Autogenerated Transcript Trudeau’s government has been conducting a relentless campaign to destroy the natural health products industry in Canada, and to protect and increase Big Pharma profits. The latest Liberal skullduggery took place under our noses and the vast majority of us didn’t even notice. Buried in this year’s budget act, Bill C-69, which was passed into law in June, were a half dozen clauses that amend the Health Act. Clauses that protect the interests of Big Pharma, protect our elected officials against liability for pushing harmful pharmaceuticals on the public, remove what remaining protections we had against dangerous drugs, and taken in concert with Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act that may very well pass this fall, hand absolute authority for health decisions in Canada to the WHO. In fact these changes to the Health Act protect everyone, except us. Shawn Buckley is a lawyer and the founder of the NHPPA, the Natural Health Products Protection Agency and he’s been fighting government drug tyranny for decades. I have heard many shocking things from guests in the now over 400 interviews I have done, but the amendments to the health act that Shawn will detail in this interview go beyond them all. Shawn, a pleasure as always, thanks for coming back on the show. Well, I - And maybe you won't this year or next year, depending on what happens and which I'll share with you. Right. And this has to do with Bill C69, Budget Implementation Act, they're calling it. But that's not really what it is. Please give us the details. Well, yeah. So, I mean, the federal government every year has to pass a budget bill. You know, so I don't even know what the federal budget is like a trillion dollars or just several hundred billion like it's a lot of money and and so they have to pass you know a law or two each year just for the structure of spending that money like we create a new program you've got to create the legal structure or if you're adding or changing to existing spending and so they're called budget bills and they're usually like really long, they literally could be a phone book, but you're not supposed to, I mean, we're not in a democracy and so I don't, I never want to use that term, but we are in a parliamentary form of, of autocracy and so our parliamentary system is meant so that, you know, if you want to make a change to let's say fundamental drug law, which is what's happened here, you introduce an act that's clearly for drugs, like an amendment to the Food and Drug Act. And then, you know, if it gets through second reading, it goes to the Standing Committee on Health, which has expertise on health issues, and they scrutinize it. You don't hide it in a budget bill that has to get passed quickly, because that's the type of bill it is. But Will, I'm I'm gonna describe to your audience some changes to our food and drug law which are just shocking like you'll go what? Well your audience will not have heard of this I was speaking with an MP last week who you know actually voted against the budget bill but this MP didn't even know this was in there. And I'm sure that most of the MPs that voted for the budget bill didn't even know this was in there. And this is how, I won't say anti -democratic, it's definitely if we had a democracy it'd be anti -democratic, but it's anti -parliamentary system. You know, if you're going to govern people with a parliamentary system where in theory their elected MPs, you know, are voting on issues that are important to their constituents, you don't hide important changes to your drug and food safety law in a budget bill. So everyone should just be outraged that this happened. And it's the second year in a row, wasn't common until last year. So last year what happened is, I'll just give you some background, in 2008, The Harper government introduced Bill C -51. I think it was on March 8th of 2008. Tony Clement, Minister of Health, introduces Bill C -51, and it was bringing in really tyrannical changes to the Food and Drug Act, where in the area of natural health products, the fine would go from $5 per offense to five million dollars a day and Health Canada could have Godlike powers do this do that make orders and if you didn't comply like five million dollar a day fines and like ability to censor you all of this and it was going to apply to all drugs so chemical drugs and natural products now five million dollar a day fine is that even pocket change for a company like Pfizer like do they make that that in an hour? Does it take them two hours to make that much money? Like it's it's not meaningful to the big pharmaceutical companies but it's literally tyranny to I don't know of a naturopathic doctor that can survive a five million dollar a day fine. I don't know of a supplement company or Herbalist that can and and I call it a move into tyranny and let me explain that, and it's important for your audience to understand, is when the government brings in a law, they know they're not going to get full compliance. You never get full compliance. Always have those outliers out there, and thank goodness that we do, because that's how we learn, and we don't want full compliance, but we want almost full compliance, and so what we're supposed to do is bring in sting, you know, much like getting close to a wasp's nest and you get stung, and you go back again and you get stung again, and you go, "I don't like this. I'm gonna stop going near the wasp's nest." Well, that's what the penalties are meant to do. They're meant to sting, but they're not meant to destroy you and put you in an anaphylactic shock where you're gone. They're just meant to be high enough and no higher to encourage compliance by most of us and understand that we need non -compliers to learn. Like let's just use, for example, doctors washing hands before surgeries. The first people that doctors that started saying we should be washing hands before surgeries were ostracized, they lost the right to practice. They lost their hospital privileges because when you're right about something but it's not the norm, you look wrong and you're ridiculed. And that's what happened. But they were able to withstand it. Their livelihoods weren't destroyed. Their families weren't put on the street. So they persisted and eventually their message got through. and how many countless lives have we saved because now doctors wash hands before surgery. What a revolutionary idea. But with these, what happened with the last budget bill is Health Canada snuck in these $5 million a day penalties into the natural health product realm and now you can't defy Health Canada. Because who can withstand $5 million a day fine? So, I mean, I like to use true hope nutritional support as an example, because they have a product that treats bipolar disorder, and there are 30 peer reviewed or published in peer reviewed journal articles and some blue chip like in the Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Child and Adolescent psychology, all 30 peer -reviewed publications are funded by governments around the world. So this is actually even government -funded research into a vitamin and mineral supplement used to treat mental disorders, primarily bipolar disorder, ADHD, anxiety, and the like. Well, back in the day, Health Canada was trying to take this product off of the market, and True Hope said no, and despite, you know, psychiatrists and doctors telling Health Canada that people would die if access was restricted, Health Canada restricted access, and people started dying. And actually, the Canadian Mental Health Association would hold a press conference every time they were aware of a suicide in an effort to get the government to back down, which the government eventually did, and true hope was charged, and they went to court over this, and the court didn't convict them. The court said, "Well, actually, it was legally necessary for you to defy Health Canada, but let's say we had lost that court case." Well, they would have been fined with these $5 ,000 a day fines and maybe would have gotten a little bit of jail, but they could have survived. But today there's no way they could survive. So you can't even resist. Like before these $5 million a day fines, Health Canada or True Hope had links to these 30 peer -reviewed government funded journal publications. They've