vaccine, which was a misrepresentation. And not only was it being offered to people, it was being forced on people. And that's very concerning for me, because keep in mind, I had just spent a year and a half researching this, I know more about this stuff than I wish I did. And I've been working in this full time for three years now. So I was very concerned that that not only that people were being lied to and potentially given a shot that they thought was a safe and effective vaccine, when it was a dangerous genetic experiment was even worse for me that people could do their homework, not want the injection, but still have their arm twisted, if for instance, they wanted to feed their children, keep their house, carry on with their education, or like, you know, some of the sad, dead, dead, beautiful young people like Sean Hartman, who just wanted to play hockey. And so that made me very interested in this form. And I, I've done a lot of work behind the background, the back, you know, sort of that's not out in the front over the last few years, I've been involved in a lot international committees, etc. And so we were looking at, well, what is this issue of exemption. So here's this idea, you could get an exemption note. But on the other hand, the parameter is given to doctors as a suggestion, but a suggestion which was enforced as in destroying doctors' careers like Dr. Phillips'. But the issue that I learned was, you don't need an exemption note. In fact, it's a crime to give them so I tried to be involved in structuring a piece of paper with the word exemption on it, which was simply a statement of law so that people could hold the law in their hand and be safe. I think someone didn't like that. I wasn't interested in starting a COVID exemption business to make money. But I was feeling the water and trying to help advance this for other doctors to do what needed to be done. Clearly, what we found is that employers, remember everybody was brainwashed, right? So employers would have an employee walking with a note and they would make some phone calls. And the CPSO basically hunted any doctor that wrote an exemption. Will Dove 19:39 Now you did these exemptions you said in August of 21. Now at what point in time did you shut down your practice and sell your house? Mark Trozzi 19:47 December 2020. Will Dove 19:51 Okay, so you, so, you, but you still had your license? Mark Trozzi 19:55 I have my license... Will Dove 19:56 So you were able to write these exemptions. Mark Trozzi 19:59 Yeah, I have my license so I could write exemptions, but I was using my education and my, every hours of my days trying to resolve, you know, what I've quite accurately described as the COVID crimes against humanity. Will Dove 20:15 Right. So just I'm just trying to establish a timeline for our viewers. Mark Trozzi 20:19 So for a year and a half, I worked without income... Will Dove 20:22 You walked away from... Mark Trozzi 20:23 For a year and a half I was working without income to solve this. Will Dove 20:25 You walked away from a lucrative career, December 2020. You sold your house so you could finance what you were doing, DrTrozzi.org, and all of your activism, and it's been absolutely amazing, the contribution you have made Mark, because you have a gift for taking complicated things, medical scientific things, and explaining them in plain English so the rest of us can understand them. Mark Trozzi 20:42 Thank you. Will Dove 20:43 And that interpretation has been incredibly important. But you didn't have your license suspended until there's like six, eight months ago when you were helping out in Dr. Luchkiw's office. Mark Trozzi 20:54 Yes, exactly. Will Dove 20:54 So I'm trying to just establish, and we'll get to that in a minute for our viewers who don't know that story and I'll have Michael, tell us that one, but what I'm trying to establish is, you you gave up your license in August and September 2020. In August 2020.. Mark Trozzi 21:08 Well, I didn't give up my license, I just didn't use it to make money. Will Dove 21:11 Right. Okay. So but you walked away from your position you you sold your house... Mark Trozzi 21:15 I took a sabbatical to do human rights work, essentially. Will Dove 21:18 By that summer, you're writing exemptions. But you don't lose your have your license suspended until almost two years later. And so you had made a statement earlier that it was illegal to write exemptions. Is that why you stopped writing them? Mark Trozzi 21:35 No Will Dove 21:35 Or is it you're just too busy with other things? Mark Trozzi 21:37 Yeah, I mean, again, a lot of what I've been trying to do is create solutions for all people and for all doctors. So I wasn't going into the exemption business, I had a very great career as an emergency and trauma doctor, right? I didn't need to go into paperwork. But I've been trying to explore how, at every step, how to stop the assault on our people, and return the rule of law, health and proper science. So but I guess I came on their radar heavily when I wrote some exemptions, because they were hunting for doctors that wrote exemptions. So at that point, they launched an investigation into me, I got a message that 19 investigators were on the job of investigating me. Now you have to, up until this point, I believed that there would be good faith at the college. So I thought, Oh, this is great, because I've done so much work. I've done so much science, my website isn't just Dr. Trozzi's ideas, and you know, I aggregate the work of scientists from around the world. So I thought, well, this is fabulous. The college has hired 19 smart people to investigate me. In the process of investigating me, they're going to learn an awful lot about COVID science, and probably realize that a lot of mistakes are being made. And if they had called upon me and said, Listen, we're not even going to pay yet you're already working your butt off for free for mankind. But we need you to come in here