(0:00 - 0:48) Dr. Mark Trozzi of Ontario and Dr. Charles Hoffe of British Columbia have had parallel experiences in the past five years. Both put their patients and their medical ethics first, writing vaccine exemptions and alerting their colleagues to the clear dangers of the COVID vaccines. And both were persecuted by their respective colleges. And yet, they had very different outcomes. In January, an Ontario appeal court upheld the revocation of Dr. Trozzi's medical license by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and ordered him to pay $95,000 in court costs. In February, facing a similar hearing, the BC College dropped all charges against Dr. Hoffe. (0:49 - 3:39) He retains his license. In this interview with Drs. Trozzi and Hoffe, the reason for their very different outcomes will become clear. The medical establishments in our country, the medical colleges, our public health offices, and our governments, those who have pushed this poisonous agenda on the public, are terrified of having the claim that the vaccines are safe and effective examined by a just court. Mark, Charles, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having us. It's good to see you. Both of you have been persecuted for telling people the truth about the vaccines, for standing up for medical ethics, for doing your job. And yet, we had very different outcomes. Mark, your license has been revoked, not just suspended, revoked by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. Charles, you had the charges dropped recently and still have a license. And so today, we're going to explore why this played out differently in the two provinces and what conclusions we draw from that. So, for the viewers who may not be familiar with your stories, I'm going to ask the two of you to give a summary, a timeline of what happened with this persecution, from the point at which you stood up and said, hey, wait a minute, these are not safe and effective, and people should not be taking them. And Charles, I'm going to ask you to go first. Yes, certainly. So, the summary, I first got into trouble in March of 2021, which was the third month of the vaccine rollout, for alerting my colleagues who were in my area. These were people who were actually giving the shots. These were doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. And I sent a group email to these people, alerting them to the safety signal of the AstraZeneca shot, which had then at that point been shut down by 12 countries in Europe. And Trudeau had ordered a vast amount for Canadians and said it was fine for Canadians and they just needed to be getting it as fast as possible. So, I sent an email to my colleagues saying that there was a serious safety signal, and just letting them know that there was a personal accountability issue, that if you're giving any medical product to people without informed consent, that you are putting yourself at risk, because an informed consent is a legal requirement for any medical procedure. (3:41 - 4:46) So, somebody in that group sent that email to the regional health authority, who then sent it to the college, and I was given a gag order and told I was not allowed to say anything negative about these shots, and I wasn't allowed to – I should not be communicating with my colleagues about them, and that if I had any questions, I needed to address the medical health officer in charge of the vaccine rollout. So, I then started seeing very alarming safety signals in my own patients, who had all received Moderna. And so, I sent a letter to that medical health officer asking what the mechanism of injury was and how I treat this, because I didn't even know what the diagnosis was. I had never seen anything like this before. And obviously, this is a therapy that's never been poured out upon humanity before, so we didn't know what to call these problems that were arising, and they were all neurological problems. And that letter was sent to the college as a complaint. (4:47 - 9:02) And of course, I got no answers. So, I then sent an open letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, who was our provincial health officer, asking her the same questions and asking her whether it was ethical to continue this vaccine rollout in view of the safety signals. And this, too, was sent to the college as a complaint. The response of the college to my letter – and so, I was in a unique position, because I was in a small community where I knew how many people had been vaccinated, and I was able to – and obviously, it was a huge underestimate, because I wasn't checking out every patient that had been injected. I only knew about some of the vaccine injuries. And so, based on what I knew, I was able to give a rate of vaccine injuries in my community, which was like the cruise ship at the beginning of the pandemic, where they knew how many people were infected or exposed, and they knew how many people died. And you've got a limited sample, so you can give numbers. So, I sent this to the college. Their response was to send a warning letter to every single doctor across BC, warning them that if anyone spoke misinformation about COVID or the COVID vaccines, that they would be investigated and of necessary discipline. So, I suppose the next thing that happened was when they approved these shots for children down to six months of age, and I knew that – everyone knew that COVID was – or they should have known – that COVID was almost zero risk to healthy children. Almost zero risk. And this shot had broken all records for the most harmful medical procedure ever, and we knew from the Pfizer biodistribution studies that the ovaries are one of the top four organs where these spike proteins end up. There was no benign explanation for wanting to inject the children and for forcing university students and school students to have these shots to protect them against the disease that posed almost no risk to them. And there was no benefit because it didn't stop you getting COVID, it didn't stop you spreading COVID, and you weren't at risk from COVID. So, I realized that this was a population reduction strategy. There was no other explanation because when eggs are damaged in the ovaries, they cannot be replaced. Women don't make new eggs. They come from the womb with all of the eggs they'll ever have, and if you can – with spike proteins or whatever other toxins – wipe out some of their eggs, they will have reduced fertility. So, I went on a series of speaking tours around BC and into Alberta and into Saskatchewan, and this really antagonized the college because I was not complying with my gag order, and I was alerting the public to this huge safety signal. And so, I then – so, the college then issued a citation against me where they basically told me that I was – they'd obviously completed their investigation, and they said that they were appointing a disciplinary panel to try me, essentially. And by the grace of God, the first two court dates were adjourned for various reasons, by which time I realized that trying to use constitutional grounds of freedom of speech and that sort of thing just didn't work anymore. The constitution seemed to have no teeth, and so that I needed to find a lawyer who was an expert in medical legal things. And so, I found a lawyer in southern BC called Lee Turner, who had been a personal injury lawyer before this and had had some success defending other healthcare professionals and seemed to have a very good understanding of