now taken them down will because they can't five million dollar a day fine. So now truthful government funded research is being hid from the Canadian population because we're in an area, we've moved into an area of tyranny with our penalties where you can't have those outliers, you can't have those doctors that say you need to wash hands before surgery because the hammer's too big for those outliers to survive now and so we're gonna and in the area of drug policy that's the worst area and it's not a safety issue if somebody's doing something dangerous health Canada can just apply to a court for an injunction right and that's there's there's the criminal law you can go to jail for life criminal negligence causing death if you're putting a treatment out there that's dangerous and you don't stop and harm happens, the penalty for that's life imprisonment. There's a big hammer out there. You don't have to bring in $5 million a day fines for regulatory violations in the area of natural health. That's called tyranny. Right. Let's be very clear where that tyranny is coming from, what the motivator is for this. You've already pointed out this Bill C -51, they tried to do this back in 2008, I know from previous conversations with you that the attacks on natural health products in our country go back further than that. This is big pharma lobbying, paying off, bribing, whatever, our government to destroy the competition. It seems to me extremely clear because as you were talking about, $5 million a day, well Pfizer can probably afford that, but there isn't a natural health product provider out there who can. And so you've already given this the example of true hope. They had to take that documentation down because it put them at risk of being squashed like a bug. Yeah, no. I mean, and I was just explaining what happened last year and I will invite your audience to go to NHPP .org because MP Elaine Kalkins has introduced a private members bill, Bill C -368, to repeal those changes that were made last year. And we've already had almost half a million letters sent out through our site, and so please get engaged in that. But what happened this year? So I'm just talking about last year to make the point that was very undemocratic last year. It passes right away in the budget bill, and now we're having to fight to try and bring sanity back to the madness. Well, they did it again this year. So this year, bill C69, the budget bill, section 31 of that bill, anyone can go and look it up. Health Canada sneaks in really fundamental changes to our drug laws, which should shock everyone. We're going to talk about it, and I challenge anyone to go, oh, this is in my interest. This is in the public interest. This is going to protect me and my family. You're not going to sleep tonight. This is so crazy. And the funny thing is, well, is it confused the heck out of me? My job at the NHPPA, I got to analyze stuff like this and put it down on paper and a discussion paper so people kind of have an idea what's going on. So I'm just going in order it's like okay well there's this change and there's this change and there's this change and I'm scratching my head on each one I'm going what the heck's going on like this there's no public problem. Like so for example the first one is is the minister of health can step in and basically stop stop medical doctors and anyone else from off -label use of drugs. Well nobody's talking about this as a problem in the public and it's not a problem. Why are they making this change? And it's change after change. And like some really head scratchers and what the heck's going on? And I actually, you know, I've finished my analysis. Like so I've analyzed each one and I still remember, I'm sitting at my desk and I'm going, "What the heck is going on? Where are these coming from?" And I'm confused as can be. And then the thought occurs to me. I'm just assuming it was the Holy Spirit saying, "No, no, they're a package. Look at them as a package. Don't look at them individually. They're a package." And I look at them in a package and I go, "Oh, I know what's going on, if the government of Canada approached me as a lawyer and said we had, with the last, you know, pandemic, COVID -19, there's this issue, this issue, this issue, this issue, draft us a law to fix them, that's what just happened. So let me-- And then bury it in the budget, Bill. Oh yeah, no, no, they'd never, Can you even the mainstream media would never report on anything like this? But I mean the alternative media like yourself would be all over this and People would be enraged if it was introduced as changes to the Food and Drug Act if we honored the parliamentary system like everyone should be if should be Just upset at the process is I mean this is a run around on the parliamentary system. We're basically fundamental changes to our drug and food safety laws are made without ampese even know they've been made. Yes, because they're very much at bills which as you say it looks like a phone book but most of the ampese don't read it. You have no idea. Let me just jump ahead to some of the changes that you can't justify. I don't care who you are, you cannot justify these changes. So there are three lines in the safety lines in the sand that we have never ever crossed in our history. And the first of that is, is you cannot in Canada market a drug fraudulently. You can't lie to the Canadian public about a drug. That's a safety line we won't cross. It's not a regulation. It's section nine of the act. You cannot cross this line. You cannot lie about a drug to the Canadian public. Well, they just put in law that the Minister of Health can allow a drug or drugs to be marketed fraudulently to Canadians. Now, on what planet is it okay for the Minister of Health to allow the Canadian public to be lied to about a drug. Maybe there's some public spinsters out there in your audience. Please email me and tell me how you're going to spin this to the Canadian public that it's in their interests to be lied to about a drug. And is there any justification in the bill for that change? No, no, no, there's not. So let me just get to the two other safety lines in the sand and then I'll tell you what public justification is. All right. And you just see which in itself now is alarming when you're being lied to about that. So the second line in the sand that you never cross in Canadian drug law, so it's actually written into our act, it's not a regulation, this is a we never cross this line, is you cannot allow a drug to be adulterated with a dangerous substance. You cannot allow a drug to be adulterated with a dangerous substance, but now they've just changed the law so the Minister of Health can allow a drug that's adulterated with a dangerous substance to be marketed and sold and adjusted by Canadians. Section 31 of Bill C69, because I know some of your audience is going, "He's lying. This can't be true." Of course it is. How can he be saying this? Surely the government of Canada would not allow the Minister of Health to an exempted drug that's adulterated with a dangerous substance to be taken by us. Well, of course they would because they're already doing it. There are plenty of pharmaceuticals that people are being injected with that are loaded with aluminum. Talks it to the human brain. Highly talks it to the human brain. Well, but here's the thing, Will, is that's not dangerous enough to be considered adulteration. What? I'm sorry. So, when we're talking adulterated with a dangerous substance, we're not talking about creating, you know, dementia and all of that with this constant accumulation. So, we're talking about something really dangerous, more immediate. I'm going to refrain from the obvious comment about certain pharmaceuticals that have been known to kill people within minutes. Please continue. Oh, well, I feel like we're in Alice in Wonderland and we've gone down the rabbit hole. I could never dream that in my career, I would be speaking publicly about the fact that minister of health can allow drugs to be fraudulently marketed, the minister of health can allow drugs that are adulterated with dangerous substances to be marketed, and the minister of health can now allow drugs that have been manufactured under unsanitary manufacturing practices To be marketed Now these were safety lines in the