and help make sure all the doctors understand the stuff, I would have been glad to. I was shocked when they come away from that and stayed on the offensive rather than give me an award or at least thanked me or at least support or facilitate me. Because remember, I'm doing their duty. I'm trying to maintain scientific and ethical integrity for the people of Ontario and healthcare. Will Dove 23:33 Yes. Now, Michael, for those of our viewers who are not familiar with these cases, could you please give us a quick summary because you have represented, of course, Dr. Trozzi, as well as Dr. Luchkiw, Dr. Phillips, I believe a number of nurses as well, all of them against the CPSO. So if you could please give us a very quick summary of what's happened so far. Because you have said with Dr. Trozzi that we're currently, you know, there's going to be some back and forth over the next few weeks before they render a decision. And I think we all know what the decision is going to be based upon what they've already done. But if you can please catch us up, Michael. Michael Alexander 24:05 Okay. Well, just, first of all, when we get the final decision, the penalty order, then we're in a position to appeal Mark's case to the Divisional Court in Ontario. That's the first level of appeal for a decision by administrative, an administrative tribunal. And this is very interesting, because it's been a change in the standard of review in the past few years, which has been mandated by the Supreme Court. So if you write in a statute to appeal a tribunals decision under the court system, which we have in Ontario, under the Regulated Health Professions Act, then that will take place on the standard of correctness. Now, that's the highest standard of review of legal issues. It's the same standard used by the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of Canada. So this is something very new that that standard of correctness will be applied throughout the appeal process. So this will make a huge difference, because the college has never been reviewed on core legal issues on the standard of correctness before. So this is the game that we're playing, we're playing the long game here, we didn't expect to win at the college. But we wanted to set up a case with sufficient evidence, and with all the relevant case law, such that when we went into the court system on appeal, we had a very good chance of winning. And so that is what's happening with Mark's case, what is common to all the cases that you mentioned, is we are challenging the college on certain issues. First of all, the college has a right under the legislation to launch an investigation only when they have reasonable and probable grounds. So there must be an ev- enough evidence to establish the reasonable and probable grounds that an offense has been committed. Now, the problem with all these investigation orders issued by the college and all these cases is they failed to find the offense. And they don't provide a description of the evidence. Will Dove 26:01 Right Michael Alexander 26:01 So they make the orders intentionally vague, so they get the right to investigate, and they have immense and expansive powers of investigation. So they try to get the right to investigate and then define the offence later. Well, that's a violation of the very basic idea of reasonable and probable grounds. I mean, that that that concept is based on the notion that the state doesn't have a right to invade your privacy, or affect your physical well being and security, unless it has, you know, a very strong evidentiary basis for believing that you have committed an offense. So, first of all, we're going to attack the college on the issue of reasonable probable grounds. Two, the college's COVID-19 restrictions are all recommendations. They're not even policies passed by a majority of the College Council. And according to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Divisional Court, guidelines and recommendations do not have the force of law. And yet the college has consistently attempted to enforce its COVID-19 recommendations and guidelines as if they have the force of law. So that's the second very important issue that we'll be challenging. And then the third goes to the standard of practice. And they have been very vague about the standard practices and, in fact, in Mark's hearing at a certain point, and late in the proceedings, the adjudicator running the hearing tribunal asked counsel for the college to define the standard of practice. Well, she had to define it three times before she came up with the right answer. And I don't think any of her answers were actually sufficient to answer the adjudicator's question. So, and there are other issues that, you know, sort of clustered around these main legal issues that I've mentioned. But, in addition, with Mark's case, and this is where Mark's case is unique, we are going to argue for a fundamental right to express minority opinions. And so these issues will be carried forward through Mark's case. If we are successful there, it will vindicate all the other doctors who've been subjected to these unjust prosecutions. Will Dove 28:06 Right. So if I'm understanding correctly, Michael, you've, of course, you have been fighting for your clients' licenses, the right to practice medicine, as they are licensed to do, have studied and trained to do. But really, you've been playing a long game, because you had a pretty good idea what the CPSO was going to do. And so if I'm understanding this right, what you're actually doing, you're setting them up for an appeal process under the standard of correctness, where you can then go back and you can thus, you show that none of their mandates, none of their rulings had been based upon law. And then if that is the case, they're nothing but petty tyrants and dictators, who are themselves guilty of breaking the law. Michael Alexander 28:45 You know what, in my second lecture in law