Will Dove  00:00  We may be no more than 18 months from natural health products no longer being available in Canada. Our government is building a drug model system, wherein only Big Pharma companies will be able to bring products to market. Pharmaceuticals, which are known to be harmful, or at the very least have side effects will become the only option.     Will Dove  00:24  Bill C-47 passed into law last year is only one part of this totalitarian structure. The legislative machinery Trudeau's government is putting into play to prevent us all from taking control of our own health. The shockingly extensive, they have essentially declared all out war on natural health products.     Will Dove  00:47  Lawyer Shawn Buckley founded the NHPPA, the Natural Health Product Protection Association in 2008. He's been fighting for our right to access natural health products since then. Shawn joins me in the studio today to explain the drug model, how we got here, what we can expect in the next 18 months, and most importantly, how we can push back. Push back against a fascist regime, a partnership between Big Pharma corporations and our government that is for one purpose and one purpose only, to leave us with no option other than pharmaceuticals, and a system, where the massive profits of the companies making them will be protected under Canadian law.    Will Dove  01:45  Shawn, thank you so much for coming in today.    Shawn Buckley  01:47  Will, really glad to be here.    Will Dove  01:48  And now of course, you are the founder of the NHPPA, the National Health Products Protection Association, you're a lawyer, you've been spending - you've spent years now fighting the government in this kind of thing. I know this from a previous interview we did. But let's talk today about the major effort that thereafter was with Bill C-47, which of course is no longer a Bill. It's been passed. But please give us a history of that. Where is that right now?     Shawn Buckley  02:12  So, first of all, is this one part of the self-care framework. So this self-care framework is kind of a hydro with several hands. And several of the hands will take that whole industry down just by themselves. But this is a real dangerous one. So Bill C-47, which had passed in 2023, came into force in June, is actually our federal budget Bill. Super long Bill, I don't know how much does the government spend trillions of dollars a year. It's all in the spending that has to be passed in a Bill and then the programs authorized.     Shawn Buckley  02:49  Then they snuck in there a change to the Food and Drug Act. So, sections 500 to 504, they basically included natural health products as a therapeutic product in the Food and Drug Act. Now, therapeutic product section of the Food and Drug Act was meant solely for big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck and the like, right down to $5 million a day fine. Now, you find me a natural health practitioner, like a naturopathic doctor, or natural health company that could survive a single $5 million fine, I can't think of one.     Shawn Buckley  03:25  And even per day, right, so you've got a naturopathic doctor who runs an ad for a month. Well, every day you're running that ad, you're in violation. And that's a separate fine. And everyone involved, doesn't matter if you're a corporation or not, directors, officers, employees, anyone involved, or who even acquiesces and what does that mean, in a court? You acquiesced? So does it mean you're an employee, and you know they might be violating even the smallest regulation, like, are you supposed to like put placards out in front of the police station? Or like, how do you not acquiesce if you're an employee? It's really Orwellian.     Shawn Buckley  04:08  And it also gives Health Canada a whole bunch of powers that are completely inappropriate. And of course, well, this is being done for our safety. And I have to smile, because that argument's a fraud. So, do you know that like 1 out of every 4 million Canadians a year gets struck by lightning on average?     Will Dove  04:08  I do not know that.     Shawn Buckley  04:08  Yeah. So, there's about 40 million of us now. And so roughly 10 of us a year are going to die from lightning strikes, this is just an average. So, you are hard-pressed to find a single natural health product death ever in Canada. But let's say you need to have one a year and you don't, it means that the entire industry is safer than lightning strikes. And if somebody was to come to you and say, well, you need to give up some real fundamental freedoms, because lightning is such a menace to you, there's so much risk. You just laugh. Like you'd laugh.     Shawn Buckley  05:11  So, the whole thing is a fraud. So whenever you hear Health Canada say that you need to be protected, we need stricter regulations to protect you from the dangers of natural health products, you know you're being lied to, and you're being lied to viciously. I mean, it's just so absurd, that it's vicious. And here, we're in this environment where there are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Canadians that rely on natural health products to manage serious health conditions. Because we created this drug model, where it's only legal to treat serious health conditions with dangerous chemical drugs.     Shawn Buckley  05:55  So, how many people are successfully managing arthritis, for example, using natural health products? So, they've tried all the chemical drugs, and they suffer and suffer and suffer, they (A) they're not working, (B) they have side effects. And then they find something natural that works. And they're out of the system, they're healthy, they're working again, they're going to school, they're not costing us a thing, and they want to take that away, and the amount of human suffering is going to be crazy.     Shawn Buckley  06:25  Like in fact, I could segue into a story if you want.     Will Dove  06:27  Please do.     Shawn Buckley  06:28  And that came to my mind, and this is kind of a funny story. One of the natural product companies in Canada is Bell Lifestyle Products. Well, they're supporting goods, they were supporting goods company and founder Nick Jerch, he's deceased now. But he was suffering terribly from arthritis. And he took everything his doctor prescribed. And it wasn't working. It wasn't working. And it was getting so bad that he was gonna have to shut down this business. He wasn't well enough to actually continue on with his business.     Shawn Buckley  06:59  And somebody said, well take shark cartilage. So he took shark cartilage, and it didn't work. And he runs into this fellow again. And the guy said, what did you take shark cartilage at? That didn't work? He says, no, you got to take lots and you got to take it for a period of time. So, he starts taking more in for a period of time, and he gets well. And it was transformative. So he actually resolved, I am selling shark cartilage because I want to help people.     Shawn Buckley  07:27  And it's interesting, especially at the beginning of my career, almost every single one of my clients, that was their story and how they got into the business is either themselves or a family member literally was dying, or was suffering so terribly under the mainstream system. And then they find the answer in a natural remedy, and it transforms them and they just feel morally compelled to share it. And so they start a business and then they're in my office because Health Canada is shutting them down.     Shawn Buckley  08:01  So, but you know, back to this Bell Lifestyle, and it's kind of a funny story, is this like they would sell guns to gun shops. So, at first the only place you could buy a Bell shark cartilage would be in a gun shop, right? But like now, now they're the mainstream. They got a whole line of products in their outlet stores. Like I always chuckle that at the beginning, it was like, yeah, you're buying your ammo when you're buying shark cartilage, right?    