sand because we paid the price with Canadian lives before We felt it was necessary. These are minimum You can't ever cross these lines as a bare minimum, you know Whatever else happens we'd never cross these safety lines because too many Canadian lives were lost before we drew these lines in the sand and now we're crossing them and do you know what the public justification and I'll go through the other changes which are just a shocking the public justification and and the minister felt there's a video where he explains he's being interviewed I need these changes because flavored nicotine products like the pouches you put in your mouth and you know flavored or flavored vaping products are harmful to our vulnerable teenagers and so I need these powers to be able to protect our vulnerable teenagers from basically flavored nicotine products. Now the interesting thing is is when I go through all of the powers none of them will actually enable the minister to protect youth from flavored vaping products. But I testified in front of the finance committee to try and get this stuff taken out and I listed for them all the power South Canada already has to prevent what the Minister of Health says the reason for this was. So we basically have a situation where we're being lied to. And I'm going to have to back you Yup, Shawn. Because you've lost me, so I know we've lost the viewers. Let me summarize. So we've got three changes that you've already discussed. One, now they can allow the marketing, a fraudulent marketing of a drug. Two, they can allow that drug to be adulterated with toxic substances. And three, they can allow it to be manufactured under unsanitary conditions. I'm missing the connection between that and how in the world that is supposed to allow the Minister of Health to protect kids from flavored nicotine products. Right. Is it not obvious, G. Will? I'm afraid it's not. You're going to have to explain it. Maybe if the Minister of Health allows drugs to be marketed fraudulently that are adulterated with dangerous substances and which are manufactured under unsafe manufacturing practices, maybe there won't be any vendors left to sell flavored nicotine products to our teenagers. Maybe there won't be any teenagers left. Like, you know, maybe just we have to think wider here. Obviously, I'm being facetious. It makes no sense at all. And the fact that we're being lied to for the, about the reason why we supposedly need this should also concern concern us. So A, they're running around our parliamentary system by hiding it in a budget bill. But B, they're lying to us about why they need it. And these are changes that are not in the public interest. Let's talk about some of the other changes. And this one could affect you personally, is that the Minister of Health now has the power to basically stop doctors and other health care practitioners from using a drug for off -label use. And so I need to explain to your audience what off -label use is. Health Canada will approve a drug for a very specific use. So let's say, and I'll just use Pfizer as an example, so let's say epithetically, Pfizer has a new cancer drug for stage one breast cancer. Well, they might do their clinical trials using females from the age of 25 to 35 with stage one breast cancer. And Health Canada will approve the drug for the use on females age 25 to 35 with stage one breast cancer. Now, you're a doctor and you've got a person who's 40 years old with stage 1 breast cancer. Well, if you use that drug, it's off -label use. What if you want to use it for stage 2 breast cancer? What if the drug's been on the market for a long period of time and doctors have come to conclude, you know, it doesn't work very well for stage 1 breast cancer at all, but it sure fixes this other problem better than anything else that's approved for that other problem. And a doctor makes decisions with an individual patient. Well, what's best for the individual patient based on the doctor's experience and knowledge and that individual patient's history? And that's in the area of provincial jurisdiction. Prevent provinces regulate doctors. That's why the College of Physicians and Surgeons and nurses and naturopathic doctors and homeopathic doctors and the like, that's provincial. Drug approval is the exercise of a criminal law power and trade and commerce power, which is a federal power. There's nothing to do with health. We just pretend it does. So what is the Minister of health, what right does he have or she have to be interfering with this doctor -patient relationship? Well, remember, if we view this as an exercise in getting ready for the next pandemic, I mean, the one where it is ivermectin. Let's ignore a droxachloroquine and stuff like that. Let's just use ivermectin as an example. Now, and this will become more clear with some of the other changes, but ivermectin was widely used by Canadians to both treat and prevent COVID -19 because some doctors spoke out about ivermectin. Now the doctors that spoke out and the doctors that would try to use ivermectin were professionally disciplined by their colleges. I mean Dr. Charles Hoff is still undergoing disciplinary proceedings, just as somebody who comes to mind. It's outrageous. But what about the rest of us who are doctors that didn't have colleges? One of the changes is is that the minister of health can prohibit anyone doctor or not. It It doesn't matter who you are, can prohibit all of us from promoting the use, the off -label use of a drug. So now let's say, well, you have Dr. Pierre Corion, and let's just say for the next pandemic, if there is another pandemic, because we don't know, but this is positioning for a pandemic, whether it comes or not. or not. But let's say next time ivermectin is just as effective as it was on COVID -19 and you have Dr. Pierre Corion as a guest and he's talking about how effective ivermectin is and you post your interview on the internet and the Minister of Health has made an order saying no one can promote ivermectin except for the use of treating parasites. You are now viola - Now, how is that in the public interest to be basically making it a $5 million day offense for non -medical people that are not otherwise regulated by the Food and Drug Act to be sharing truthful health information? How about even dubious health information because that's how we learn is by people suggesting other ways and other treatments and challenging the official narrative. And if there's any area where that's beneficial to the society, it's in the area of health. And I guess we're gonna find out how far they're willing to go with that because under no circumstances will I refrain from telling Canadians the truth. Yeah, but I mean, that's fine, you know. We'll see if they come after me with 5 million dollars You know, and you can go to the public library and use their computers to do your show because you won't have a home. They can try. We'll see what happens. Or you might be in jail. Like maybe you'll have to go to the prison library. Maybe. But do you see where I'm going? I'm absolutely refused to be intimidated, but I see where you're going because a lot of people will. Okay, they will be afraid. Most people will and I mean the thing is is and we're back to these these powers are tyrannical Like when the fines are so much that that they're not there to sting and sting and stings to get you to comply But they're so ridiculously high that they're there to destroy Then most people even when they feel that they should for good reasons Will not stand up to the government, and we're then in an area of tyranny, which is just unfettered discretion. I mean, as ironic as it sounds, it's healthy for a society to have those outliers that don't comply, because again, that's how we learn and grow as a society. And when those outliers are wrong, we ignore them. And when they're consistently right over a period of time, we actually adapt because it's healthy for us to do those. And I used doctors washing hands before surgery as an example that was resisted for the longest time and those pushing for it were persecuted but they weren't destroyed so they persisted. So now another change that's stuck into the budget bill is the Minister of Health can now bring in whatever measures the minister feels is necessary to ensure that veterinary drugs are not