how the colleges worked. And I thought that he would be a good man for the job. (9:03 - 9:55) And so, he then assembled basically an all-star team. He basically assembled eight world experts, each to deal with each of the specific areas of accusation against me. And when we submitted the expert testimonies of these eight people, which amounted to almost a thousand pages of brilliant scientific evidence, the evidence of harm, the college's response was immediately to apply for judicial notice. And so, just for your viewers to understand how trials in these colleges work, the college has their team of lawyers. And in my case, by that point, they had seven lawyers working to take me down. And then, of course, I have my lawyer. (9:56 - 12:14) They have huge financial resources. Mine are extremely limited. But between these two lawyers is this judicial – oh, sorry, the disciplinary panel. So, this disciplinary panel are people who work for the college. They are paid by the college. They are picked by the college. So, obviously, this is not an impartial group. If the college wants to discipline somebody, they're not going to choose random people. They choose people who they think will fulfill the task that they want to fulfill. So, I wasn't expecting justice. And these are the reasons why these colleges almost never lose a case. If you pick the jury, it changes things. And, of course, they have huge resources. And so, when they make this application for judicial notice, this was a huge issue because they were desperately trying to bury the evidence. And for those of your listeners who may not be familiar with what judicial notice is, when a court grants judicial notice to something, they are basically saying that whatever the facts are that they grant judicial notice to are irrefutable. So, of course, the first of the facts of the college was that the shots are safe and effective. So, if they were to grant judicial notice to the fact that these shots are safe and effective, which has been done, I believe, I'm not sure the exact numbers, but somewhere between 40 and 70 times in this pandemic, in various different circumstances, where they said the fact that Health Canada approved these shots means they're safe and effective. So, we will grant judicial notice to that. And you, therefore, cannot give any evidence that contradicts that because that is declared irrefutable. And so, if this disciplinary panel of five people had granted judicial notice to the facts of the college, I would not have been able to defend myself. I would not have been able to give any evidence of the safety signals. (12:15 - 15:38) None of the expert testimonies of any of my witnesses could have been submitted as court documents, and none of them would be able to testify. So, this was the real turning point of whether or not this disciplinary panel would grant judicial notice. I'm a Christian, and I pray a lot. And the Bible says, love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you. And I have prayed for those members of the disciplinary panel so much. They have no idea that for four years they've been prayed for. And I prayed that they would turn out to be just and truthful and honourable people. That was my prayer, that they would turn out to be righteous people. And they did. They did. And the fact that they did not grant judicial notice to this changed everything. And once the college could no longer bury the evidence, well, the next thing they did was to schedule a trial at a time when my lawyer couldn't be present, and they did that twice. And each time I complained, they said, well, you just need to get another lawyer. And when I objected to that, so, I mean, they have tried every evil tactic that you can think of, and I've just given you the main ones. But when that... Let me clarify something, Charles, because we're talking two different entities here. We're talking about the college, and we're talking about the disciplinary panel. So, when you talk about the court dates being set at a time when your lawyer was not available, may I assume that was at the request of the college's lawyers, not the disciplinary panel? No, no. So, the college, usually lawyers, when they're trying to schedule something, they each say, well, I'm free this week, this week, this week, and then they kind of synchronize their calendars to see when they're both free. And then they choose a time for a hearing when the court is available, and the lawyers for both sides are available, and that's what they do. That's how they schedule things. So, the fact that they were purposefully... So, the college was asking the disciplinary panel, saying, well, these should be the dates. And so, fortunately, the disciplinary panel didn't go along with that. They turned out to be honorable people. We have to clarify this just a little bit farther, Charles, because if I'm reading this right, you've told us that the college had seven lawyers. You had one. Yes. The tribunal decides the date. But what I'm hearing here is that with seven lawyers, what they did was they stacked the deck. They went to the tribunal and said, well, basically, our lawyers are available on these dates, making sure that none of those dates were dates when your lawyer was available. Right? Yes. I mean, it was astounding. They tried every trick in the book. And you know, the astonishing thing about this is that disciplining doctors is usually around ethical issues or some kind of medical malpractice. (15:39 - 16:11) And so, because they expect doctors to be ethical and to practice safe medicine, and yet that whole goal seemed to have completely disappeared. This was purely about punishment through whatever means possible. However dishonest and corrupt they had to be to declare you guilty, whatever it took, it was astonishing, absolutely astonishing. (16:11 - 17:28) And the fact that they went after ethical doctors, they're supposed to applaud ethical doctors. Something has very radically changed and they have become the complete opposite of what they are supposed to be. All right. So, please finish your story of how all this played out. So, when this disciplinary panel agreed that it was not fair for me to have to find a different lawyer just before the trial, then the discipline committee at the college, which is a separate group from the disciplinary panel, the discipline committee decided that they were just going to drop everything. So, I think they realized that if they had to face the evidence, because one of the things that Lee Turner did, which was very clever, when the college made their application for judicial notice, the college's lawyers desperately didn't want the disciplinary panel, which is the jury, they didn't want the jury to see the evidence. (17:28 - 21:41) And they wanted them to just believe, well, Health Canada approved it, therefore it's safe and effective, without seeing the evidence that contradicted that. And so, Lee had to respond to their application. And in his response, and of course, they gave him a very short time period, they gave him this massive amount of legal evidence with all sorts of precedent-setting cases, you know, just so much information. And at that point, he had to get other lawyers and paralegals to help him, because he couldn't possibly ever meet their deadline. And this is one of their tactics that they do, they completely overwhelm you with so much stuff that you can't deal with it. And then they just push things through. And so, he