school, it was a public law course in first year, professors. The leading theme of the lecture was something called bureaucratic tyranny. So we're being told right there, the administrative state was a problem, we're going back to the 1980s. They're saying, look, one of the things you're going to be doing is fighting the bureaucratic state, and it has a tendency to overreach. So now, I mean, we've gone much further than we were in the 1980s. Now, the administrative state and the deep state are attempting control the democracy at the expense of, of legal and constitutional guarantees. So so this is this is what we would describe. This is the way the best way to describe what's going on with the college. This is a classic case of bureaucratic tune, and a bureaucrat's attempting to exert power beyond and without a justification in the rule of law. Will Dove 29:48 Mark, you are very well connected. How many doctors, nurses, medical professionals do you know, and I'm not just talking about here in Canada because you're well connected outside of Canada as well. Do you know who are in a similar situation, but they have lost the ability to practice what they're licensed to do Mark Trozzi 30:05 Oh, more than I can count. 1000s many 1000s, many 1000s. And and there's an element where you see most will not do what I'm doing. And there's a good reason and they're not wrong. Because you go into this internally controlled process, where, for instance, here, the college is ruling over the college versus Trozzi. Now, I don't know if you'd be willing to go to court will against me as, and I was also the judge, that doesn't work very well. So if you look at, for instance, one of the one of the great physicians in this country who is currently not providing care, which is such a tragedy in Saskatchewan, is the eminent surgeon, surgical specialist, founder of the International Journal for the Surgical Humanities, founder of the Department of the Surgical Humanities in the University of Saskatchewan, and also the founder and chief up until COVID, of quality control. And that's Dr. Francis Christian. So Dr. Francis, Christian had some issues with these injections as well. And as you know, we all know the story. He went to his school, had a little press conference, away from work, nothing to do with work, and said, hey, people, you have a right, there has to be informed consent before an injection is given to your children, you have to know what's in it, and what are the pros and cons of it. For that he came under a similar attack to what I've come under. So the question is, why did Dr. Christian, my friend, why did he choose to just retire? I mean, he had at least another decade or more of service to take care of people. I mean, this is the guy I want taking care of me if I crash my car, and I need trauma surgery. Why did he retire? Because if you enter a process like that, you're going into what colloquially is called a kangaroo court. And that decision is going to be made against you and the costs are going to be applied to you. So for instance, in our case, example, we wanted Deanna McLeod, a person who's got a 20 year career of examining and structuring clinical trials, arguably one of Canada's if not Canada's top expert on the subject of clinical trials, we had her come as an expert witness. We needed a day, we would need an hour or two to question her, and the college could have at her for hours and try to pick it apart. Instead, the college filled up two entire days abusing the witness. And in the end, saying, Nah, she's not qualified. She's not an expert. So we're not going to look at Pfizer's data, we're not going to look at the fact that their own data shows that about 100% of the pregnant women injected that they reported aborted. We're not going to look at Pfizer's data that shows that the death rate from the injections was at least 3% within three months, we're not going to look at Pfizer's data that shows how many people were disabled. We're not going to look. Right. So but my costs for that, money I don't have, let's be honest, right? Those two days, they're charging me $20,000. Right. They announced after they announced that I'm guilty of these adjectives they use instead of details like writing exemptions to COVID injections, and telling people things about COVID injections, that's what I'm charged with. But instead they say, incompetent, unprofessional, misconduct. That's not right. But what they have announced is that I owe them $96,000 for the pleasure of trying to defend myself. Now, that's every every doctor that stood against this thing, including the good doctor, for instance, Christian knows that and he said, You know what, doesn't make sense to set myself up. I'm just going to retire. I'm just going to retire. Okay, well, here's the problem. How many doctors, we know that there are 1000s of doctors, there's at least 1000 doctors and 1000s of nurses in Ontario, who would not take the shot and eventually were fired from their hospital. But there are hundreds of doctors like myself, who said, Oh, my God, this is wrong. This is dangerous. People are going to die. I've got to tell everyone and we've made it our business, very much for no profit, quite the opposite, to do that. Okay. If all those doctors are eliminated from health care, if indeed it's true, as we know that the World Health Organization is creating amendments to eliminate human rights, respect for sovereignty of individuals' rights and freedoms, if we know, as we do, their building messenger RNA factories all over the world, including Canada, they're setting things up for worse. I'm still trying to stop the dying from these injections. Right. But the problem is, if we do not change this, which is why I have stuck my neck out as I have, when really I need to less than anybody else, I'm very busy without a medical license in Ontario. But if I cannot see to the restoration of all the good doctors who did the right thing, and if we