accessed by humans for human use. Now, is this a problem? Are too many humans going and accessing veterinary drugs for human use? No, of course not. It was only, well, but hang on a minute, it was only about a month or two ago that veterinary Ivermectin reappeared on Amazon .ca. Yeah, well, but we're talking about ivermectin again. You see a lot of Canadians access veterinary ivermectin because the government ensured that we couldn't access human ivermectin, and we became aware that ivermectin is ivermectin is ivermectin, and so being it was the only way we could access ivermectin, we accessed it through veterinary channels otherwise it hasn't been a problem I'm not I mean listen the reality is is veterinary you know you want topical iodine to disinfect something you don't buy human topical iodine you buy it from a veterinary source because you know you're gonna do the side of a cow with with iodine for good reason They can't charge you a lot 'cause cows are big. So veterinary stuff like that is cheaper, right? That's just the reality. I mean, you want rubbing alcohol, you buy it from a veterinary source, it's the same stuff, but the government doesn't care about that. But they obviously do care about the fact that Canadians were accessing veterinary ivermectin and now they can close that. So that's, So, again, it's not a pressing public concern unless you're the government and you're trying to close loopholes in anticipation if we have another COVID -19 -like pandemic. So it gets even better, well, it gets even better. So another change was is they've added a new definition into the Food and Drug Act that of "foreign entity." And it's basically defined, it would include any government agency of any country, but it's broad enough that it could include organizations like the World Health Organization. And if a foreign entity, so let's say the government of Botswana approved, So we're in another pandemic and the country of Botswana approves a vaccine for this, let's say the monkeypox. I say we're having a monkeypox pandemic. And the government of Botswana approves the monkeypox vaccine. Well, why even bother applying in Canada for approval? Because the minister felt now can just say, "Well, Botswana approved it." So So, you don't have to plan Canada, that's good enough for us, we're granting an approval. Or the World Health Organization has approved it, let's ignore all the pharmaceutical ties they have, perhaps maybe even to the company whose vaccine was approved. That's good enough for us, why bother using our own in -house expertise at Health Canada and we have expertise, we have drug approval scientists that know what they're doing. Why bother? Yeah, we're paying their salaries anyway, but will why bother have them look at it and approve it for Canada? How could that be in the interest of Canadians? Let's just agree that we can approve it here because Botswana did or the World Health Organization did. I'm not knocking Botswana, but I'm just saying it could be a country, where perhaps they don't have the expertise that Canada has, or their drug approval process is not as robust, or whatever, right? Now usually on the Economist magazine will publish each year a corruption index listing every country for corruption. And Correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, it's a rare day that there's an African country that is considered more corrupt than Canada. We're usually near the very top of the list in our corruption index. So, you know, maybe it would be better if we did, you know, if maybe we outsourced all of our drug approval to an African country because to a country they're considered less corrupt than Canada. So that might be a good thing, but I'm just using it as an example like surely to goodness. It might be positive to have a vaccine approved in other countries that you may prove in Canada, but why would we not go through the process of having our own in -house experts go through the process and have compliance with Canadian law. And, but, hey, one of the changes is, and you tell me how this is in the public interest, is, well, let's say you are going to look at some documents before you approve a drug. The new changes allow the Minister of Health to approve a drug based on portions of documents submitted to a foreign entity. So, hey, so let's relation to a country. So let's just keep using Botswana as an example. Let's say a pharmaceutical company applied to Botswana for approval of a vaccine and Botswana said no. Canada could say yes based on portions of the submission to Botswana. That's the question I was about to ask. With that, it doesn't even have to have been accepted or approved. No, no, No, not at all because somebody else made an application to have this approved. We can now on the basis of that approve it here. Based on portions of what was submitted to a foreign entity, not the whole package on portions. On what planet is that okay? Like Canadians should just be outraged, but of course they're not being told because the mainstream media, you know, which should know about The Shirley Journalists look at budget bills and see what's in there, but we're not being – and all of this is absolutely outrageous and none of it makes any sense. Well, and it is. I've got to ask, did they put any restrictions in that at all? The way it's worded, because it sounds to me, they could pluck a single page out of an unapproved application from another country and use that as justification for approving it here. - The word is portions. - Holy crap. - Well, listen, I mean, for the, there's really no health threshold for the minister to prohibit off -label use or prohibit the promotion of off -label use. Like there's a test in there, but it's so meaningless. Like there, and in fact, it even says, you know, we can totally be uncertain and you can't go after the minister. Like there's, it's total discretion. We're now in the area of tyranny again. Listen, it allows, I just spoke about adulteration, fraud, and unsafe manufacture. The changes allow the Minister of Health to exempt foods and drugs from basically our safety regulations in addition to these three protections that were in part one of the food and drug act. So why would you, why do we even have these regulations? You've given the government, because the Minister of Health is a member of cabinet, you basically given the government absolute power, so without any parliamentary supervision, the government can suspend foods and drugs from our fundamental safety laws without any any test at all to be met. That's tyranny, that's absolute discretion. Grab a dictionary, look up tyranny, it just means absolute discretion. We just view it as a negative word because absolute discretion leads to abuse, always. It's just human nature, so we've learned to have checks and balances, but in the area of our food and drug safety, why do we even have these laws now because the minister of health has absolute discretion to throw them away? And we learned in COVID, I mean, there's no digital oversight about this. I doubt you're finished, but I just have four of you as a chair to sum up where we're at. Let me know if I've missed anything. These changes that are being slipped in through the budget bill, so far we've got it's okay to fraudulently advertise a product, it's okay to contaminate it with potentially lethal contaminants, it's okay to manufacture in unsanitary conditions, you can't promote off -label use, you can't use veterinary medicines for human beings and any portion of documentation from any other country successful or not can be used as an excuse to approve it here in Canada without going through any kind of due process. Is that about what we're at? Yeah, and I'm not making this up. Like anyone can go to the government parliament website, look up Bill C69. You can get a PDF off that site of the final text that was passed. It's section 31, like, it's, it's, it's, it boggles the mind shot. And you kind of said this earlier on, if people had not sat here and listened to you for the last half hour, that 45 second summary I just gave, most people would listen to me, so this man's a ranting lunatic. They would never pass something like that. Well, that's not what they're trying to Well, I actually not trying to they did it right. This is now it's now it's now law after June, right? All