Will Dove  08:27  Now you were talking about C-47 and the $5 million a day fine. All right. So, but there's also the registration costs. Now, do they want them to go through the same process that pharmaceuticals do, which is exorbitantly expensive?    Shawn Buckley  08:41  Right, and that's a separate initiative than Bill C-47. So, Bill C-47, the budget Bill, the mischief with it is it brings us into the chemical pharmaceutical world for Health Canada having literally godlike powers. And these penalties that no one can withstand. And another thing with not being able to withstand penalties, is often Health Canada gets it wrong.     Shawn Buckley  09:07  So, I'll use nattokinase as an example, like everyone knows what nattokinase now because it's one of the frontline natural treatments for these COVID-19 vaccine injuries. But it's been used for decades and decades as a safe blood thinner. And ironically, when Health Canada took it off the market, we were suffering from problems with Pradaxa. So, one of the mainstream blood thinners had been warfarin, which is a form that we use it for rat poison but it does act as a blood thinner. But you really have to watch it and there's a fairly high-risk profile.     Shawn Buckley  09:46  But to make more money, the pharmaceutical companies came up with Pradaxa as the new blood thinner. But the problem was is if you took too much and you were bleeding out and you showed up at the emergency ward, there was no antidote. Like with warfarin, you show up and you're bleeding out, they just give you a shot of vitamin K and you're okay, it stops the bleeding. But with Pradaxa, it took them years to come up with an antidote.     Shawn Buckley  10:12  So, here we are, it's actually in the mainstream media where there's stories about ER doctors being frustrated people showing up with Pradaxa overdose, and there's nothing they can do. They're basically watching people die. And at the same time, Health Canada takes nattokinase off the market. Now, when Health Canada did this, there were a whole bunch of companies that had license applications hidden because we just come into these natural product regulations and it literally took us about 12 to 14 years to comply. And in large part because Health Canada couldn't process licenses. So, every company that had a license application in for nattokinase, Health Canada instructed, we're taking it off the market.     Shawn Buckley  10:57  A recall, a company consulted me, and I hired a medical doctor to do a risk analysis. And that doctor said, wait a second, you can't do a recall. Because there's a large number of people that are being managed by medical doctors and other doctors like naturopaths and homeopathic doctors like with nattokinase. And they need time to transition either on to other treatments or find other sources of nattokinase. Because the big joke was Health Canada will prevent any Canadian company from selling it but you were ironing what else can legally import it from the States. Like it was madness.     Shawn Buckley  11:38  But anyway, so I instructed this company not to recall, you let what's on the shelves go down. And we set posters out to every store instructing Canadian customers that they can order nattokinase from the United States and personally import it without a problem, because that's how we figured we could actually prevent there from being death and injury. Now, because of Bill C-47, I mean, a health care inspector will order you to do a recall. They don't have to go to court and ask for an injunction. They could just order you and it's a million dollar day fine to not comply with that order.     Shawn Buckley  12:18  So, you basically can't comply. Like it's dangerous. Like it's kind of ironic, but everyone would think oh, you give the regulatory body more powers and that protect us. I could give you other examples where people define Health Canada to save lives.    Will Dove  12:35  Now, everything you've just said brings to mind two questions, first, we've got this whole structure in Canada, it's not just C-47, it's a number of things that they're doing to shut down natural health products to push pharmaceuticals on everyone as the only option. And you said, well, they can order it from the States, but how they're not working on similar legislation there?    Shawn Buckley  12:55  Well, yes and no. So in the United States, they're governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Which classes, they call them dietary supplements, but they're same as our natural products, classes them as foods. So they don't need pre approval, like we do, like we will have to talk about the drug model, because it's the real mischief. So, there's a couple of nice things about this Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, this class of food so you don't need pre-approval.     Shawn Buckley  13:28  And secondly, if the FDA has a concern, like adulteration or fraud or some problem, the onus is on the FDA, to prove that the product is dangerous, they're presumed to be by law to be safe. Whereas in Canada, because we're in the drug model, they're presumed to be dangerous. And we have to overcome that hurdle.     Shawn Buckley  13:49  So, now there are some things happening in the United States. So, they have the Consumer Health Care Products Association, which is really just a pharma-front. I'm relying on Dr. Malone for this, but he had written an article about how their board of directors is really a who's who for the pharmaceutical companies. And they seem to be the front trying to undermine the freedom that the United States has. So they're supporting a couple of initiatives.     Shawn Buckley  14:18  There's a senator from Illinois, Senator Richard Durbin, who is going to reintroduce a Bill called the Dietary Supplements Listing Act. And that's going to require all the dietary supplement manufacturers to basically go through the first part of the drug approval process to provide all the information that we would have to provide here or chemical drug company would have to provide except for safety and efficacy. But all your ingredients and all of this, which is just to move them partway into the drug model.     Shawn Buckley  14:52  And this organization is also supporting an initiative, they call it a master list but in the United States, if you're going to introduce a new ingredient as a dietary supplement, so let's just use nattokinase. And then that nattokinase has been used the United States forever. But let's say it hadn't. So let's say no dietary supplement manufacturer had used nattokinase before and we realize, wait a second, we need it to treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Well, you would have to then provide the FDA with the evidence that you have to reasonably conclude that it's safe to introduce.     Shawn Buckley  15:32  So, well, you'd point out that they've been eating this soy in Japan for a thousand years, sure you're isolating it, but the amount is still less than an average meal there. And so what's the problem? Well, what they want to do is like, let's say you did that now. So, you, in the United States started selling nattokinase. You've satisfied the FDA that it's safe. I could just come along and start selling, I don't have to prove it's safe again. Because the FDA has already concluded it's safe with your application.     Shawn Buckley  16:06  But they want to make it so that everyone has to do their own safety information. That you see how that will prevent smaller players from then selling nattokinase and truncating product lines. But it's really about - because older drug legislation is about intellectual property rights. What I think's going on is, and nobody in the world has ever said this. So, Will, this is the first time, this thought and it just occurred to me last week, I was studying this last week, thinking I understood it. And then it dawned on me, wait a second, why would the pharmaceutical companies be trying to convince the FDA that if you're going to bring in a new ingredient, everyone has to do their own safety testing. And then if you were following to me, it's a way of extending intellectual property rights.     