cannot get the message to doctors across this country, in this province, that listen, you can read the ingredients, you can tell people the truth, you must use your clinical judgment, you can follow the Hippocratic Oath, you can be a scientist, then the people are absolutely screwed. This was bad, it could get worse. So that's why I'm sticking my neck out to do this. It's not fun, but it's necessary. Will Dove 36:01 Michael, assuming that in a few weeks, the CPSO delivers the decision, we expect them to, that they will uphold the suspension of Mark's license. Now this goes into this appeal process that you've been working towards. How long before we would see a resolution to that? Michael Alexander 36:17 Well, we have 30 days to make our application. It would probably be at least six months before we would have a hearing. And then, you know, it might take several months to get a written decision from the court. So once we appeal, we could be a year out in terms of of the first court decision. Will Dove 36:38 Okay, so I, best case scenario, we're over a year away from having any kind of court case where the rights of the doctor are upheld, and where the actions of the college are found to be, let's say, inappropriate. Michael Alexander 36:54 Yes. I, it might not be an entire year because I have Dr. Luchkiw's, one of Dr. Luchkiw's cases, on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, we're waiting to hear if we're gonna get motion to leave. Now that case contains all of the issues that are in Mark's case, absent the free expression issue. So if we were to get an opportunity to argue this at the Court of Appeal, that might be where we take our stand and possibly win. So I started, I have two lines of attack here. One which was launched a year and a half ago, which is now as I say, hopefully heading towards the Court of Appeal and then Mark's case, uh, Mark's case is very important because, of course, we can go in on the standard for correctness. This case is going to carry on up to the Ontario Court of Appeal, will be on the old standard of reasonableness. So if we were to focus on between those two cases on the one that has the greatest likelihood of succeeding, it is Mark's case. It is truly seminal. Will Dove 37:58 Right. Now I asked that question, Michael, so that, Mark, I can ask you this question. Recently, you may have heard of the study done by Denis Rancourt and his research partner, and I apologize, his, his name is escaping me at the moment, where they looked at the data from the shots for all cause mortalities, and all of that, and they calculated the likely number of people globally who have died so far from the shots, came up with a figure of some 17 million. And so I ran a simple ratio calculation, so that we looked at the global population, with it, Canada's population, and we come up with a number some 33,000 people in Canada who have likely died from the shots already and, of course, for every person who dies, there's five or six more who are disabled, can no longer work. And so if we're over a year away, or somewhat like something like a year away from this appeal, and we need public opinion to sway in the other direction, how much longer do you think it is? And, Michael, I'm gonna have to ask you to answer this question, too, after Mark comments on it. How much longer before it reaches a point where they just can't hide this anymore? I mean, there was, there was an, I'm sort of [unintelligible] with my question, but I'm trying to fill in some details. There was a study done in the US just a couple of weeks ago, where they found that one out of every four Americans personally knows someone who has died from these shots. This is getting very hard to hide. Mark Trozzi 39:20 I think we're already there. And that this is where we get into the [unintelligible] sort of level of delusional. Right. Now, I think it'd be reasonable to say that maybe a third of people are very aware, not aware enough to give a lecture on the genetic sequencing of the undeclared dangerous genetic DNA components and the injections and stuff like that. But I think a lot of people are aware that the injections make you more likely to get COVID that the injections cause disease and death and deterioration by a variety of mechanisms. They may not say it in those way, but I think there's a third of people who are very aware, never, would never take the shot. But there's another third at least now who are saying I'm never taking another shot. I don't care what they tell me to do. Right. So I think this is where, as a society, we need to realize we probably do have the majority of people now. The majority of people, I think, know the injections are bad. They might not know how bad or how dangerous. And you know, it's getting hard to hide it because like you said, people know people who are dead. I mean, I ask people, often I say, go back to 2020, when COVID was in the news everywhere, when in the news, hospitals were full, but those nuisance hospitals in reality, were empty. Go back to that. Do you know anybody who got a really bad respiratory infection and died called COVID. And very few people do. If I have an auditorium with 300 people, which happens regularly, you might see one hand when you ask the question, how many people here since the injections rolled out know someone who died following the injection that you think is a result of the injection? You see, most people put their hands up. When you say how many people know somebody that got cancer, you know, that was very aggressive or their cancer came back, or they're like young, like, I've got, we've got a young woman close to her family. She's 27 years old, she's got breast cancer. Right? See, so you know, you can only you can only cover up reality so long with fake data, various statistics, persecuting doctors that try to report adverse events and reject them. So the question now is, what are we going to do not not me, Dr. Mark, as a