right. Oh, it's no law and like it and like I say I'm you know like I Work at the NHP PA. I'm the guy there that the lawyer that does the legal analysis when stuff like this happens And it's like okay. They did it again, and so I'm just trying to objectively, okay, there's this change. There's, you know, the off -label use thing, and, oh, and you can't promote it, and, oh, they can exempt this and that, and I'm working through them, and none of them are making sense to me individually. Like, I'm, none of them make sense to me. Like, it's like, what, why the heck are they doing this? And I literally was confused. I was finished the analysis, Basically, the first draft of my discussion paper is done, and I'm confused as can be, and I'm sitting at my desk, and I'm going, "What's going on?" Like, I just, I don't understand at all where this is coming from, but I'm viewing them individually. And individually, none of them are making sense. Like, I say, off -label usage, it's just, it's not, I'm trying to figure out. Like, has there been some problem, and this is provincial jurisdiction, surely the provinces aren't going to stand. And promotion, what are we talking about here? And then what? You can allow fraudulent marketing of food and drugs. You can allow adulterated drugs on the market. It's not making sense. And then we get the foreign entity. It's like, what? And portions of documents, I mean, you can approve a drug without a full submission to yourself, you can just rely on portions of a submission given to a foreign entity. So before you give us your undoubtedly much better thought -out analysis of this than my own, I'd like you to go with a limb. I'm going to propose my own theory. And if I'm completely off base, go ahead and correct me. But I'm going to tell you what I'm reading from it, from those points that we just read off. This is big pharma protecting their prophets. To me that's what it seems to all add up to. No, because it's perspective. So I was befuddled. I'm sitting there going, "I don't get any of this. It's not that I had trouble analyzing. It's just like, "Well, where the heck is this coming from?" And then, like I say, it occurred to me, and I think it was the Holy Spirit saying, no, no, Shawn, you're looking at it individually. Look at them all as one. They're together. They're coming as a package together. And if you look at them together, then you'll understand what's going on. And when I looked at it together, it literally was, okay, if the government of Canada came to me and said, we need you to fix all of our liability holes and all of the problems we had, so that so that if we had another pandemic like COVID -19, we don't have any holes. So just think of it from a government perspective. Yes, this could shield pharmaceutical companies, but the government didn't want anyone to take anything but the vaccine. And we had all these pesky Canadians accessing Ivermectin because Doctors were telling us about it, and podcasters like yourself were getting the message out. Okay, how do we stop that? We stop doctors from promoting it, and we hammer anyone like, you know, the Iron Will Report for interviewing Dr. Pierre Corrie as an example, and I'm just picking him as an obvious ivermectin doctor. Okay, so now we've closed that loophole. Well, the government of Canada can't be liable for allowing COVID -19 vaccines onto the market that weren't safe and effective because they didn't have to be proven to be safer effective. Like normally, a new drug like that, you have to prove that it's safe and you have to prove it's effective and then once you understand the safety profile, and once you understand the efficacy profile, then and only then can you do the third part and ask yourself, is this a good idea? Do the risks outweigh the benefits? 'Cause you can't allow a drug onto the market that has more risks than benefits. You'd be committing criminal negligence, causing bodily harm or death depending on the outcome. So it's kind of this three -stage process. And if anyone wants to see where this is, it's in our drug regulations C .08 .001 and then following. That's the new drug approval process that normally the whole focus is on proving safety and efficacy. Well, the minister of health before the COVID -19 vaccines came out with an interim order exempting the COVID -19 vaccines from having to go through that process and saying, no, no, you can go through this other process. Well, in this other process, you didn't have to prove safety and efficacy. In fact, Will, you didn't even have to submit your safety data to get approval. Let me just say that again. So, for the COVID -19 vaccines, you didn't even have to submit to Health Canada your safety data, as long as you let them know how you would get to to how you were going to get them the known safety data. Yes. That was the word. How you were going to get to them the known safety data you had down the road, but you didn't need to do it to get your license to sell. You didn't need it to get approval 'cause you didn't have to prove safety. So the test, I mean, I wasn't-- Let's throw in the fact that neither did they have to tell the government what was actually in it. No, No, that's not true. So that's a separate. My understanding is that the information sheets that came with them were blank Yeah, that's a different issue. That's a that's a different issue so Let's go back to the test So the test for the COVID -19 vaccines and and I didn't know we were going there But I'll probably have it word for word because I've gone through it so many times and if it's not word for word like maybe I'll have one word off. So the test is the minister has sufficient evidence to support that conclusion and I'll just stop there and then what follows you know is the test. We're already in a world of hurt here will because we're in a subjective test. If if what follows has to be proven to the minister it should say the minister has sufficient evidence to conclude, so the minister's conclusion, the minister's Health Canada. So it should read the minister has sufficient evidence to conclude of what follows, but it says the minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, not the minister's conclusion. So we're now in a subjective test where basically let's use Pfizer as an example. So Pfizer just basically has to argue that somebody could reach this conclusion. Pfizer doesn't have to convince the minister or I would say the minister has sufficient evidence to conclude But no, we have real funny language. The minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion Not the minister's conclusion that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks having regard to the Uncertainties concerning the benefits and risks and the urgent public health emergency presented by COVID -19. The word "safety" is not mentioned. The word "efficacy" isn't mentioned. You didn't have to prove it was safe. You didn't have to prove it worked. You just had to be able to make an argument to Health Canada that the benefits outweigh the risks. You can't know the benefits outweigh the risks without proving safety and proving efficacy, which is why they put in there, having regard to the uncertainties concerning the benefits and risks. You could have had Windex approved to treat COVID -19 injected into us. And the test was mandatory. If the test was met, the Minister of Health bylaw had to grant. It was must, the minister must, if the minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks having regard to the uncertainties concerning benefits and risks and the public health emergency presented by COVID -19 which was a plus so basically you approve we're in a public health emergency if it can be argued the benefits outweigh the risks understanding we don't know the benefits and risks good we're not requiring them to prove safety and efficacy right now let's get back to because we're having a discussion. I'm answering your question. I think this is to protect the government the next time around. This is some of the government's problems. You can't sue the government for allowing the vaccine onto the market that wasn't proven to be safe and effective. But you pull up any Health Canada page, like so let's say Pfizer, the Pfizer vaccine was approved by Health Canada. So every vaccine Health Health Canada