Will Dove  00:00 Since the beginning of the COVID plandemic, Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons across Canada has suspended or revoked the licenses of dozens of doctors for a list of alleged offences. Writing exemptions for both masks and vaccines - advising their patients not to take the vaccines or publicly criticizing vaccines at work or on social media.   Will Dove  00:26 While these persecutions of doctors have been happening across the country, nowhere has the College abused its power, more so than in Ontario - Dr. Patrick Phillips, Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, Dr. Chris Shoemaker, Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Rochagne Kilian, and the list goes on. Good conscientious doctors, exercising not just their right, but their responsibility to put their patients first.   Will Dove  01:02 A few months ago, one of the bravest of our good doctors, Dr. Mark Trozzi, chose to stand up to the CPSO, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. He went before a tribunal hearing panel of the CPSO and along with his lawyer, Michael Alexander, defended his actions. The outcome was never in any doubt. The College revoked Dr. Trozzi's license and charge him $94,000 for the cost of the proceedings but Michael had expected that. In fact, he's been playing a long game with the CPSO since the start of his legal proceedings against them on behalf of Dr. Trozzi.   Will Dove  01:47 On Friday, February 23rd, Michael filed an appeal, not with the CPSO, but with the Provincial Court. And this time, the trial will not be based upon whether or not Dr. Trozzi obeyed the recommendations of the College, but whether the College in their witch hunt against him, exercised the principles of legal correctness. As you will discover in this interview with Michael Alexander and Dr. Mark Trozzi, not only did the CPSO not behave in a manner that was legally and procedurally correct, but in many cases, they committed blatant violations of law and procedure. And these violations will be revealed in Provincial Court. This time, it is not an ethical doctor was on trial, it is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. And should the court find that the College did not follow correct legal practices, that decision could well have a ripple effect across the country. A ripple effect that could lead to the reinstatement of countless doctors and nurses, reparations for harms caused to them and their patients and investigations into the criminal behavior of the Colleges.   Will Dove  03:13 Michael, Mark, it's a pleasure to have you back.   Michael & Mark  03:15 Thank you very much, Will.   Michael Alexander  03:15 It's good to see you.   Will Dove  03:19 Now, the reason why you are back is because we need to give people an update on Mark's case, the last interview we did was back in November, and he had his license yanked like a whole bunch of other doctors in Ontario by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. But Michael, you've been playing a long game through this whole thing. You've been setting this up and the appeal was filed last Friday. Please explain to our viewers what it is you have set up and what's coming now.   Michael Alexander  03:49 Well, when we started this case, defending the case two and a half years ago, we knew that the College has a very biased decision making system at all levels, including the tribunal. And so we didn't expect to win but our strategy was to get to the end of the tribunal process as quickly as possible, and then make an appeal into the court system. So there's been a big change in the law regarding appeals from the decisions of administrative tribunals. It was brought about by the Supreme Court in a case called Babylon, which was published in 2019. When the Supreme Court said that going forward if you have a right of appeal from a tribunal and it's based on a statute, in other words, the legislature has given you a statutory right in legislation to appeal a decision, you will no longer go into the court system on the traditional low standard of review for administrative bodies, which is reasonableness, where the court just looks for problems with process like, "Were both sides or was the adjudicator biased?", "Did both sides get to make written submissions?". That kind of thing.   Michael Alexander  05:03 But the course on reasonableness review will not tend to defer to the actual decisions about the law and the result. So they're only concerned with form, not substance. But now, with a statutory right of appeal, you go into the court system on the same standard that would be used by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is called correctness. So when we get to the Divisional Court, which is the Court of Appeal for this kind of decision in Ontario, they will please the College to make sure that it was correct, that it got the right answer on every issue of law, no deference to them on issues of substance. Now, the colleges in Ontario, and administrative bodies generally have not had to face this before because this is a relatively new development. So this could be a watershed in how these Colleges operate, and how the administrative state operates when someone has a statutory right of appeal.   Michael Alexander  05:54 And I would also say, Will, we've been playing this long game, we have front loaded our submissions from day one. So that if we had to, we could take this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we have a massive amount of case law, from the Supreme Court level all the way down, to support our positions. So we were prepared for appeal, fully prepared two years ago. Now we're finally getting the chance to go there. And this will be a moment of truth for everybody.   Will Dove  06:27 Now, Mark, you've basically sacrificed your career over the last few years. And now of course, the College has taken your license away. You've placed your faith in Michael, to fight this case for you going into this appeal, how are you feeling about it Mark?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  06:44 Well, I know it seems probably odd, Will, but I give the CPSO a limited portion of my attention. And one must remember that at the end of 2020, when I was already quite aware of a lot, because I'd had by that time, you know, nine months in an empty hospital to study a lot of information. So, you know, for instance, I knew about safe and effective treatments for COVID, I knew about how the PCR test was being abused. I knew that the masks were arguably more harmful than helpful. I knew that it was mandates that were killing people, rather than simply the virus. But when you get to the end of 2020, and the entire population is being herded into an injection that's being called a vaccine or, you know, the safe, effective vaccine.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  07:47 Now, as a doctor, whether you're a doctor in my position, an emergency doctor or a family doctor, or whether you're a doctor in administrative position, let's say you're the head of the CPSO, or you're the head of the Ministry of Health, functioning in that professional capacity, you have a professional duty to study the science, and then to make recommendations based on your best judgment. That is an absolute duty. And of course, for doctors, that's part of the Hippocratic Oath.