people, what are we going to do when we know that our governments and institutions are occupied in such a way that they continue to enforce and promote an injection, which can only be described as criminal. And I mean, this is on the tail of the most recent evidence, it goes from bad to worse, we've now confirmed in multiple labs around the world, including one in Ontario, that there's tons of DNA and these supposedly messenger RNA shots. Then we've discovered that the SV40 promoter sequence, which sounds boring, but this is a sequence derived from the Simian virus. It's not the Simian virus, it's a little genetic sequence. But if you look at research from the 90s, what was discovered about this sequence that makes it so special is if you get this into a cell, along with a bunch of other DNA, this will dramatically assist that other DNA getting into the nucleus, becoming part of the person's genome and expressing proteins. And we had an expert panel World Council for Health. You know, this is not just ideas I come up with, on my own. Now, Epoch Times reached out to Health Canada and said, Hey, what about the SV40? Health Canada said, Well, you know, we don't know nothing about SV40. And Pfizer's plasmid map, didn't even say SV40, which I've talked to people that run the sequencing machines, that means they did intentionally delete it, that's called fraud. So, you know, I turn to the people, like whether you work at the college, whether you, whether you make a living beating up me and Patrick Phillips, listen, unless you're one of those people that got fake papers, and you're still evil enough to try to force this on everybody else, you've been violated and assaulted, and you've got a bunch of genetic material in yourself that you would have never agreed to if anyone had been honest with you. Or if you'd listened to somebody like me, who was being honest with you. So So there's our situation. What happens? Like I mean, what is, it brings us to questions like what is the foundation of government? Who is the government? I personally, I believe in democracy, I believe the people are the government. And I believe when governments and bodies become so ridiculous, that if you look at history, that's when the people have to take it back. You know, there are criminals in high offices that have killed people here. I will never be an accomplice to that. I am proud not to be accomplice to that. And I would recommend everybody, whether you're a judge, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a waitress, or a mechanic, to do everything you can, because nobody is an exception to what they're trying to do to all of us. Will Dove 44:38 Now, Michael, I asked Mark that question in order to ask you this one because you've been in this fight pretty much since the start in courtrooms arguing for your clients. Have you seen or do you feel that you might be seeing a change in the attitude of the people who are sitting on the bench in the last three years? Michael Alexander 45:03 Well, some judges, there are a small number of independently minded judges who have made some very brave decisions. And some of those judges have been overruled. One or two of them have not. So, I've said from the very beginning, that not only do we have to have the right arguments, but we have to get in front of the right judge or panel of judges. And we need someone there, at least one person even, to register a dissent in favor of our view of things. That would make a huge difference. So do I see a trend right now in our favor? No. But the scientific evidence keeps piling up. And as you say, sooner or later, this is going to have to be reckoned with. And so the next person who comes into this with the science, it might be us. And, you know, we'll have an array of studies and experts to produce, you know, absolutely compelling evidence that the vaccines were never safe and effective, and that they may have been manufactured in such a way as to intentionally cause harm. I should say something, though, about Mark's case in relation to the science, although we did argue the science at the college, and I think we won on this, by the way, because Mark wrote his own 41-page expert report with 29 scientific and statistical references back in 2021, when the college first tabled an expert report against him. And on the stand, I got their main expert, who tabled that first report, to admit that he never attempted to address or refute any of the points that Mark made in his 41-page report. This expert, by the way, provided just an absolutely unimpressive eight-page report, only three pages of which actually dealt with scientific issues. So Mark is unrefuted on the science he presented in his 41-page expert report back in 2021. That is a fact. And the College Tribunal has ignored it. But let me go one step beyond that. We don't need to win on this science to win Mark's case, because those legal issues I mentioned previously, are about whether the college ever had the authority to embark upon the investigation and the prosecution, and in our opinion, clearly they did not. So if we can win on those core issues going to jurisdiction and authority, we don't have to worry about the science. And so in a way we can win on those grants, we kind of cut the college off at the legs. And it will disable them from imposing their COVID 19 restrictions, and imposing their view of science on the rest of the profession in the public. Will Dove 47:46 Michael, when we talk about the CPSO and these decisions that they're making, how large of a group of people are we talking about? Michael Alexander 47:54 Well, there's a college council, which is comprised, half the people in the College Council are appointed by the Ontario government. The other half are elected by other members of the profession. So you have the College Council, I forget how many people sit on the College Council, I think it's less than 30. And then College Council among themselves appoint