approved, they create a webpage. So you can go to the Pfizer vaccine webpage on Health Canada, and at the top of every one of them, it starts with the sentence, "All COVID -19 vaccines approved of by Health Canada haven't been proven to be safe, effective, and of the highest quality." Well, that's political messaging. But a court could very easily find that that's fraudulent, Bearing in mind that you didn't have to prove to health Canada. It was safe or effective Well, of course not and it's back. See me a larenco who approved the vaccine She was the person that health Canada had signed off on them once her team looked at it She swore an affidavit for the Bryant -Pekford federal court case the travel mandate case and She explains for two the vaccines exactly the evidence she relied on under this test and basically saying, "We had two months mean data." Well, you can't know safety or efficacy for two months anyway. Let's just ignore the fact that... Right. But based upon the clause that you quoted to us, were you pretty sure that it was the Yes, so it's very clear that was the test that was used. Nobody's arguing that wasn't... That statement at the top of the page is clearly false because there's something in that clause of any substance whatsoever. It's meaningless. Well, here's my point. You see, I've described it as political messaging, but a court could very easily conclude that was fraudulent, and you see the problem is the government of Canada and Health Canada and some officials responsible for that messaging could be held liable for fraud, both civilly and perhaps criminally, if the climate changes, the political climate changes and people demand accountability for that type of messaging. So the way to fix that the next time round, and this is the point I'm making, is well next time round the law says you can exempt anyone, including the government and health Canada and officials from liability for fraud by saying, making an order saying well you know that the promotion can doesn't have to comply with part one of the Food and Drug Act, and people aren't going to go and look and go, "Oh, that includes the fraud provision." They're not going to say you can promote it fraudulently. They're going to say, "Well, I'm exempting this drug from part one of the Food and Drug Act." They're not going to come out and say, "And here's the other thing, is the COVID -19 drugs were adulterated with dangerous substances. I mean, Health Canada doesn't even argue that. And, you know, even early on, the European agency, they were talking about how unsafe and unsanitary the manufacturing practices were. So, you see how it's a shopping list for the problems that Health Canada could be liable for for the last pandemic. So, well, we can't undo the liability for the last pandemic. That's just it. Why even go through this process of approving a drug? 'Cause the optics are bad. Why not just, oh, the World Health Organization has approved it, so we're gonna approve it. Wait, which is exactly what's happening? Or if we just can't get it through our process, well, we'll rely on portions of documents submitted to a foreign entity. Like, that's how I view it, right? Now, it could, if you exempt a drug from fraud and adulteration and that, that could also shield pharmaceutical companies potentially, because in my opinion, you know, like, let's, let's just assume, like, you and I don't have to prove it here, let's just do a hypothetical. So, let's just hypothetically say that, you know, some of the COVID -19 vaccines were adulterated, we're marketed in a fraudulent way, and we're not manufactured under safe manufacturing. Even if you had been exempted from part one of the Act and some specific safety regulations, would that absolve you in criminal court for criminal negligence, causing bodily harm or death. If you knew all of this and proceeded anyway, the government can't exempt you from harming other people under a criminal law. I just don't see it. If that hypothetical was found to be true, I don't know that that absolves you. If the political climate changed where we had a government instructing the Department of Justice and the place to look into matters like that. I don't think it would be an answer. So, I mean, you know, our criminal laws is fairly robust. I think what's happening here is we're in a political climate where there's no will, political will to actually inquire at official levels into how we've handled the COVID -19 pandemic. And I'm speculating, but likely it could be just fear like my gosh, like what's gonna happen if we do and will we lose all trust in the government going forward if we do that, right? - Yes. Now I think you've made some-- - Because what? Because, yeah, sorry. It's a really good point. And I think you're absolutely right. Yes, this is a regular government CYA going on here. But I think I'm seeing more than that. And I want to connect a couple dots. Very recently, I released an interview with Ontario lawyer, Lisa Miran, who has been watch jogging the government on the pandemic preparedness stuff, the Bill C -293, which has already gone through the first reading in the House. Actually, no, it's Actually, no, it's gone through the entire house, it's gone through the first reading of the Senate, and very likely we'll get past this fall if we don't stop it. And this Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act contains a long list of draconian statements about the rights that they want to take away from us. And I've been proposing now for the last several years that where they're going with this, with the WHO, One Health Initiative, all of this stuff, is that where they want to go to is getting back to what you were talking about, CYA, if they can get to a point where the WHO is calling the shots, now they can go and they can do anything they want and they can say, "Well, you can't hold me accountable or liable for this because we have this agreement with one health agreement with the World Health Organization that we have to do this." Okay, now hang on a minute, let's really connect the dots here because I hadn't seen this until you were just talking about this. So now we've got that clause that's already been passed into law through Bill C -69 where it says we can take any piece of any document from another country and use that as justification to allow that drug to be used here and there's the WHO's globalist control. All they have to do is get some documentation, they don't have to have it passed, just get some documentation in a country somewhere, and now suddenly, every government that's passed laws like this, and I'm sure there's others that are doing it as well, now they can take that, they can push this drug on people without testing it, and they have no liability. I think, I mean, you're talking about transnationalism, and I think that's the driver. So I don't disagree with you at all, because these changes don't make any sense if your goal is to protect the Canadian public. It doesn't make any sense at all. Well, it's not just a little bit of an extension. They're clearly counter to protecting the public. Oh, well, absolutely. I'm just being kinder in the way I'm presenting it. But the attack on natural health products, it doesn't serve the Canadian populace, so in our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau has spoken very openly about the fact that there's transnational agenda and he supports transnationalism, so you know, which is basically removing the sovereignty of countries over aspects of their governance in favour of basically groups that aren't governments and aren't accountable to people like the World Health Organization. I don't think, like none of this is a secret, that that's driving motivation. And it's just unfortunate that, you know, in the area of natural health products, we're going to lose our products. That's where the self -care framework's coming. It's all part of us arriving at the place where our health policy is dictated by organizations that seem to be unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and groups and individuals that support that type of treatment modality. So no, this isn't in our interest at all. This is why I'm on your interview. This is life and death stuff. We need our drug and food policy to serve the best interests of Canadians. In our previous