Shawn Buckley  16:56  So, most of our chemical drugs come from - if not all, come from botanical ingredients or ingredients found in animals, some plants or animals. So, like aspirin, there's a molecule in white willow bark that is almost identical to aspirin. All that happened was they took that molecule, they tweak it, to make a different, and then you patent it.    Will Dove  17:28  Because of course, you can't patent the white willow bark.    Shawn Buckley  17:29  You cannot patent a natural molecule. So, you patent it, then you go through the expensive new drug approval process, the chemical drug process. And then when you're done, no one can copy your drug unless they pay you a license fee, which you may or may not even be willing to grant. But what happens if you found this really magical molecule like I mean, it works. But maybe you've got a problem? Maybe it's just too difficult. It's complex molecule. And it's too difficult to manufacture when you've tweaked it. Or maybe when the tweaking, you can manufacture it, but it's truly dangerous.     Shawn Buckley  17:30  Like back to aspirin, had probably hundreds of millions people on the planet Earth taking a baby aspirin a day, because it actually, apparently does reduce your risk of heart disease. But even that small amount has a pretty high-risk profile. A lot of people have bleeding, gastrointestinal problems, and very serious, and I can't confirm that there's likely even deaths each year from that protocol.     Shawn Buckley  18:39  Well, the British government did a study comparing white willow bark to baby aspirin and concluded white willow bark has the exact same benefit for reducing heart disease, zero of the gastrointestinal bleeding and other problems. Well, let's say, you've got this magic molecule, and you tweaked it, and the danger profile's just too high. So the natural one works great. But you do your animal studies here, kill an animal so you can't even get to the human studies. Well, now you're in the dead end, and you just put it in your vault.     Shawn Buckley  18:55  And how many of these are in the pharmaceutical company vaults, Will. I'd love to know. You got to know because this is what they do. They find the natural molecules. They determine, oh, no, this works. And then how do we turn it into a drug that we can patent but when you can't, for whatever reason, it goes into your vault. This is what the change is going to be.     Shawn Buckley  19:33  So, like let's say there's a magic molecule for arthritis. Well, right now in the United States, you have to prove it's safe. But this truly is something that hasn't been in the food supply. You've got it in the United States, you've got it from Amazon jungle, and you've isolated it. You're going to have to run out an animal safety studies and then you're going to have to run sizable human safety studies. And what's that going to cost you? 100 million? 200 million?     Shawn Buckley  20:02  So, now you provide that to the FDA and they go, oh my gosh, you've proven to me this is safe. And anyone can copy. Because the FDA has already concluded it's safe. But if no one can copy, now in Pfizer, will now introduce it into the market. First of all, it's going to take a couple of years if anyone else decides to do the safety studies to get it set up, and run, they've got to isolate the thing, they've got to run the studies.     Shawn Buckley  20:03  So, I've got two or three years, just at the get go. Well now I have an intellectual property rights protecting me. And no small players will do it anyway. So, now only the big pharmaceutical companies who do it. You still have a quasi monopoly, you're competing against maybe five products copying you, instead of 500 or 5000. So, it's all about intellectual property rights. And you're the first one to hear that in the world.     Will Dove  20:58  And thank you, because that makes a great deal of sense. But let me ask this question then because as we've been discussing, in the US, if one company goes out and does all those studies, well, now the FDA will say, okay, great! If this works, you don't have to do a study - and I have to ask this to you. Everything else has to do with it. So, it leads me to this question.    Shawn Buckley  21:24  We did develop a monograph system. And I predicted that before our regulations came in force. We're going to come up with the mirafi system. So, you want to make vitamin C, you just make it according to the monograph and safety and efficacy is there. Like there's some rationality to it, but the drug model is the mischief and if you want me to explain the drug model...     Will Dove  21:45  And that was going to be my next question.     Shawn Buckley  21:47  Well let me finish the other one. So we were talking about the situation in the United States.     Will Dove  21:53  My only question, Shawn, was this, what is the difference between the relationship, between the government and the US and Big Pharma? And the relationship between government Canada and Big Pharma, that leads to that situation?    Shawn Buckley  22:07  Okay, so first of all, the only reason they have the freedom they have in the United States under this Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act is because there was a citizen rebellion. So, what happened in both Canada and the United States is, we get into this drug model in 30s, both countries, so our Food and Drug Act, really the structure and form in 1930s. Then the whole Western world, this is all coordinated.     Shawn Buckley  22:35  So, we move into this drug model. But we've already largely gotten rid of our naturopaths, and homeopathic doctors that like, we've used this Flexner Report and in various countries, we've extinguished or beaten down those traditions. So, we've now created this model where it's - which we'll explain later, where it's only legal to use chemical drugs to treat serious conditions.     Shawn Buckley  23:01  And then, in the late 70s and 80s, that's how the products have become popular. Like, I don't even remember as a kid even seen a health food store. Definitely not in a mall.     Will Dove  23:15  No, in fact, I'm almost 60, when I was young, that was quackery.     Shawn Buckley  23:22  Oh, yeah, no, absolutely.     Will Dove  23:23  And people started to figure out wait a minute, it's actually because you do an official drugs that are harmful. And yes, as you say, it had started to change and people started to realize.     Shawn Buckley  23:31  The culture changed. So like now, any big malls got at least one health food store. Well, when I was growing up, not at all. I don't think I even heard the word naturopathic doctor, homeopathic doctor till I was in my 30s. So this is exploding. Pharmaceutical companies are panicking. And we have in the United States and Canada all of the sudden, Health Canada and the FDA, putting company after company out of business, saying you have to comply with these chemical drug regulations, which have nothing to do with your risk profile, and have nothing to do with your type of product. I can mean, here put a square peg in a round hole. But the object was to get rid of them. And citizens rebels.     Shawn Buckley  24:15  So, in the United States, the rebellion was so big. Congress held hearings and came up with this Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. And now it's been undermined. And in Canada, we have our citizen rebellion in 1998, was when it was culminated. Ironically, even talk about cost recovery, health minister at the time was Allan Rock and they were bringing in cost recovery.     