one of their members to be the Registrar of the college, and currently that's Dr. Nancy Whitmore. In fact, she's been in that position for several years now. So that is the decision making body, the registrar in conjunction with the College Council. However, it's the legal department, and, you know, based on the signature of the Registrar. It's the legal part that makes the decision about whether to investigate and prosecute. College Council doesn't have anything to do with that. Will Dove 48:43 Right. Where I'm going with this, Michael, is we it's let's let's forget about all the legalese and being politically correct. Everybody sitting here, the three of us, my viewers, we all know what's going on here, what we've got is a bunch of tin pot dictators who are forcing bad medical ideas down everybody's throats, probably know how harmful it is. And the public is gradually waking up to the point where we are going to reach a critical mass. So what happens to this small group of dictators, when they suddenly realize the writings on the wall? And if they don't make an about face, they're likely to end up in prison. Do you think that that's a realistic scenario that will reach a point where, as bad as these people have been, they're going to do a 180 and say, Oh, no, no, we were wrong. It's okay. Everybody gets their licenses back, and nobody has to take any more shots. Do you think that's gonna happen or knowing these people, and I'm sure, I know you don't know all of them, but you've probably met some of them. Are they going to go down with the ship, because the ship is going to sink at some point. Michael Alexander 49:51 Well, in Ontario, you see, this whole situation can be brought to an end if the Minister of Health, who's the boss of all the health care colleges under legislation, stepped in and made one phone call and said stop doing this. See, so, but political accountability is not working in the province. It's obviously not working at the federal level either. So there's a very quick political solution to this, when the political, it gets too much for people at Queen's Park and, and in, you know, other places in the country when it gets too hot for them. So, So it's more likely to break politically than legally. However, there is some sign of things going against the CPSO, because the CPSO was going to prosecute Dr. Kulvinder Gill, and the democracy fund took up her case, and they have a lot of money. And they had scheduled a 15 day hearing at the college. And this was to start several weeks ago, and then all of a sudden, out of the blue, the college withdrew its notice of hearing. Now, why did it do that? I think in part, they were a fa- they were concerned about facing a case where somebody had resources equal to the college's resources, and where they might not win. And it, like, you know, the science would work against them in her case. So I think they may have seen that this could have been their Waterloo. And so they just dropped the whole thing, which was a shock to everybody. And people, some people said, aha, you know, freedom of speech. No, no, I think what was really going on here is they thought they might lose with the Gill case. And so they wanted to keep Mark's case going, and then send a message through Mark's case, that we are not going to have free expression in this province. Will Dove 51:39 Now, Mark, we talked about your history, and some of my viewers know who you are, they follow your own channel, the information that you provide. And you, as we've already determined in this interview, you took a sabbatical from your career in late 2020. So here we are coming up on almost three years now that you have not worked. You were an emergency surgeon for 25 years. On average, how much money were you making per year doing that job? Mark Trozzi 52:08 Well, I always had a kind of a balanced lifestyle, to be honest, and I was always involved in other things. One of my bigger interests was ecosystem protection. So, but, you know, normally I should be able to grow without trying very hard, like, I never looked for the highest paying job, I don't like thinking about business, I don't like thinking about billing, I like to think about medicine. So I always position myself in a job versus [unintelligible], somebody else does all that stuff. I take care of sick people in an emergency department, that's all I want to do. And you know, but I would still I should be able to gross, you know, 200, $250,000 a year, you know, while still taking time to, you know, have Saturdays to, you know, groom a horse or go canoeing. Will Dove 52:56 Right. Now, you also sold your house, what was your house worth? Mark Trozzi 52:59 Well, at the time, it was, I think, worth around 360. But the, see the trick was, I had some investments, but I needed to finance those investments. So my my financial eventual security, I don't have RRSPs, I've never, I'm not a big money guy. But I needed to continue to make payments on the things I own for about another 10 years, then it would have been 65 I planned to kill, it will still work. But, at that point, you know, I would have had some financial security. Unfortunately, to do what I felt needed to be done, I had to sell all that stuff to pay off all the debts because you can't pay debts when you're not earning money. So, you know, from a financial point of view, this has been a voluntary disaster. I don't, I don't have a plan for how I'm going to, you know, live at as a retirement or anything like that. So again, you know, actually, I have an award sitting here right now that I was given medical heroism award by Lifesite News. But it's very perverse to make the sacrifices, and people have to understand, I may have worked hard as emergency doctor, I work nonstop now. I don't take days off, I take hours off, you know, doing everything I can to help restore health and human rights in Canada and Ontario, and around the world. And so it's very frustrating and it's