used their application for judicial notice and his response to it, his their application, as an opportunity to introduce the evidence. He said, this is why you shouldn't grant judicial notice. And here is the evidence of harm, and basically was able to put in large portions of the expert testimonies from my witnesses, bring it before the panel and say, this is why you can't grant judicial notice. So, he was clever. He used that tactic to thwart their tactic. And, you know, they were trying to bury the evidence, and he brought it out, he used that to bring it out. And it was just, this is just a game of strategy. It's like a chess game, where you try and outwit your opponent by doing things that they're not expecting, or things that, you know, trap them. This is not about ethics and justice and the safe practice of medicine. This is medical tyranny. Yes. All right, Charles, thank you so much. Mark, your story. Well, so my story is a little bit different. So when... That's a bit of an understatement, Mark. Your story is a lot different. When COVID began, I was in my 27th year of practice as an emergency doctor. I had essentially trouble-free career. I'd held teaching positions in three universities. I'd been selected by the American College of Surgeons as an instructor for advanced trauma life support, and I'd taught doctors from across Canada and around the world over the decade leading up to COVID. So that was where I was when COVID started. When COVID started, I arrived for the first time ever in my life to a completely empty hospital, to a completely empty emergency room. And the empty waiting room had a TV which was showing how full the emergency departments were and telling the population to be afraid, be very afraid, because COVID was coming and COVID was here. So I mean, right off the bat, something didn't fit. Those two things can't be true. I made full... I'm sure you know this, but I think our viewers probably may not. The way they did that was they moved patients around, shipping them from one hospital to another so they could put all the COVID patients into one hospital so they get some cameras in there and show this overflowing emergency room while all the other hospitals were empty. And I've had independent corroboration of that across the country. So please continue. Yeah, so disingenuous really, eh? So throughout that period, of course, I took things at a reasonable face value. My job is as a doctor. So if this SARS-CoV-2 virus was going to show up and if I was going to see people with this extremely terrible coronavirus infection, I needed to prepare for it. Luckily, the hospital was empty, which meant I had 12, 14 hours a day to research. So that's what I did. I researched a lot. And some of the things that stood out early was the fact that, for instance, ivermectin and zinc clearly work for suppressing the replication of a coronavirus. (21:42 - 22:10) Another thing that stood out is it has always been the practice that if someone genuinely has pneumonia, it doesn't matter how it started. It almost always starts with a virus. But it doesn't matter. You always treat with antibiotics for bacteria because it's secondary bacterial infection that kills people, not the virus. But yet we were told that there would be no antibiotics for anyone who might show up with this SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. So that was very strange. (22:11 - 23:33) Also, I recognized that around the country and around the world, the odd place where someone actually died with what might have been a SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, probably with bacterial complications, there was no autopsies happening. You know, the germophobia was we got to get rid of the body really quick. It's too dangerous. So we weren't allowed to see the tissue. But of course, there were some sort of underground pathologies out of Europe. And you could see that in those rare cases, of course, the bacteria is killing them. And there was this blood plotting, which Charles discovered through his blood tests early on. And I understand one of the many reasons he started to ask questions, which was really important leadership in the world. There were other issues. The masks didn't make sense. They were making us sick. Everyone was getting dental troubles, rashes. You know, I could look at pre-existing research. So that was progressively through 2020, what was happening was I was in an empty hospital learning stuff, which completely went against what was being told to the public, including the suppression of treatment. And there was an atmosphere growing. And I could see now under in each province, under the criminal hand of the colleges of physicians and surgeons, because doctors don't want to get in trouble with the college. That's a general rule. Just stay out of trouble with the college and do your work. (23:33 - 23:45) And that was easy before. I just did great work and I didn't bother anybody. But the atmosphere was such that everything to do with COVID made money. (23:47 - 31:43) Right? So for instance, if you ran lots of scenarios, you could make tons of money running COVID scenarios. You could get all kinds of extra equipment for hospitals if it had anything to do with COVID. You could get paid. I was offered to make more money sitting at home available in case the nurse swabbing people's noses needed to consult me, which I didn't take that. But the thing was, as long as you went along with the agenda as a doctor or a nurse, you got paid, you got bonus bucks. And the truth was that element of humanity that's lazy was very satisfied because there was no work. The hospitals were empty. You didn't have to do anything. You just got paid for doing nothing now. But it was very clear to me that we were putting on a theater that was being used to mislead the entire population to a negative end. So that was sort of the atmosphere going through 2020. And then, of course, came the, because there's no treatment and because they're claiming it's so deadly and because they were abusing PCR tests and making it look like there were all these people sick that weren't sick and people were corralled and their human rights abused. So the result, the cure was there's going to be a vaccine. And once everybody gets a vaccine, we're going to be safe. Go back to life. So of course, as a doctor, you never should inject something into people without knowing what's in it, right? Like you don't just hand somebody a mystery vial and they stick it in somebody, right? So as is the norm, before these injections even arrived, I started to study the injections. And so I got my hands in the fall of 2020, I got my hands on the emergency use authorizations from Moderna and from Pfizer as they used to apply to the FDA and other agencies. And there was something extremely glaring and a red, like a red light went off, which was it wasn't a vaccine, right? So like I know what a vaccine is. A vaccine is a couple hundred or a couple thousand particles of the thing you're trying to vaccinate against, unfortunately, along with some thimerosal containing mercury and some aluminum and a bunch of stuff you really don't want to put in your kids. But the essence of a vaccine is a few hundred or a few thousand damaged or attenuated or fragmented viruses. So you want to, you want to vaccinate against coronaviruses, which doesn't work. There was lots of preexisting research that that's a bad idea, even with the vaccine. That's what you'd give, a