interview, when we were talking about the Charter of Health Readems, you've got a solution that you're working on there to get those changes that were created by Bill C -67 reversed to give us back authority over our health products, a very effective one. Bill C -293, as I mentioned, Lisa Miran and I are working on a way to possibly get that stop before it gets to the Senate so that doesn't get approved, this, this has been passed. What do we do about this? I know you've got a plan. Yeah. Well, you know, the real, at the end of the day, well, the real plan is, and you're working on this plan every day, is to get people to start taking action themselves. Because we're only in this mess because we're not holding our leaders to account and we're allowing this to happen. And I mean there's a there's a lot of policy areas where the government has become completely adversarial to the Canadian public and we're putting up with it. And why are we putting up with it? Is it the bread and circus or is it that it's It's human nature. Like I'm still haunted by one of the witnesses we called it the National Citizens Inquiry Regina, who was a political refugee to Canada from Poland. She was involved in the solidarity movement from the very beginning, and actually ended up, she was sentenced, I think, three and a half years in by military court and served a couple of years before she was released and allowed to immigrate to Canada as a political refugee for handing out brochures that went against the government narrative and she said you know like people supported what we what we were trying to do like their solidarity movement was trying to hold strike after strike after strike to cripple the economy to force the government which was a police state to allow democracy to allow rule by the people and you know philosophically people agreed but they didn't take to the streets until the bread ran out until the strikes had crippled the economy to the point that they're getting hungry nobody's starving but they're now uncomfortable the bread ran out people take to the streets and you and I witnessed it a police state that had been there for four decades was peacefully toppled by people taking to the streets. Now they could have taken to the streets at any time during those four decades, but they didn't until the bread ran out. And is that what's gonna happen here? Do we have to wait until the cage door is shut before we start trying to get out to the cage, will we be able to get out of the cage at that point? I mean, I don't know, but I am terribly frustrated. Now, the group I'm with, NHPPA, which is just NHPPA .org, we're trying to get people to take action, and people are. Like, Will, if I can just say how proud I am about some of the things people are doing. So, I've spoken about this self -care framework where, you know, they're trying to get us totally into the drug model and it's going to decimate the industry. Well, just one of the things we do is if a health food store or business asks us for postcards and they're, you know, already has the House of Commons address, you just have to put your MP's name on in your contact particulars, there's no postage, we will send you a package of postcards and they mainly go to health food stores. Well, we have already shipped in the last year, 1 .1 million postcards, which that means that the consumer is taking these, filling in their MPs name and who they are and putting them in the mailbox. And I'm gonna encourage your viewers, if you've already done that, just keep sending them. Every time you go to the health food store, grab some more, fill them in and send them out. Like MPs, we're being told we've never gotten so much mail on any single issue and they haven't. Like I've told you we've got, you know, this MP Blaine Calkins has a private members bill that's made it into committee to undo the changes from the last budget bill, you know, with these tyrannical $5 million fines and all of this fun stuff. Well, you go to our website and you can, you know, send a letter to your MP. We've already had almost half a million letters sent. Like people are doing things. And that's why this bill got into committee. It's because there was so much public pressure. So I believe we can do it, but we need everyone to get involved. So I, you know, and, you know, and let me just say, if you're not subscribing to Will's site. Like it's people like Will that enable people like me to know what's going on so that I can make a difference. If I don't know what's happening, and you know, I often ask these people like you don't know, but like you log in beforehand and talk about what the show is, and I often ask like how are you doing? And most of these people that are serving us are living like church mice because we don't subscribe and we don't do things and it's time to start supporting the truth tellers and it's time to start writing letters and getting involved and it's not onerous. So that's the answer Will. Like plug into groups like the NHPPA you can subscribe to our newsletter. We only send out an email once a week or if even that we don't you're not going to be unsubscribing because we're flooding you. That happens to me all the time. So that's not going to happen. But if we do have a campaign, you can learn about it and then choose to plug in. So... Yes. And Shawn, I deeply appreciate your comments. But I'd like to give a little bit of a message of hope too, though, because I share your frustration. You run a Freedom Organization and HPPA .org. I run a Freedom Organization, strongandfreedcanada .org, which is different from iron will report. And yes, it can at times feel overwhelmingly frustrating because the vast majority of people will not take action on something until it directly affects them. Not that it might be about to until it's affecting them. But there are those people who will take action when they see a threat. Clearly, that's working 135 ,000 signatures ready on your, and that's paper signatures folks, that's on paper for reversing the Bill C 67 harms and turning all that around and getting back our governorship over national health products. There are enough people, but you're right, we have to get the message to them because they can't take action if they don't know. Last year, I was asked to give a speech on the importance of independent media. And it came down to this. People who have bad information tend to make bad decisions. And people who have good information tend to make good decisions. If you're listening to mainstream media, they're lying to you, you have bad information, you're probably going to make bad decisions. If on the other hand you're listening to independent media and I don't care if it's me or rebel news or bright light or whatever, Listen to somebody who's only bested interest is bringing you the truth Now you've got the truth now you can make good decisions And if we can get that truth into the hands of enough people Enough of them will take action and we can change things. Oh No, I I'm optimistic too But I mean just people have to understand they're personally responsible to turn this bus around and Taking action isn't hard. How hard is it to get postcards? How hard is it to write letters? How hard is it to support podcasters and groups financially? It's not, but you're not doing it. And so you're basically hindering your own freedom by not being involved. There's a price to freedom right now. It's not a high price, but we need you involved or it's going to become a very high price. Now talking about bringing people the truth. You and I were chatting before the interview. You were mentioned earlier, the NCI, the National Citizens' Inc., and I didn't know this, but round two was coming. Oh, yes. Thank you for reminding that. Okay, so October 17th, 18th, and 19th in Vancouver. I'm totally started the venue out, but they've decided on the dates. they're holding more hearings. And the topic this time is really broad but appropriate. And it's basically asking the question, are our children safe in Canada? No. That's broad. And you know, that could be health, that could be education, that could be legal, that could be social. I mean, it could go right down to pure bullying or whatever, and in different topics, the answer might be we're actually doing things okay. That's the thing about the National