Shawn Buckley  24:41  And what that is is just charging fees to apply for license, charging fees for the privilege of having a building where you manufacture or label or distribute. And there was a lawsuit against this and on the eve of the lawsuit and the government was going to lose because at the time you couldn't impose fees by regulation, though that's been changed in our federal laws. But back then you couldn't and they were trying to do this by regulation.     Shawn Buckley  25:08  So, the day before the lawsuit, he back down, held a press conference said, we're not going to end with this. And he referred the matter to the Standing Committee, on Health. And that's just an old party committee that deals with health issues in the House of Commons. And he asked them, you tell the government, how should we regulate natural health products? And that committee held the broadest consultations likely to-date in Canadian history. I think there were over a thousand submissions and testimonies. And they came out with a much recommendations, which were awful. But still, their core message was, don't treat them like drugs.     Shawn Buckley  25:50  So, two core messages, do not regulate them like chemical drugs, that's completely inappropriate. And Canadians want increased access, like don't pretend they're dangerous. We're not buying that. So they're non dangerous, people want. So, Health Canada figure out how to give them increased access, and don't regulate them as drugs.     Shawn Buckley  26:10  So Health Canada put together a transition team to recommend, well, how do we do with the sanctity of health once the transition team came up with recommendations that Health Canada hated. So, they just sat for a couple of years, assembled another team to give them advice, and that team gave them what they wanted and we moved into a drug model with some concessions. So yeah, but in the United States, they have that freedom because of that citizen rebellion.     Will Dove  26:42  All right. So, this leads me then with my next thought that jumps into my head, rush, I'm getting ahead of myself, because it was a question I was going to ask you before. So the threading model?    Will Dove  26:42  It is key, it's the key.    Will Dove  26:54  Before we get to that, let's talk about - because you said earlier, right? So if the key is nattokinase, put up posters, you can for those from the US, and they've set up such a system that if you are a retailer or a naturopath, no one can do that.     Shawn Buckley  27:12  Oh, no, it's a personal use.     Will Dove  27:14  But an individual can, a member of the public. Do you see any legislation that's in there right now that could be coming that would shut that down as well?    Shawn Buckley  27:23  Well, okay, so first of all, we know that the end goal, and we really know this, the end goal is to put us in a position in Canada, where we do not have access to natural remedies that work. And then we're locked into this drug model. So a couple of things that have been happening over the years. So the first one is, is that it's true that an average Canadian can order whatever they want from the United States providing like, order cocaine or something, it can't be prohibited. But a natural health product that isn't available in Canada, you can order from the United States for your personal use. And so Health Canada as a policy, well, the way we figure that out is three months supply. Which is itself is crazy, because I know it'll bite you back. It's got a long shelf life, I'd rather just patient being ones but anyway, that's the policy.     Shawn Buckley  28:21  But when a package hits the border, and border services realizes it has to do with a drug and natural health product is a drug. They ask Health Canada, what do you want us to do with this? Should we let it in or should we not? And a lot of shipments get turned away. And not only do they get turned away, but the things get opened and the seals pierced. So, shipper after shipper, company after company in the United States will not ship in Canada because they're just tired. You're a manufacturer at a certain percentage, even if it's a small number coming back, you can't really restock it because you've lost control over the product. You've got to refund the customer and it's an administrative headache for you. It's just Canada's too small market.     Shawn Buckley  29:12  So, we have lost access to a wide range and that's increasing and increasing and increasing. And border services is changing, like before, let's say you wanted to, you know, last time it happened with me is as I was ordering medium for my whole house water filtration system. And I'd use a customs broker and we clear through their account and I just pay them but it's switching to now where everyone else has to have their own bonded account with Health Canada. You can't rely on a customs broker. Where it is, is that it's going to have to be tied to digital currency. Interesting isn't it? And they're making it tougher for things, I know that they want to close that door and I am surprised they haven't already amended the Food and Drug Act to basically prohibit personal importation. But it's gotten a lot harder.     Will Dove  29:12  Right? Alright, we've alluded to it, we've been dancing around it, let's get to the drug model.    Shawn Buckley  29:17  Yeah, the drug model is the key.     Shawn Buckley  29:21  The drug model is the key. We have to get out of the drug model. And I'm going to say that our drug regulation has nothing to do with health. It has zero to do with health. And I'll start by explaining the drug model. And a little bit about the drug approval process. And Canadians will begin to see that the biggest fraud perpetrated on a Canadian is our drug loss.     Shawn Buckley  30:44  So, because if you were wanting to have good health outcomes, you wouldn't start by saying, well, let's make the law such that it's only legal to use novel chemicals that have a patent. Like if you and I, and we got a group of people, it doesn't matter, we could get a group of plumbers in. They don't have to be health experts. And we said, well, okay, we've got to come up with Canada's drug policy. Why don't we make it a policy that you can only treat serious health conditions with novel chemicals, they haven't even been invented yet.     Shawn Buckley  31:19  But once that can be patented, we'd all go, that's crazy. Even though we're not health experts, we'd go - but that's what we've done. And we've done it through the drug model, and this whole Western world has done it. And it's all by design, and it's all to protect intellectual property rights. But you really have to study it to see it.     Shawn Buckley  31:38  So, it's got three main parts. So, the drug model first is, is you define drugs so broadly that it includes anything used for therapeutic purpose. So, I joked with you earlier that you look dehydrated, do you want to drink some water? I just made water a drug because I suggested that you use water for therapeutic purpose.     Shawn Buckley  32:04  Thank goodness, I'm in your studio, you're not at my house, and I'm not offering you the water because the number of laws I will have broken, I wouldn't have had a site license, I wouldn't have verified the safety and efficacy with Health Canada through the licensing process. I don't have good manufacturing processes, practices, like the number of $5 million a day fines that I could be subjected to. Now, because Bill C-47 is just astronomical, I'd be destroyed.     Shawn Buckley  32:29  But I'm just making the point. Drug is defined so broadly, it includes anything used for therapeutic purpose, anything - chemical, natural, anything. The next thing you do is, okay, well, we'd need anything therapeutic as a drug. The next part of this model is as you make it illegal to sell any drug without government pre-approval in the form of the license. So just think about this first. So we've been using ginger tea to treat nausea, for what, 2000 years?     