couple thousand or a couple hundred pieces of damaged coronavirus. What this thing had in it, now it turned out it had a lot more because we've been studying it since, but it does have what was on the ingredients. The label said safe and effective vaccine, according to the government and these other culprits of this crime. But the ingredients was high tech pegylated lipid nanoparticles, which are an infinite tissue delivery system. In other words, whatever you put in them will go everywhere. There's no barrier in the body. It will go into the baby before it's born. It will go into her ovaries where it loves to go. And it will deliver into everybody's brains, ovaries, testicles, hearts, kidneys, everything. It delivers whatever you put in it. So what did they put in it? They put it in a highly modified, super persistent version of the genetic code in messenger RNA format, which would cause human cells to produce the most toxic part of this virus, which is its spike protein, which in and of itself, we already know a coronavirus spike protein is a toxin. It's a poison. It's a poisonous protein. So this is the end of 2020 and I'm going to work. The hospital's empty pretty much still most of the time. I'm still studying lots. I know a lot. I'm shocked at the trance that my beautiful colleagues are in now. The mind control over the population was huge. The mind control over doctors and nurses was even bigger. It's hard to imagine. It's like going to hypnosis and seeing your local chief of surgery jumping around acting like a chicken. It's hard to believe hypnosis can work that well, but it can apparently. And in this case, it really did. And I had a conversation around then with my friend who at the time was serving as the chief of our department. And I said to him, you know, none of this makes sense. The science and what's happening are totally in contrast and it's very dangerous. And he said something to me, which was another big red alert. He said, and this was a guy who I had frequent medical scientific debates with before. I thought of him as an open-minded guy. He said, Mark, it is not our job to question public health. And I really sat and thought about that for a bit. I'm like, wow, what is my job? And I was like, well, as a Christian, or if I was a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or a good atheist, my job is to follow the golden rule, which is to treat people the way I want to be treated. Would I want my family to be deceived into a deadly injection and lied to? No. But then my other job is follow the Hippocratic oath, which says first to do no harm. It says to do my homework, make sure I know what I'm talking about and then give my honest judgment, not somebody else's honest judgment, my honest judgment. I can't defer in ethical medicine and say, well, somebody else told me to tell you that. So it's not my fault. Your wife is dead. I have to take responsibility for what I say. And then, of course, there was this thing that's like, well, never, never go against the college because it'll ruin your career. And as much as I like the fact that I got paid to do my job, that's not my job. My job is not to pick up a check. My job is to follow the gold rule and follow the Hippocratic oath and serve my fellow humans in my capacity as a doctor. So at that point, I called the Canadian Medical Protective Association, which is basically doctors malpractice in Canada. Make a short story of it. It's an association that all doctors pay into. And if you get in trouble for malpractice or a complaint against you, they're there to provide legal advice and direction. So I called them and I said, I need an appointment with an advisor. So I got an appointment with an advisor. And I got a nice fellow and he's a medical doctor as well as an advisor. So I told him, I said, listen, I've got a concern. I've got some very big concerns about this whole COVID operation. I've got some very big concerns about this toxic genetic injection with vaccine typed on the front of it that's being pushed on the public. And this was before anyone was injected. This was all predictable. And I could give you lots more research of why it was predictable that it'd be harmful. I'm giving you a bit of it, but it was super predictable. And I said, and yet I'm being told, I was told by our chief that I'm not to say anything about this, that I'm supposed to just keep my mouth shut. I said, is that true? And I'll never forget again, another monumental moment in the sad realization of how far we'd fallen was he said, Mark, before I studied medicine, I studied my master's in the divinity. That's an interesting statement, meaning he's quite aware of God and morals and religion. He said, however, the CMPA will not defend you for saying anything about this. (31:44 - 32:10) And I said, oh, like this. So I got off that phone call and looked at my house and things and thought about saying goodbye to them because there was no way I was going to watch my neighbor throw his grandkids in the car and head down for a safe and effective genetic modifying thing that would sterilize and kill some of them. And so I contact, so I put my house up for sale. (32:12 - 33:05) I sold all mine because I could see where this was going. Right. I put my house up for sale. I sold my investments. I paid off my debts. I said goodbye to things like, you know, planning to have a retirement in a decade and stuff like that. I mean, just and I committed myself to research and education of the public. One hundred percent. The first thing I published was a video called This Is Not A Vaccine. I just explained kind of what I said now. Interestingly, a few months later, as the injections were being rolled into people, I did a lot of research on on both medical ethics and on rules regarding coercion, medical assault, illegal medical experimentation. And of course, everyone talks about the Nuremberg Code, but the Nuremberg Code has been consolidated in international, federal, provincial laws. (33:05 - 37:43) And strangely, the college's job, the college who's orchestrated this mass assault on the public, the college's job is actually to prevent medical assault or coercion. That's on their list of jobs. In other words, a doctor who performs medical assault or coercion or any medical procedure without adequate informed consent. For instance, let's say giving someone an injection and saying it's a safe and effective vaccine when it's a dangerous genetic experiment. That's medical assault. Coercion is another issue, which is which is if somebody is being coerced to take an injection or any medical procedure. For instance, let's say a girl is asking for an abortion, even though she doesn't want one because her boyfriend is a criminal and he will beat her up if she doesn't get an abortion. It's against the law to help her get that abortion. It's not against a lot of protector to call the police to get her into, but it's against the law to say, well, I can understand why you want it. You don't want to get beat up. So I'll just make a referral to the gynecologist. It's against the law. It's also against the law if somebody says, listen, I've been told this is a safe and effective vaccine. I don't even know it's a dangerous genetic experiment. I don't want it, but actually I have to take it because my children eat and they sleep in a bed and the only way I can feed my children or keep the house is to keep my job. And the only way to keep my job is to take these shots. Again, it