kind of sick, to be the target of an organization whose job is supposed to be to maintain scientific and ethical integrity, you know, but there is, you know, I want to get to the solution, you know, I'm not a very good Christian but I'm a Christian, we believe in forgiveness, etc, to an extent. And as I as I reached out in a video that I put out last week, and the week before, is Pfizer committed fraud on the SV40 promoter sequence. There's tons of nastiness, there's tons of fraud, but it's very blatant, this one. And so I'm trying to offer everyone who wants to save their grandchildren, wants to save civilization, wants to have human rights. And that includes people at the college, this is your chance to say, you know whether or not you agreed with me all the research I've done, I don't know how you disagree with it, it's just facts. But even if you disagree with everything I've ever said, you now know that Oh, my God, you've been injected with DNA, nobody signed up for it. There's hidden genetic sequences in there that are harmful. So why is anybody still attacking me? Like, it's time for everyone to just realize what's happened and turn around? Because? Are we going to descend into a Mad Max world to resolve this? Are we going to tidy up the mess that we have? And that's all I'm after, at this point. But yeah, this has been a, completely a massive sacrifice of time, peace of mind, and finances, and security, and home, and car, etc. for me. Will Dove 56:11 Yeah Mark Trozzi 56:12 But it's necessary. Will Dove 56:14 I'm wanting to establish the sacrifice that you've made, you've come from a quarter million dollar at times a year career, you've now, you're without a house, you without giving out too much information, you spent a substantial amount of time out of the country working under very difficult conditions. Essentially, Mark, the last three years, just being an ethical doctor, and telling people the truth has cost you everything you built up in a 25 year career. Mark Trozzi 56:45 Yes, and I've worked probably an average of I'd say about 14 hours a day, usually seven days a week without income, but works very hard as a professional and using my medical and scientific knowledge. Will Dove 57:03 Yeah, what would you hope when when we win this? And we will, in the end. What would you hope would come out of that in terms of changes in our system, to see that this can't happen again, not just to doctors, but to people who have had been coerced into taking these toxic shots? Mark Trozzi 57:23 Well, I mean, I think that brings us to the vision that we have around the world, and that we bring together in the World Council for Health, which is the restoration of sovereign rights of individuals and nations. Right? The rule of law for all access to honest health information. The current medical community has been completely co opted by the drug industry. You know, and that's been the truth for a long time. But it's become so blatant in the last three years. So, you know, those those, those would be my, my goals, you know, and in terms of restoration, you know, yes. I mean, let's, let's, let's say, I, I've lost $700,000 in income. But I mean, of course, I would have been taxed on it. So it's not like I really had that much. I mean, this is Canada, you know, divide everything by two when it comes to taxes, right. But I've lost things I love, my home, the land I own, my horse, my car, you know, I had to give up those things in order to be able to do this. But I've worked twice or three times as much. So I mean, what's that worth? Right. But when I go, and I speak to people, and I do a lot, you know, again, the college and these people, they're a little bit delusional. They think that because they think they have the power to maintain a false truth. I mean, they're like, in Galileo's day, no, no, no, the Earth is the center of all things. Well, just because you have power just because you can lock Galileo up, that doesn't reposition the Earth at the center of the solar system, because you have power to like to persecute Patrick Phillips until he just can't take it anymore, and just leave society, that doesn't make it a safe and effective vaccine. Right. So when I go and I talked to large numbers of people I'm like, I hate to say it I don't want to discourage the college from their, from their from their abuse. But people love me. I get treated very nicely. People hear the name Trozzi, would be so amazed of Trozzi. If you're Dr. Trozzi, my dad will be in a story they'll say have you ever heard of Dr. Trozzi? He's like it's my son. Oh, it's your son, let me buy your coffee. Right? But people come up to me like a nice fella named Keith. When I went back to my my town where this all started because of course I'm not there. I'm working uh kind of out of a suitcase now for three years. But I went back and the high school auditorium was open so I could talk to people. And then this nice fellow came up and he said, you know, Dr. Mark, he said, you remember my kids, my twins, he has a twin son and a daughter, when I last saw him, they were 10 years old. He said, well, he said, my daughter always said she loved to see you, Dr. Trozzi. Because she said, he said, You were you were the only doctor she felt really cared about her and really tried to take care of her. And you know what? That's not rocket science. I practice the golden rule, I treat you the way I want to be treated, I will treat your child the way I would want my child treated. That's a real easy way to get through life without a law degree and know what to do. But he said, well, he said after you were gone. And then they told me that she needed this vaccine to go to school. Now get real this gets sad guys. He said, so I got her that vaccine. He said, and then, and then she got this growing mass in her leg. And she went back and forth to the hospital. And you know, each time the government was billed for the visit, but she was blown off and