Will Dove  33:00  Or at least?     Shawn Buckley  33:01  At least, at least 2000 years and likely longer. So, all of a sudden in the 30s when we move into this drug model, it is now illegal to use ginger tea to treat nausea without government pre-approval. Yes, it's illegal to use water to treat dehydration without government permission. So, you define anything therapeutic as a drug, number one. Two, you make it illegal to use any drug without government pre-approval. And three, and this is where the intellectual property rights come in. We've done it for serious conditions, only what we're doing now with the self-care framework is expanding, that's all conditions.     Shawn Buckley  33:40  But for your lifetime, you see, you're just about 60. For your entire lifetime, it has been illegal to treat any serious health condition, heart disease, cancer, depression, bipolar disorder, arthritis, and erectile dysfunctions in there too, that is in because it's too much money so it's a serious one. And so, it's been illegal to treat any serious health condition with anything but a chemical pharmaceutical drug, because to get licensed for a serious health condition, you have to go through what's called the new drug approval process. And Will, the last time I had an expert on the stand, so under oath, and I could ask, well, how much does it cost to get through the new drug approval process nowadays, without blinking a billion dollars?    Will Dove  34:29  That's in Canada?     Shawn Buckley  34:30  That's in Canada.     Will Dove  34:31  They said a billion dollars to do that in Canada?    Shawn Buckley  34:33  Yeah. And that's just likely an average cost. I mean, you can do it for hundreds of millions. I mean, a simple application you should be able to do for hundreds of millions. But what it means is, is in your lifetime, you're almost 60, there's only been one drug that didn't have a patent that's gone through that process, and that was sponsored by government. So, for all intensive purposes, because it's illegal to use a drug that isn't approved by the government, and the government creates a system, where if you don't have a patent, you will go through it.     Shawn Buckley  35:07  Even let's say it only costs 200 million, we've got a simple application, well, you won't go through that process because as soon as you get approval and you don't have a patent, anyone can just piggyback. They don't have to do the studies. So they can do while you've already it's proven to be safe and effective, I'm gonna make it exact same molecule as them, exact same dosage, exact same instructions, bang! You're at it, right?     Shawn Buckley  35:34  Like I like to use Viagra as an example. Like, remember when Viagra was approved. There were new stories about how expensive a single pill cost. Like you'd be - back in the 80s, or whatever, like 20 bucks a pill or something. And like it had been $100 a pill now. And Pfizer could charge that because they had a patent. So they get through the new drug approval process, they get approval to sell, no one can compete with them, so they can charge whatever they want.     Shawn Buckley  36:02  Well, now the patents run off, that generic name is Sildenafil. And it costs nothing now because there's people competing with them. So, it would be more honest, if we amended the Food and Drug Act and just explicitly said, in Canada it is illegal to treat a serious health condition with anything but a chemical drug that had a patent when it went through the drug approval process, because that's our reality. So, we don't say yet. But that's our reality.     Shawn Buckley  36:32  So, you tell me how we have good health outcomes, when we've made it law. We've made it law, that you can only treat yourself conditions with chemical drugs that had a patent. Now, what's happening with the self-care framework is they're lowering the bar to medium and minor health conditions to make it so expensive and so onerous to get through the approval process. That we're going to lose all our natural products, because we can't afford to go through it.     Shawn Buckley  37:03  And that's why it's important to understand the drug model, because it's a complete fraud. Can I just segue into, so, oh, we have to have sizable double-blind clinical trials. And that's how we know a drug works. And we call it, we've named the audacity to call it a gold standard. Like in the industry, oh, that's the gold standard, that's the gold standard. Everything in our life is a lie.     Shawn Buckley  37:35  I'm running a trial, actually, in Calgary rural places, this is like 15 or 20 years ago, a federal court trial and expert after expert after expert. And one of the experts that I had, on my side was Dr. Bonnie Kaplan, who ran the Behavioral Research Unit at Children's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, has a Behavioral Research Unit to basing Children's Hospital. What she rarely do is, things like double-blind clinical trials. And she'd been running that for decades.     Shawn Buckley  38:07  So, here we've got a person who is a complete expert in running clinical trials and getting drugs approved and and research. And she said, well, do you know why they say the double-blind clinical trials are a part of the gold standard is, there's an assumption that it's not going to overstate the results. Because we've got placebo group, we've got the control group, and it's not going to overstate any results. And she said, but there's actually a whole body of research into different research designs, and according to that research, that's not even true.     Shawn Buckley  38:50  So, here, we've adopted that model, because it's so expensive. And so you've got to provide Health Canada with couple large double-blind clinical trials, showing that the drug works. And just to explain how this is a fraud on the Canadian public, because the drug companies get to design their trials. I had another Health Canada file where I'm cross examining Health Canada and hired a private expert. And this gentleman was a psychiatrist that managed a company that got in drugs for mental illness through the new drug approval process.     Shawn Buckley  39:34  And the guy's under oath. I'll have a transcript of this over, he's under oath. And he starts complaining to me about the process. And he starts inventing. And he starts saying, on a new antidepressant, I'm going to get them two double-blind clinical trials showing that the drug works. So meaning there's a statistical separation. There's like a magic formula if we can cross this statistical separation, we pretend that it means it works.     Shawn Buckley  40:03  Well, I have run - this is the expert, he says I gotta get him two of these showing it works. Right out of the gate, I run eight. Can I say that again? He's got to get two, to show that it works. He's telling me under oath. Well, right out of the gate, I run eight to get the two. So, the other six could show the sugarpill work better than the - he doesn't have to show Health Canada those. He runs eight to get the two. Then do you see the fraud here?     Will Dove  40:37  Absolutely.     Shawn Buckley  40:38  You know, if your system was, you got to have two sizable double-blind clinical trials and you wanted an honest drug approval process, then you would have the pharmaceutical company approach Health Canada and say, what's going to be the cost to run these two trials? Here's the money, Health Canada would have somebody design the trials, it would be up for public comment so that people can determine that the trial design is a fair design for the outcome you want.     