is illegal to give a person that injection. It's still illegal. I don't care how many criminals are running governments and institutions. It's still illegal. So at that point I wrote an essay called Doctors, Nurses, Ethics, the Law on a video and I published it. And in that I was basically saying, listen, doctors, nurses, we are being coerced to commit medical crimes against humanity. I just want you to know and don't do it. So that's where I was by April of 2021. Unfortunately, the public was being injected. I was still studying. The data was showing the harm, unprecedented harms. The Canadian situation was a complete cover up. They would bury things as they, as it became obvious. So for instance, when data in provinces or the country showed that, oh my God, you're more likely to get COVID if you take the shot, they stopped. They stopped publicizing vaccination status so they could just tell the public, hey, look, people are sick and dying with COVID so take more shots. They didn't tell you people who took the shots are sick and dying with COVID way more than anybody else. But despite those tricks in places like Canada, which I mean, again, there should, when we have a legitimate government, we should make arrests of people that ran the old one. But in any event, in April of 2021, after I published that this is a crime and you can't do it, the college published the CPSO under directorship of the registrar, Dr. Nancy Whitmore, published a statement to all doctors. And it said, you will not prescribe unproven treatments, though there was lots of evidence. You will not write exemptions against the injection, except in the rarest of situations, which were impractical. And you will not say anything that contradicts public health. So at this point, the college was saying you must violate the Hippocratic Oath. You must participate or we will hurt you. That didn't matter to me. It was sad. So I published COVID vaccines. How dangerous are they? And I spelled out what was happening. I showed the death data. I showed the pathology. I showed. And actually, I was completely accurate. The next few years would show how accurate that was. Of course, they were worse. They were contaminated. So then then I'll show you where I start to get where they decide to start assaulting me professionally. The College of Physicians Surgeons of Ontario is a lot of us doctors were meeting. I won't say names. There were good doctors across this country. You know, most of them, most of them retired or lost their license or have been persecuted until they submitted and recanted. But we were looking at what my God, how do we help people? Because people are like, please give me an exemption. I don't want this deadly thing in me, but I want to feed my kids or I want to go to university. So we looked at it and we had meetings with international experts. And and one of the things I realized and we realized is like, you don't need an exemption because this is against the law. So on the basis of coercion, I sent out I gave people about 20 exemptions. And really, we were just trying to develop the strategy. And the exemptions were rock solid legally. This person doesn't want the injection. (37:44 - 38:13) That means it's it's coerced. That means it's a criminal offense for anyone, me or otherwise, to give them this injection. That's just the way it is. That's the facts. So shortly after that, the college launched their investigation into me because somebody sent them an exemption that I'd written and they launched an investigation into me. And this is when shortly after that, I would get to know Michael Alexander, a very noble lawyer from Canada, constitutional lawyer. (38:15 - 38:26) And I was getting advice on the one hand from other international activists like Dr. Tess Lawrie and other very noble people leading this fight. They said, Mark, it's so corrupt. Just walk away. (38:26 - 42:13) Just resign your license like Francis Christian and others did. We lost a lot of good doctors that way because it's so corrupt. But Michael said, I really want to fight this. This is my way of fighting for Canadians. You're you're educating them, but we've got to stop this medical tyranny and all the doctors. I said, if you if you're motivated, I will I will do my part, but I'm not going to take my eye mainly off the birdie of research, education and defending the public medically. So. So the investigation was ongoing and then they went after Crystal Luchkiw. She's a doctor from Barrie who wouldn't do things like, for instance, she wouldn't commit fraud on a death certificate and pretend that fourth stage cancer was a death from COVID. So for a variety of ethical reasons, she came under attack and they suspended her license. And mine was still active. And they they shut down her practice. So while her and her family were going broke, on the one hand, her patients were suffering because she was a she did a lot of chronic pain management, helped a lot of elderly people. And so her patients were suffering. One of them committed suicide because he couldn't see his doctor who he really needed. And Michael asked if I would help rescue her practice because I still have my license. It was just being investigated. And Chris Shoemaker and I moved ourselves to Barrie. I moved my family into a little basement apartment and said, I'm going to keep doing my mission work with the World Council for Health and everything we're doing. But I will also take care of Crystal's patients part time. And Chris Shoemaker said he'd do the other half. I had to tell the college I resumed practice on this day because I told the college I was on sabbatical. I said when I realized how crazy was in January of 2021. I I contact the college said I'm I'm I'm going on sabbatical. I'm not practicing clinical medicine. I'm doing human rights work and public education. OK, but they still launched an investigation. There's no patient complaint because there is no patient. Right. So I had to tell them that on I think it was December the 6th, 2021, or I get the dates mixed up so much has happened that I would resume practice and I had to give them the address and they could see it was Crystal that she's practiced. Charles mentioned God. What happened that morning was the outside of the statistical norm. I saw four patients before the college suspended by license. Right. In those four patients, I saw and they'd all been injected while their good doctor had been sidelined. They'd been injected by someone else somewhere else, maybe so they could feed their kids. In those four patients in the interval since they've been injected, there was new brain cancer. There was a shingles. There was extensive blood clotting of the leg. There was massive pulmonary embolus. There was new lung cancer. I mean, it was so obvious how right I was. And it was statistically beyond the norm. It was almost like, you know, Charles might say, God's in here. Let me show you. You're right. Don't question yourself. And the college suspended my license. Right. So that Crystal was there. It was sort of like, you're not going to believe this. You're not going to defend this. I believe they suspended Chris's license as well. Did they not? They launched they launched an investigation him at the same time. And fairly shortly after that, they suspended him. So Chris, they succeeded in destroying Chris's practice. They succeeded in loving her seventeen hundred patients empty or without care. And and they punished us for trying