Citizens Inquiry is they just want to see what the evidence is, so they want witnesses that can say positive things, and if there's problems, they want to know what the problems are, because as always, the goal will be then not to complain about the problems but just say well we've identified these problems and here's some positive recommendations that we would suggest and this is all up the commissioners always to you know to make a difference and correct this. So you know they're very excited about this and so we're we're asking for witnesses. So you can go to the witness page if you want to be a witness, fill out a form yourself. If you think, well, wait a second, I don't want to be a witness, but what about this person or that person, whether a lay witness or expert? And again, we're not positive or negative. So if something's happening positive in an area, well, we want to know about that too, because A, that's part of the picture, and B, even knowing about positive, sometimes it's like, well, wait, yeah, but that could be applied here or there, or you could tweak it this way. Like we want it the whole picture, but the question is, is, you know, are children safe in Canada? And what more appropriate topic? Because if there's any area where we need to make positive changes, you know, I'm thinking just, you know, one witness that we had in the hearings in 2023, when the focus was on COVID, but was Irvin's student who testified about how we closed down schools during COVID. But we didn't have a program to track the kids and a large number of kids didn't return to school. And even you know you miss one year or two years, well, it can have devastating economic impact on you for the rest of your life and then your entire family, 'cause you're gonna get married and have kids. Like the point he was making is, in the very least, if we shut down the schools, we have to be tracking the kids and make sure that we get as many of them as we can coming back. Well, that's a way to protect kids and a recommendation that isn't threatening to anyone, right? And that's just using a COVID example, this topic is so broad that who knows where we'll go, but it's pretty exciting. And so if we can get your audience thinking about that and thinking about whether they want to participate. But now I have to say, so go to the nationalcitizenacquiry .ca site. So now I have to say .ca for Canada because there's another group pretending to be us, and they're nationalcitizensonacquiry .com, but that's not us, right? So I have to say .ca for Canada, that's always been the site from day one when we started it in 2022, I think it was now. So it's always been .ca, but I know of expert after expert and organization after organization, which now there's people impersonating them. It's part of the program. And it's not too hard to remember .ca. I think that means you've arrived when you're enough of a threat that you have to be imitated. Yes. Or imitation is a sincerest one with flattery over it, whichever you like. Yeah. All right. Shawn, thank you so much for this endless work that you do. And you've been at this a long time. Do you have any final thoughts, actionable items for our viewers? Well, again, I'd like to encourage everyone to go to nhppa .org. So, nhppa .org and subscribe to our newsletter. Follow us on social media. Do the same with the National Citizens Inquiry .ca because, again, there's a whole bunch. Our social media media channels, the old ones that we had started long ago, actually were stolen, so you will think it's us and it's not, but we've had different channels for a good year now. So yeah, so it's actually funny, you know, so we held hearings in Regina in June. Well, our original social media channels, can you imagine, didn't tell people about the hearings? So there'd be people thinking they're following us who weren't even told that we're holding more hearings. And, you know, it's sad and it's tragic, but you have to re -subscribe and unsubscribe to all channels. So, yeah, and just start, I would encourage everyone to understand how powerful they are. Like, you know, if you're a family a five and let's say you're you know your adults and you're all free to mind it and it's bugging you that the province you're in let's say you're in Alberta I'm in Alberta and we're still jabbing kids today with the COVID -19 vaccines and I move the opinion that that's that's quite reckless and it it shouldn't be happening. So let's say you are concerned about I'm just picking this as an example of how powerful you are, and you're a family of five. So there's five of you that would be willing to write letters. Well, let's say we have 100 MLAs, you guys call them MPPs in the East. Well, if the five of us were going to write a letter to those 100 MPs every month, just once on the first Sunday of the month, we're going to take an hour of our time and write a letter but we're gonna send it all of our MPs. Just one family but we're gonna do it every month so it's gonna you know take us two hours a month because it's a single letter but we've got to print out enough and put in each MP's name right. The address is the same it's the legislative assembly but on the computer we have to change the name of printed out a copy for each MLA or MPP if you're in the East and stuff them in the same big envelope and mail them. Well that family, every MLA will have received 60 letters on that single issue in one year and I promise you that for most issues an MLA will not receive 60 letters in total. Right, you know you get a hundred people doing that and You're getting the government's attention, and I'm just picking an issue like you don't understand How little communications there are to your elective representatives? I ran across some that don't even know Something important to me is an issue, and I just assumed they'd know about it Like you You have to make your voice heard, and you don't understand how even a little action, how much of an effect it has, and you know, people like Will and I with our groups, we try to make it easy by, you know, having form letters and mechanisms to easily do things, but, you know, this isn't that hard once you start doing it. It's like everything else. If you just make a decision, I'm going to start doing stuff. You know, it's kind of hard and awkward at first, and then all of a sudden you know what you're doing And you would be surprised like having meetings with your member of parliament or your provincial MLA They'll meet with you because you're a constituent And especially if you're coming as a group. Oh, yeah, absolutely Absolutely, but the point is you just ask unlike parting words is like understand how powerful you are and and that's how we make a difference. This is what representative government is all about. It only works if you communicate. Yes. Yes. And the communication and the power of doing it not electronically, but on paper, as you're doing with the Charter of Health Freedom's petition, we're not talking about 135 ,000 or eventually 250 ,000 e -signatures here. These are actual signatures on paper. You'd better believe the government is going to pay attention to that because it is so rare Yeah, that's why letter writing actually works because nobody does it anymore So if somebody's concerned enough about an issue to sit down and write a letter to their MP their MLA their MPP whatever They're gonna pay attention And then if you follow up that up with Myself and another group of your constituents would like to meet with you about this issue Now you've really got their attention. And you do have their attention, like, and this is the point is representative government only works if you communicate what you want. And you communicate it's a voting issue because they do pay attention. And you would be surprised how little contact they have. Yes, you would be shocked. And so the few people that do raise their voices, they're heard. Yeah. And it's, and that's part of the beauty of it. Is that it's actually on difference. Shawn, thank you so much for your time and for your endless tireless work. Well, thank you, Will. We're both doing the same thing just at different angles. Yes, we are. And they're complementary angles, so it's a pleasure to work with you, sir. Yeah, same here. Like I say, I really respect what you do. Thank you so much.