Shawn Buckley  41:07  And then Health Canada would contract with independent people, groups to do the clinical, then you would have honest drug approval. But you wouldn't have many drugs getting through the drug approval process, which in itself, tells you what the problem is.    Will Dove  41:24  And as you said, everything's a lie. And I wanted to point out, highlight, something you said just a few minutes ago, because it might just slip past some people. It was extremely significant. Talking about these double-blind studies, this suppose gold standard, which of course they're not. We know that there's all kinds of ways to fudge the results from those things, and has been done, and is continuing to be done.     Will Dove  41:44  That what you said was - because you just exposed, it's a complete fraud. Why have they brought that in as the gold standard? And you said this, I'm listening, I'm going to try to repeat all words, because it costs so much.     Shawn Buckley  41:57  Oh, absolutely.     Will Dove  41:58  Surreal prices, anybody except Big Pharma out of the market?    Shawn Buckley  42:03  Absolutely. It's what economists refer to as rent-seeking, and political scientists referred to as corporatism or fascism. So, an economist will look at this and go, well, what happens is, and anyone can just google rent-seeking, is the government will bring in ever stricter regulations that up the cost, the big players in the industry will support it, because they know it'll drive the competition out. And you end up with a handful of big players that are paying huge fees to the regulator.     Shawn Buckley  42:35  So, the regulator loves it, they get to grow. And the big players love it because it creates a quasi monopoly. And as a political scientist would refer to that as corporatism, where the interests of government and industry are now intertwined and synergistic. And Mussolini would say no, a better term than corporatism is fascism. So, it's been no longer what's good for the people. It's what is good for the government and corporations in this. But no, I mean, it's deliberate. How can it cost a billion dollars in average to get through this process?     Shawn Buckley  43:14  Now, I'm thinking, firstly, I think it shouldn't be strict for novel chemicals that have never been in the human body that you can't just introduce that. But when we're talking about ginger tea, no, now that's a totally different cattle of fish. So, the effect of imposing the same standards and opposing the same process on natural products is just to drive them off of the market. And then if, again, we're looking for good health outcomes, but don't tell me about risk because remember, lightning is more dangerous than all the natural products in Canada.     Shawn Buckley  43:52  Well, what's the health consequences of removing natural health products from the market? We'd use shark cartilage as an example earlier. Well, if you're going to take shark cartilage away, what do we have like quarter million people managing arthritis successfully on shark cartilage? We probably actually have more than that in Canada. What's gonna happen to them? What's the health consequence? Because now they're gonna have to segue into these chemicals because it's illegal to use the chemicals. And we know that chemical pharmaceutical drugs have an extremely high-risk profile that are actually hidden from the government.     Shawn Buckley  44:25  I remember going to a health conference, I was speaking in Toronto years ago and meeting Professor Ron Law from New Zealand and he's a risk analysis expert. And he's doing a presentation and he's explaining how 5 of the 10 top leading causes of death in all the Western nations are connected to chemical pharmaceutical drugs, including highly preventable medical errors. And taking the drug as prescribed, like they're not even abusing the drug.     Shawn Buckley  44:53  But he says, some of those are actually hidden by the way the statistics in all Western nations are kept and the excuses as we don't know how to classify them, even though every Western nation classifies them the same way. So again, but he had done a study showing that using Canadian government statistics that for every 10 year age group in Canada, except for one, the most dangerous thing you could do would be go to your, like, riskier than anything else you do in your life is to drive to a doctor's office. And it's not because of the car right there.    Will Dove  45:27  No, it's not and we know that, as far as I know, iatrogenic deaths, which is death by a doctor, death by hospital I believe statistically the third leading cause of death in Canada. But there's theories of boundary that if we had actual accurate statistics, it would be number one.     Shawn Buckley  45:43  Right. Well, it is apparently whenever doctors go on strike, the death rate goes down. And as soon as the strike's over, it goes back to where it was.     Will Dove  45:52  Yeah, and I want to jump in with what you said maybe 15 or 20 minutes ago, because perhaps more than anything, that one comment reveals the hypocrisy in this entire system. Because you were talking about, we were discussing my age, so you've spent 60 years now that every single drug in Canada has had to go through this approval process. Except one, which is?     Shawn Buckley  46:17  Oh, I forgot, it's on top of my head.    Shawn Buckley  46:19  I'm ready to take on that, on the COVID-19 drugs, if you want to talk about that. So the new drug approval process in our Drug Regulations begin at C.08.001. And in the recent justice in Canada that keeps it, they're easy to find. And what you'll notice is when you get to the section in that, so C.08.001, when you have start providing information to the Minister, even the beginning says, is to enable the Minister to assess safety and efficacy. And you have to provide I think the word is substantial evidence of the safety studies and detailed evidence of efficacy.     Shawn Buckley  47:11  So, the whole focus, leaving aside that the whole thing is a fraud anyway, at least on paper, the focus is efficacy and safety. And then it's not written into - it's not a written requirement. But the third requirement is, once you understand the safety profile, and this is a process meant for chemical drugs. Well, chemical drugs are never totally safe. So, it's kind of a sliding scale of safety. It's like, this might be quite dangerous, but for a subset of the population, it works. So we'll restrict it by having a for prescription and at least in the drug approval mind, the condition that it can be used for.     Shawn Buckley  47:57  But once you understand the safety profile, and once you understand the efficacy profile - this work, this does not work, then and only then and this is a logical truth, then and only then can you do a cost benefit analysis. Cost to safety, how dangerous is this? Benefit is, how much does it work really? You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without knowing the safety profile. And without knowing the efficacy profile, it is impossible. You can't! It's a logical fallacy to pretend that you can.     Shawn Buckley  48:30  So, regular drug approval process, safety, efficacy, once you understand that, do the benefits outweigh the risks? Because if the benefits don't outweigh the risk, you're committing, international and Canadian, you're into criminal law. You cannot approve a drug if the risks don't outweigh the benefits. If it leads to harm or death, you've committed homicide and criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. So, you can't. We don't even have to write it into our law. Because our criminal law presumes that - an international criminal law presumes that we are a treaty - member to and obligated to.     