to do anything to defend the public. Right. So you and Chris stepped in and Crystal's practice. (42:13 - 42:26) You were there for less than one day when they suspended your license, launched an investigation against him and very shortly after suspended his license. Yeah. And they launched an additional investigation into me. (42:28 - 48:59) And so at that point, I mean, I still have my job to do and that's still what I'm doing today. I mean, we're we're publishing the detox guides at World Council for Health Canada. I'm still working very hard doing my job. But Michael, again, there was the idea of like, just walk away. I mean, I got so much work to do. So many people are dying from these shots. There's so much research and there's so many people to help. It doesn't matter about the money. And getting tied up in a bunch of legal garbage with a bunch of criminals just didn't seem very practical. But Michael, God bless him, believed the legal system could function still. And he said, together we went forward and people donated money. And again, similar to Charles, you know, they had 19 investigators, multiple lawyers, and we had one lawyer and one doctor on a grassroots bit of fundraising. But there was a very interesting reality. And this is where in Ontario things are totally lawless now. Like the courts in Ontario don't count. They really don't. Because Michael pointed out that the Supreme Court had made a decision some years back, which is if you go through a tribunal hearing, like Charles went through and what I went through, then if you appeal that decision into the courts, the courts have to use a high standard. They have to look and say, did they do everything correct? So on the basis of that, we went to the kangaroo court. We said, OK, we'll do this tribunal hearing knowing full well that just like they did to Patrick and Mary O'Connor and everybody else, it's going to be a sham. It's, you know, it's them versus you ruled over by them. So we went to this tribunal. We didn't have quite as good a budget, but we had some good experts. They spent two days abusing Deanna McLeod, a top Canadian expert on clinical data, before they disqualified her. They tried to abuse Peter McCullough, the most published researcher in field in the history. But he was able to sort of hold his own. They charged me $10,000 a day for the hearing. And interestingly, before that tribunal was done, one of the members of the tribunal quit. He just disappeared. And I understand in Charles's case, there was a judge in the tribunal, and that judge might have been the one who said, no, we're going to have to follow the law here. I'm not going to prostitute myself like this. But in our case, we had one who, it's a mystery that when he watched the abuse of Deanna McLeod, he just wasn't there the next day. But the tribunal carried on. And then after their ponderance, they announced that I was unprofessional, incompetent, whatever else, used the wrong pronouns, and they were going to revoke my license, which put us in the position that Michael thought we'd be in, which is okay, now we have the record of their tribunal. We're going to take this to the court. We're going to appeal it into the court. And on the standard of correctness, whether it's based on procedure, whether it's based on law, whether it's based on freedom of speech, and certainly if it's based on the science, they were wrong on everything. We needed them to be wrong on one thing. They were wrong on everything. But at that time, I won't give any names, I can't give names, somebody arranged a private meeting that somebody wanted to meet with me. So I traveled to a city, and I went into a room, and a nice other man came in, and he was a judge from Ontario, from the Ontario court. And he was a nice man. And he said, Mark, you need to know you won't win. Nobody will win. And I said, why not? And he said, judicial notice. And I said to him, well, I have no choice but to continue to try to save people in the country. And I said, I'm going to ask you, I respect that you've come to give me this message, but I want to give you a message, as respectfully as I can, to please go back to the court and talk to the other judges, and tell them some of us are giving everything we have in time, energy, and resources, and paying heavy prices to try to save their grandchildren too. And they better do their part. So I do not accept what you're telling me. I'm asking you to go back to the court and change it, just like I'm trying to change it here. And he's like, well, okay, but I'm telling you, you're not going to win. So speed forward, there's a hearing book, a lot of people want to attend it. It's supposed to be a public hearing, in-person hearing. A few days before the, and there's all these games, like Charles said, all these games they're playing, totally disingenuous, like dumping thousands of pages at the last minute, that it's almost impossible. Michael Alexander should get a Purple Heart or whatever it is we give out in Canada, or when we have a country here again, whatever we give out, one goes to Michael Alexander. Because this man worked around the clock, almost killed himself, fighting against this massive team of lawyers and all this corruption. So the day of the hearing comes, and I'm like, okay, I need to drive to Toronto and be at the hearing. And Michael's like, oh no, they just, I don't know if there is a hearing. So with days before the hearing, they cancel the hearing. And they say, no, there isn't a judge available for the most important hearing in the province. Okay. It's going to be just a Zoom meeting here. We're going to have a Zoom meeting here. Okay. So I got a shirt and tie on and I set up a computer and I attended the Zoom meeting. Now I'll tell you, thousands of people were trying to access that hearing because people wanted to watch this. People wanted to witness this. A lot of people know what's on the line. And, and it was, it was even hard to get into the hearing. People would get kicked out, but not let back in. So it started with like, immediately it was at full capacity, and then it was dwindling. But you get into this Zoom meeting and there are three people dressed up as judges on this day when there wasn't a judge available. There's three judges. And the first thing they said to Michael, they said, you got two hours. And he said, well, then a normal standard for this hearing is three hours. So I've come prepared with one and a half hours submission. (49:00 - 50:45) And they said, too bad, speed it up. You got one hour to talk, boy. I mean, I'm putting this in, in a bit of my own inflection because I'm angry. Now, Michael proceeded to do a phenomenal job, even fatigued as he was. And the facts are the matter. I mean, like Charles says, you know, it's a legal game. It shouldn't be a legal game. The truth should win. If that isn't what wins, then it's not a court. It's some kind of a sham. Michael presented phenomenal evidence supporting scientifically, supporting the procedural abuses they made, supporting the precedent that, of course, a doctor is allowed to open his mouth like every other citizen and say what he thinks. In fact, we have a duty to. The, the, the college's lawyers just, it was, it was just a pathetic show. And I mean, you watched it. People who watched it know. It was just like, what is she even talking about? You know, they just tried to slander me and to say bad words. It was just a joke. So at the end of that, it was clear. If