sent home. But eventually, he said, my God, look at her leg. This is not like a sprain, this is a frickin big chunk of something growing on her leg. So they did test and she had cancer in her leg. And then she got chemotherapy and radiation and surgery, she had her leg amputated. But she still died. He buried his daughter. Will Dove 1:01:29 How old? Mark Trozzi 1:01:31 She was 13 when she died. So how can I put my losses next to that? How can I, you know, look at the fact that it's kind of I don't have my old plan for security and for my family to have a home and all those things. You know, that's all blown away in some distant point in this war. But how can I feel sorry for myself. And the other thing is, like you guys, I've looked into this deep enough, this doesn't end with COVID and some shots. This doesn't end with the obstruction of ivermectin, there's a much larger agenda at work here. And this ends with, as they said, you will own nothing, and you will be happy. Well, I don't know about being happy, but owning nothing. So everybody stands to lose everything. And that's why I say to people, if you think I've been extreme and sacrificing everything to make it my mission to defend the future of our grandchildren, that's just because I realized what's going on. If you're not doing that, you're delusional, and especially if you're making money, persecuting me, and trying to like keep this, this lie that these are safe and effective vaccines going. I mean, that's really and you know, as as ancient books say, you will gnash your teeth when you realize what you have done to yourself to your descendants. So I'm just asking everybody, you know, like, I don't want to fight about this. We have some arch criminals at the top of this thing. I'd really like everyone to come together, even the CPSO lawyers, for God's sakes, folks wake up. I had a perfect career for 25 years. I'm not some maniac. There's a reason I never even showed up on your desk till this COVID happened. That's because it's wrong. Will Dove 1:03:20 Michael, I'd like to give you the last word. And I want to ask you a slight variation on what I asked Mark, let's project ourselves forward to the point in time where we've won, where the governments and the officials have either backpedaled, or been found guilty of breaking the law. What would you like to see changed in our legal system, in the medical system to prevent this from happening again? Michael Alexander 1:03:49 Well, the first thing would be in Ontario, the Regulated Health Professions Act, and what I'm about to say could apply to all the provinces in the country. If you gave me an opportunity to make two pages of amendments, to this 100-page piece of legislation that governs health professionals in Ontario, we could solve all these problems, and this would never happen again. So there's a political solution. In other words, the college colleges could not take the place of the government and attempt to enforce their will on the profession and the public. And also, I would like to see the courts reconsider this whole idea of judicial notice that if Health Canada says the vaccines are safe and effective, they're safe and effective. There's no authority in the case law for the position the Ontario courts have taken on them. And so I think that that needs to be addressed. Academics need to write articles about it. Professors need to give lectures about it. And lawyers need to go into the system and argue for the fact that this is a position judges have taken without any substantial authority to support it. So I'd like to see those changes and I think it's it's become quite clear that a lot of our bureau credit agencies are not transparent enough. If you try to figure out how Health Canada really works, you can't. In fact, a few years ago, there was a newspaper award given. I don't know if they still give it out. But for the least transparent, the most confusing agency or governmental body in the country, well, Health Canada won that back in the 2000s. And they should, when you try to figure out who makes a decision, who's responsible for for just about anything, you're completely stymied. And I've had to gather bits and pieces from things like presentations people have given at conferences 10 years ago, where a little piece of information about how Health Canada works as leaked out because somebody actually worked for Health Canada, or knew something about it that other people did not. I think we need to have a law in this country that makes all of our bureaucratic agencies and bodies completely and utterly transparent. So we know who makes decisions, and who we can speak to about those decisions. And anybody can access that online, that there's no excuse for that not existing. And as long as we don't have that kind of transparency in the bureaucratic side of government, we can't have accountability in this country. And something like this, that we've just been through can happen again. Will Dove 1:06:17 Gentlemen, I want to thank you both for the time that you've put in for the sacrifices you've both made. Mark, everybody's aware of what you've done, Michael, you've been working incredibly hard. And a lot of this work does not pay this work that you're doing to represent these doctors and nurses. We were having a discussion before the interview, were saying that you need to clear some of this up so you can get back to paying, just doing some work that will actually pay your bills because of course, like everyone, you have to pay your bills. So to both of you, thank you so much for everything that you're doing. We will, I'm sure you'll let me know what happens with the case and we were pretty sure what the judgment is going to be. I'll report that in my weekly news reports and when it comes time for the appeal, I'll have you back and we'll discuss where that's going in a more in depth interview. Michael Alexander 1:07:03 Thanks, Will. Mark Trozzi 1:07:04 Really appreciate it.