Shawn Buckley  49:08  Well, what happened with COVID-19 drugs is about a month before the first two filings, and one of them was Pfizer, I forget now off the top of my head who the other first two filings was, but only about a month before. So, which I already told you the drug companies knew what the test was going to be because it's quite a lot of work to prepare these submissions. So, the whole thing was gained beforehand. The minister exams COVID-19 drugs which would include the vaccines from this regular drug approval process, and puts in through interim order a new test.     Shawn Buckley  49:47  Now, there's some really interesting things. So remember, in the regular process, you have to provide substantial evidence of safety and detail - things on efficacy. Well, here you only had to provide with the known evidence of safety and efficacy. You'll know, wait a second, that's pretty loosey-goosey. But you didn't even have to provide the known. There was another clause saying, well, if you don't provide the known evidence on safety and efficacy, you do have to tell us how you're getting that to us later.     Shawn Buckley  50:22  So, can you imagine, you don't even have to provide the safety and efficacy information because it just says provide the known information, then everyone's gonna have every pharmaceutical company is gonna have some information on safety and efficacy. But you don't have to provide that. You just have to tell them well, how you're going to get it to them in the future? And of course, you don't have to provide it. Because you don't have to prove safety and efficacy. And in fact, the word safety and efficacy are not even in the test.     Shawn Buckley  50:54  So, the test and this is probably an exact quote. So, it reads - so let's say you're Pfizer, and you're applying to get your COVID-19 vaccine approved under this interim order. It starts, the minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion and then I just have to stop there. So, the Minister is Health Canada, it's not the Minister of Health doing it personally. But if Pfizer had to prove to Health Canada, what follows, it should read, the minister has sufficient evidence to conclude, not, to support the conclusion. But why does it - let's say the minister has sufficient evidence to conclude, blah, blah, blah, okay, you got to prove what follows to Health Canada. No, you don't have to prove what follows to Health Canada, the minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.     Shawn Buckley  51:48  So now, really, the minister have sufficient evidence to understand you're making a cogent argument about what follows. No proof here. So, this is important. So, the minister has sufficient evidence to support the 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. Safety's not mentioned. Efficacy isn't mentioned.     Shawn Buckley  52:20  Now there's risk-benefit analysis. So, support the conclusion, the benefits outweigh the risks, well, wait a second. Remember, if you don't understand the safety profile, and you don't understand the risk profile, you can't do a risk-benefit analysis. It's impossible. It's logically impossible. I don't know if it's safe. And I don't know if it's effective. How do I do a risk-benefit analysis, but even built into that is uncertainty.     Shawn Buckley  52:47  So, in the normal drug approval world, if you don't have an understanding of it being safe, go away and come back when you have that information. If you can't show it works, like you don't get a license. But listen, so the minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties concerning the benefits and risks. Now, I have to tell you, this is a mandatory test. Health Canada must approve if this is met.     Shawn Buckley  53:22  So, writing the test, well, you don't have to convince Health Canada of everything, you just have to make the argument the benefits outweigh the risks. Oh, but Health Canada, you have to understand and legally have regard to the uncertainties concerning the benefits and risks. And continues on and the public, urgent public health emergency presented by COVID-19. So, you also have to assume that everyone's dying of COVID-19. And this is a mandatory test.     Shawn Buckley  53:49  If using Pfizer as an example, if Pfizer can argue the benefits outweigh the risks, oh, yeah, but it's all fuzzy the benefits and risks. But look, there's an urgent public health emergency it's presumed by loss, right in the test, you have to approve Health Canada. I don't know how you couldn't get windex approved, injectable Windex.    Will Dove  54:10  Well, I have to say from the language of it, and I'm no lawyer, but to conclude versus to support the conclusion, that sounds like a liability avoidance wording to me.     Shawn Buckley  54:22  Well, Health Canada is not liable. They have to approve. And they're being told, like by law, you have to assume there's a public health emergency requiring and if you're totally unsure about the benefits and risks, you still have to prove if Pfizer can argue cogently the benefits outweigh the risks based on this 100,000 paid submission that they've submitted to you that you don't even have the personnel to understand.     Shawn Buckley  54:47  And then Health Canada has the audacity, like so, for every COVID-19 vaccine they approved, I haven't checked this month but from the very beginning until the last time I checked, which will be a couple of months ago, it starts with the settings. So like, we're using Pfizer as an example, there's a Health Canada webpage for the Pfizer vaccine. And they all start with all COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have been proven to be safe, effective and have the highest quality. Now, in my opinion, that's absolute fraud.     Shawn Buckley  55:26  So, the public messaging has been completely unfair, because if people were told, it hasn't been proven to be safe, it hasn't been proven to be effective, and we've assumed you're all dying. And by law, we have to basically approve anything that can be where it can be argued, based on the submission, the benefits that were it's truly a political direction to approve.     Shawn Buckley  55:50  Now, let's talk about the conflict of interest that the Minister of Health was in. So normally, like you and I can't import a drug that is not approved into Canada, because the worry is we're going to sell it under the table or that - so it's illegal. Well, here we have the minister, the Government of Canada purchasing tons of vaccine. Like, are they spending a billion dollars? Are they spending two billions? Are we just in the hundreds of hundreds of millions? They're distributed across the province, the interim order gives them the authority to do this. So it's exempting them from that prohibition.     Shawn Buckley  56:25  So here, you've got the Minister of Health, or the Government of Canada, it wasn't the Minister of Health that bought it and import it, the Government of Canada. So, we're talking to the federal government cabinet has purchased and distributed all this vaccine to the provinces waiting for the Health Canada approval. So the queen has purchased and imported on much of drugs while she was waiting for herself to approve them. You know, in my world, that's conflict of interest, like the whole thing is shocking.    Will Dove  56:56  Yes, it is. So Shawn, I want to get back to the natural health products, because you've given us a really good picture of yes, it's all just a big lie. It's this huge machinery of coercion and deception, profit mongering, protection of the Big Pharma.    Shawn Buckley  57:15  And I was being kind today.     Will Dove  57:16  Yes, I know. We both are. But what I wanted to ask is, and we're sitting here doing this interview in April 2024, as we said that Bill C-47, was passed last year, and that should have been one part of this whole construct. Where are we at right now? You've already said, and you can't get your hands on nattokinase anymore.     Shawn Buckley  57:36  No, you can, you can, they've relented.     