this court is functional, I won, we won. And by that, I mean the people won, right? Because remember, losing your license, one thing, I got friends who've lost their kids. They're dead, right? I mean, that's losing this thing. But anyways, the, after some time passed, the court finally announced their decision and it was like, oh no, the college is fine. They were right about everything. Yeah. No problem here. Nothing to see. Revoked the doctor's license. And so the judge that told me the courts were corrupt and that they would not do their job was correct. And yeah, that's, that's where we are. But again, and that, oh yeah. And that I owe them a hundred thousand dollars. Right. And that hearing was earlier this year. (50:45 - 53:52) Yeah. Yeah. And I just continue doing my job. I research, educate, develop detox strategies, figure out how to help the victims, you know, help survive turbo cancers and all this nonsense. So I'm still doing my job. Right. So gentlemen, we've got two very similar circumstances and two completely different outcomes. And I believe that Charles and Mark, you've given us the key to what it was. And when I read Charles, what had happened with you and knowing Mark's story very well, because Mark and I know each other quite well, we've done a number of interviews. It was very obvious to me that the only reason that the BC college backed down was because the tribunal said to them, we are not going to take the safety and efficacy of these vaccines on judicial notice, which says what? That the governments and the colleges are terrified of having that brought before a court, that evidence and truly examined. Your opinions on this gentleman, Charles? Any law court or any judicial procedure should be all about truth. I mean, it should be to weighing up evidence in order to establish truth. And so the fact that the colleges have resorted to this multitude of devious tactics to bury truth is absolutely shameful. In my case, long before any of this happened, you know, I had tried submitting vaccine injury reports on my patients. And after I'd submitted the first 14 and every single one, the response from public health, these are not vaccine injuries. We don't know what the problem is, but it can't be from the vaccine. These are all coincidences and the people just need to get their next shot. So I realized that there was a systematic coverup that had been going all along. And that somehow, you know, public health used to be about public health. And the college, the function of the college was supposed to be to protect the public from unethical or unsafe practice of medicine. And Health Canada was supposed to be to regulate medical products or medical treatments to protect the public. But in every case, they have all become the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be. Public health is no longer about public health. It's all about furthering the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, you know, at the expense of public health. I mean, their name is the exact opposite. They're not about public health. Otherwise, they would take notice of the safety signals. (53:53 - 1:03:01) The fact that here we are, four years into this vaccine rollout, it took less than one month for these vaccines to break all records for death and disability, less than one month. But here we are four years later, with untold carnage in its wake, and they still claim they're safe and effective. So, the level of corruption and dishonesty is just hard to believe. It is truly hard to believe. It is not just the medical profession that have been hijacked and the colleges and the regulatory bodies. But the legal system has been hijacked, where the courts have been captured, where I mean, to grant judicial notice for something was a very rare thing before this pandemic. But it has been massively misused. And it is simply burying evidence. And so, I don't know what the way forward is, because the medical profession has been captured, and the legal profession has been captured. Doctors used to be amongst the most trusted of all professions. And there are millions of people who no longer trust their doctor or no longer trust public health, because they realize that these people are not acting in their best interests. So, we have a crisis. Yes. Mark, you've lost everything for telling people the truth for doing what you're supposed to do for doing your job. And as far as I can see, lost it because of a corrupt court in Ontario that refused to look at the evidence. Your opinion? Well, I mean, for sure, lost a lot of things. But I haven't lost my soul. I haven't lost my self-respect. I haven't lost the value of my word. I've gained the respect of millions of people around the world. I've made amazing friends like Will Dove and Charles Hoffe. So, you know, I try to keep things somewhat in perspective. And, you know, it's interesting that early on this thing, something came to my mind when I was deciding to really launch the mission, to make it a full-time job to warn the world and warn Canadians, which is a scripture which says you cannot serve God and be a slave to money. And I think that's somewhat the test that we've come through. It's nice to have money in your pocket, but if you're a slave to money, I'd much rather be a poor man with his soul than a rich slave to money. And unfortunately, we can see that because I don't think that I know there are people who are very aware of what this agenda is. I know there are people, you know, like Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, and I would suspect like Chrystia Freeland and Ted ros. And there's a lot more. That they're very aware that this is not about helping people, that this is not a vaccine, that this is a poison death shot. There's a lot of people, I think, that know that. But I think a lot of people have have fallen into this thing because of that, you know, God versus money in the context of a massive psychological operation that targeted eight billion people, you know, to manipulate them. The fact that Charles, myself, Patrick Phillips, Francis Christian, Steve Malthouse, Daniel Nagase, Crystal Luchkiw, Chris Shoemaker, you know, that's just some of the Canadian list. Chris Melbourne, Gary Davidson, you know, all these doctors. And then nurses, Kristen Nagle, Sarah Choujounian. The fact that a small number of us didn't succumb to the PSYOP and would not allow ourselves to abandon God and our oaths and values for money. And these are the people who've been doing the job. Exactly like Charles says, we're doing the Public Health Agency of Canada's job. Their duty is to do what we did. They never did it. This shot should have never even hit the market. I mean, it was obvious just reading the ingredients, it should have never hit the market. So we're at a profound level of malfeasance. And I don't know exactly what form justice is going to take. In the meanwhile, I'm living on a planet where people need honest information. You know, right now measles is being used to conjure the public and to chase the herd to their own destruction again. And that's why I'll be speaking about measles lecturing tomorrow and publishing about measles so people have real information. So that's my mission. You know, I work for the oath. I work for God. I work for the golden rule. I work for the people. Nothing is going to stop that. And I hope everybody, recognizing how corrupt things are, recognizing that the Corporation of Canada, the Corporation of Ontario, these fake courts, these colleges, they're in the hands of criminals. Criminals through neglect initially. I mean, you could say initially, oh, well, the head of the College of Physicians and Surgeons at BC never read the ingredients, or she doesn't know what a pegylated lipid nanoparticle is. Okay, so they're negligent. That was negligent. But when you get to the point where you're persecuting the doctors trying to tell you about it, and you're trying to cover up the evidence, and you don't stop Charles Hoff's persecution until you realize, oh, my God, it's going to get to court and find out that this thing isn't safe at all. That's a point in criminality where I think they all need to be delivered by the rest of us, the most severe punishment that we have for violent criminals. And how that happens? I don't know. We've got to reestablish society because this is not legitimate. This is not legitimate. The Corporation of Canada is not legitimate, none of it. That's where I find myself now. Gentlemen, I have a final question. The conclusion I draw from this is that there is going to come a day when a court in this country will examine the evidence. They will look at whether or not these vaccines are, in fact, safe and effective. And we know what that court is going to find. Absolutely, they are not. As Mark said, they should never have been issued to the public. What do you hope will be the consequences of that court decision when it finally comes, Charles? My hope is that the people who have been guilty of causing such harm to so many people will be held accountable. There needs to be justice. When you are aware that a product is literally killing people or disabling them or ruining their health, you are a murderer. You are a murderer. If you know that something is killing people and you carry on giving it to them, you have committed the most heinous crime imaginable to deceive people to take something that can literally ruin their health. I mean, because you put a price on health, and so many people have now got their health ruined by this. So there needs to be justice in some way, because God holds us accountable for what we do against him. And we need to, I mean, that's what justice is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about accountability. So I hope that there will be accountability, and the people who have done these crimes will pay the price. Mark? Well, I think, A, I agree with Charles, for sure. I mean, what, if we had, let's say we established somehow a legitimate society on this land north of the United States, and I choose my words very carefully, because I've been at this for a while. And if we face, if we have some organized structure, some authority, as opposed to the good guys fighting against the authorities being run by the criminals, if you had good people in authority, that's essentially what we're talking about. If we had good people in authority, or when we construct a society, and our society is able to take on that. (1:03:03 - 1:03:44) So the shots should be halted immediately. Doctors and nurses who had their licenses revoked for standing against it should not only have their licenses restored, they should be compensated, they should be given awards, and they should be put in positions of authority, whether they want it or not. For instance, Charles might not want to be the registrar of the College of Physician Surgeons of BC, but we might need him to be it. We might beg him to be it, to make sure this doesn't happen again. When I look at the crime, every injection was a medical assault. Every death, therefore, was a medical murder. (1:03:46 - 1:04:24) But look at how hard it has been for any doctor or nurse to do the right thing. Very hard, very costly of time, energy, emotion, family, people have lost marriages, homes, everything. But most of the people that injected people, most of the nurses and doctors who injected people, injected themselves first. They injected their wives, their husbands, their children. I'm assuming, I'm assuming. And those people need to be, they need the treatments as well. (1:04:24 - 1:04:28) We're developing treatments. They're not perfect. Believe me, this shot is not easy to counter. (1:04:28 - 1:05:02) There's no perfect way out. But it can be better with treatment. So where do we draw the line of guilt? In other words, who do we remediate and who do we prosecute? Because I don't like the idea that after mentally abusing all the doctors and nurses in the country and taking advantage of the human weaknesses, which can be used to get people to do very wrong and stupid things, I don't like the idea that we're going to lock up every doctor and every nurse. I don't think so. Because remember, they took the shot too. They're victims. (1:05:02 - 1:07:58) They were coerced by the colleges to be victims of medical assault and then to be participants in the medical assault of others. And that buck of that extreme guilt stops at the officials who committed the malfeasance. So your registrars of colleges, your administrate, your public health officers, your ministers of health. These are all people who were involved in coercing the crime into the population. And I think they have to face the most severe punishment, especially, and I believe when we get to that point, with laboratory analysis, we'll be able to determine people who pushed the shot, people who professionally assaulted good doctors like Dr. Hoffe, but didn't take the shot. They got the fake passport themselves. And those people, perhaps God can forgive them, but it's far beyond my ability. So I think that's the restoration. I mean, we've got to get the right people back in charge. We've got to get some justice. We've got to rehabilitate doctors in the entire public, both mentally and physically, and hopefully this never happens again. And prepare for a population which is shrinking no matter what we do now. I mean, the dying is still happening and we're into the third wave of diseases falling the shots, the autoimmune diseases, et cetera. All right. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time today, for the fight, the years, years you've been fighting. And yes, Mark, I do believe that there will come a day when you will be exonerated, when you will have your license given back, and hopefully there will be substantial compensation. Because both of you gentlemen have done exactly what doctors should do. You've followed medical ethics, you've done your best for your patients, and you've done it at great sacrifice. Thank you both. Thanks. Well, can I mention one other thing? Yes. That you might not add, because that was a good tailor, but as these old institutions have become completely criminal and incompetent, we've been building new institutions. So yes, on the one hand, according to the College of Physicians Surgeons, I don't have a license to be part of that little system in Ontario, but at the same time, I'm one of the co-founders of the World Council for Health Canada, and one of the directors of the World Council for Health, and one of the members of the National Crisis Summit. So it's not like a doctor's real career can be ended by this. And I have more faith in the new institutions than the old ones. So I would recommend people turn to the World Council for Health and other legitimate organizations for health information and guidance, and stop listening to people that have completely gone and just committed mass medical assault and murder.