Will Dove  57:39  They've relented. Okay. So, where are we at right now, in terms of what people can get, what they can't get, and how fast you see things progressing to the point where we can't get natural health products anymore?    Shawn Buckley  57:50  That's a good question. Because actually, my advice to people now is if you depend on stuff, I mean, you stock up for years. So, I think we're about 18 months out to the train wreck, but we're already going to start losing products. So, for example, another aspect of the self-care framework is they're going to start charging us the fees that they charge the chemical drug companies. Like the self-care framework, the whole idea is forget that you're safer than lightning, forget that it's not appropriate to impose a chemical drug model on you, we're going to bring you into 100% harmonization with over the counter drugs. And that includes paying the fees that chemical drug companies pay.     Shawn Buckley  58:34  So, there's a set of regulations, the fee for Drug Regulations. And how we pass regulations in Canada is as you publish them into Canada, because that one, you wait for comments. And then you may or may not adjust based on those comments, and then you publish in Canada Gazette II and now the regulations. You know, if they can say come into force on a specific date, or whatever, but it's as simple as that.     Shawn Buckley  58:59  So, Health Canada had published in Canada Gazette I last year, basically fees that were 100% of what the chemical drug companies pay. Now, I used to be in government. And I know and I've said this publicly, of course, they tell us the big fees, and then to make it palatable, they'll come back later and it'll just be a fraction of the fees. And we'll go okay, we can live with that. And then they're just going to ramp them up once we accept cost recovery, which we can.     Shawn Buckley  59:33  So, there was a meeting with Health Canada in the industry that I attended two weeks ago, where Health Canada is basically saying, well, we're going to impose smaller fees and then over seven year period wrap you up, you're still going to be last but we know after that it's - but even on the smaller fees that they were saying. It's clear that - like so a traditional Chinese doctor needs about 800 remedies, whole scope of practice, and there's no supplier in Canada that will survive a licensing fee for 800 products. Like even when you get through licensing, which they won't. Because of another part of the self-care framework, you have to pay a yearly licensing fee.     Shawn Buckley  1:00:15  For homeopathic doctor, I think it's like 5000 products. So, those two healing traditions will be gone. Now, this cost recovery doesn't come in now until 2025. So, the end of 2025. But on that call, there was some manufacturers saying, well, we're already going to phase out some products, and some lines. And some are considering quitting Canada altogether. And just on those lower fees, like I mean people were throwing around figures. These are manufacturers, so I'm losing 40% away of products, I'm losing 90% away of products.     Shawn Buckley  1:00:50  So, some of those, like some new products that are already not going to come out, why would you bother when you know that by the end of next year, you're not a viable business anymore. But while there's other things happening in the self-care framework at the same time. So, I think at the most, we're 18 months out to where it's a total train wreck, but we will already be starting to feel it on the margins, it won't be so obvious yet. And what I think's going to happen is I think the industry is going to be decimated, and the citizen is going to not accept it. And we've got a multi-year struggle on our hands to get our sovereignty over our bodies back and to get these healing traditions back.     Shawn Buckley  1:01:37  But in the intro, Health Canada, it's just they're like, they have blinders on. I think they're getting direction from above and outside of Canada. And this has a lot of momentum.    Will Dove  1:01:50  Right. So last question, Shawn. What can we as Canadians do, to push back to try to save our access to natural health products?    Shawn Buckley  1:02:00  Right, because we all can't move to other countries, can we?    Will Dove  1:02:02  No, we can't.     Shawn Buckley  1:02:03  Oh, okay, so...     Will Dove  1:02:03  But that would be easier, wouldn't it?    Shawn Buckley  1:02:06  Well, okay, so, and I helped form in 2008, the Natural Health Products Protection Association, which is a nonprofit that's just solely dedicated to protecting our health rights with particular emphasis on natural health products. I'd love to drive people to our website nhppa.org, subscribe to our newsletter because that's how we tell you what's happening. So, we've got campaign after campaign after campaign.     Shawn Buckley  1:02:34  So, I helped draft a wide - I've done a draft for Blaine Calkins of a Bill to repeal the section of Bill C-47. He tweaked it and introduced it as a private member's Bill, and we're running a campaign. We just learned, I think it was this morning, that's coming up for a second reading on April 11. So, by the time this is out, that campaign will have run, but we have campaign after campaign, and we're trying to build an army to basically force parliament to relent on this. So, that basically, no seat is safe. You know, unless you're on this issue.     Shawn Buckley  1:03:08  So, and this is life and death, it all comes down to ownership. It all comes down to ownership. If I can just throw it and the interesting thing is in plants, if you have a genetic modification in the plant, the person that owns the patent to that genetic modification, has a property interest in the plant.     Shawn Buckley  1:03:32  So, let's say you're growing a non-GMO, or you're growing canola that's not genetically modified, and all the fields around you, it's genetically modified and pollen from the genetically modified crops goes into your crop. And now your crop has the genetic modification, the patent holder has an interest in your crop. Now, you're injected with an mRNA vaccine, that the evidence suggests that a certain portion of the population that are injected, it actually creates a genetic modification that's permanent. You now have somebody else's intellectual property rights in your body.     Shawn Buckley  1:04:14  And so, there's no question in my mind that the patent holder will have an interest in your body. The question is, is what are the courts going to do with this, likely nothing. But it's just interesting that people don't realize that when they're submitting to genetic modifications that they're giving people a property interest in their body but in the area of natural health products.     Shawn Buckley  1:04:36  All ownership is control. Well look at the Black's Law Dictionary, look at any Law Dictionary. Ownership just means you have control over something. You buy a car so that you control it, nobody else can use it. If somebody else could use it, you'd say well, I don't have control, like so maybe you're now in a car share program or something that you don't own it, because you don't have control, ownership is control.     Shawn Buckley  1:04:59  So, who owns your body? If Health Canada is the sole person that gets to decide the most fundamental decisions for your body, which is how you're going to prevent illness and how you're going to treat yourself when you're sick. Because what's happening is that we're actually losing control over our bodies. There's only one class of human being that doesn't have the right to decide how they're going to prevent illness or how they're going to treat themselves when they're sick. And that's the slaves. And we're going to experience very shortly what it's like not to have the right to decide how we're going to treat ourselves.     Will Dove  1:05:39  Well said, thank you, Shawn.     Shawn Buckley  1:05:41  Thank you, Will.