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  08:25 So at that point, doing my duty, I obtained the Emergency Use Authorization documents of Pfizer and Moderna as submitted to the US government. And I studied it. And the first thing I found that was extremely shocking was that this was not a vaccine, that this was a genetic experiment unlike had ever been given to the population, that it was being misrepresented as a safe and effective vaccine. I was also, due to be doing my diligent work, I was also aware that vaccination, even with vaccines against coronaviruses would be a dangerous thing, the risk of enhancing the disease rather than suppressing it as we've seen.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  09:15 So at the end of 2020, when I realized that the entire population was being herded into a very dangerous experiment, which predictably would be only harmful and have no benefit. And within a few months of that, by early 2021, we had Pfizer's initial clinical trial data, which was a nightmare both of scientific fraud and of adverse events, including causing approximately 100% of the pregnant women who they reported that they injected aborting their babies, in other words, causing deaths of unborn children in massive numbers. So on the basis of that, I knew we had an emergency. And of course, being in the hospital setting, I know how cult-like it had become under the criminal negligence at minimum of these administrators, also doctors, who clearly were either not doing the work, not studying the documents, or for some strange reason, were choosing to continue to lie and say things like safe, effective vaccine.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  10:24 So I set down my income at that point. I mean, this is not something that I wanted but this is where we were in history. We are at a point in history, where the greatest medical atrocity was about to be committed against mankind and was already ongoing. So I actually try to avoid any problems with my hospitals, my universities, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, I took a sabbatical. I sold my house to finance this mission. I gave up my income. I have worked very hard now for several years without income.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  10:59 And what I have seen, sadly, in terms of in my province, I have seen the College of Physicians and Surgeons under its current leadership, the registrar is one, Dr. Nancy Whitmore. I have seen them in force without the lawful authority. These mandates on doctors, they have twisted doctors' arms. They have weaponized their authority. They have done things they have no authority to do to many doctors, including myself, and they have stripped the population of Ontario of access to doctors. And Nurses Association have done the same thing. The population has been stripped of access to doctors and nurses who will follow the rule, who will read the science and will advise their patients. And that means that Canadians are sitting ducks.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  11:49 Additionally, I am aware as almost anybody who has a pulse and can still think that whether you've looked at the data that shows clearly plus 20 million human beings dead by this genetic injection. We clearly have hundreds of millions of people injured. We clearly have set records on various data, on UK yellow card data, on any country that has done even a half hours job of recording data of adverse events and deaths associated with these injections. I have attended to people whose children are dead, they've had to bury their children.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  12:29 So, in the context of this war, yes, everything I owned, everything I worked for in my life, I put it on the line in defense of everyone, including my own grandchildren. So, that continues to be my mission. I work very hard. And luckily, Michael focuses on dealing with the CPSO. And I'm still focused on trying to save human lives. And I'm still doing that. So in a way, they have had no impact on my mission, because my mission has not been utilizing my license for three years. I think it is a very sick statement of how committed these people are. And this is why I'm now taking a more aggressive stance towards them. The fact that, well, I voluntarily, at my own expense and a great sacrifice go about alerting the public, educating the public, helping people survive these injections, helping people avoid these injections. The fact that they've not only not helped me do their job, because this wasn't my job, I'm an emergency doctor. This is their job. They're not doing their job. And in fact, they're twisting the arms of doctors and their stuff on record they've published. And that will be at their criminal trial if there's rule of law in this country. Right?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  13:45 So, the fact that they actually have not done their job, the fact that I have voluntarily done their job, and the fact that they have the audacity to attack me and every other doctor who's done our job and continues to do our job, and that includes Dr. Killian, Dr. Shoemaker, Dr. Phillips, Dr. O'Connor and across the country, that includes Dr. Hoffe, Dr. Christian, Dr. Malthouse, Dr. Nagase, Dr. Bruchet, Dr. Milburn. There is a long list, I could go on like that for a while. So that's how I feel coming in and going into it.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  14:19 I have made the sacrifice I have to in the context of what can only be called contemporary warfare, or fifth generational warfare, as Dr. Malone calls it. And these people are continuing as the enemy of the people, I think they've crossed the line of repentance. The fact that they ignored our scientists work, where at the beginning of 2023, we revealed, not only were these injections are fraud in terms of calling them safe, effective vaccines, instead of dangerous genetic experiments, but when we revealed the DNA contamination, when we even revealed Pfizer's fraud that they put one of the most nefarious genetic things you could inject into people, the SV40 promoter Sequence in significant quantities in these injections and committed fraud and covered up the possibility that it could even possibly have been there. And Health Canada just swept it under the rug.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  15:11 So that's kind of a summary of my feelings. I'm not debating some complex issue here. The fact that the mandates and most importantly, these injections have been deadly and harmful and have no benefit and the data is only piled up and piled up and piled up as of the season, as of the anecdotal reports that I'd been right from the beginning, and they have committed to harming humanity, I guess there must be money in it for them. I know when you look across the spectrum, whether you're a scientist -- If you're a scientist in 2021, who produced garbage science that implied the injections were good, you got financing, you got published, and if you were, for instance -- the most published historical research in the world in this field like Dr. Mercola, if you publish work on how to treat COVID and children safely, then you couldn't get it published.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  16:05 So follow the money, people are worshipping money, and they are serving an evil agenda, they have committed crimes, the colleges is guilty at minimum of negligence, mass homicide and assault causing bodily harm. They've coerced doctors and nurses into ejecting each other and the populace. So I would guess, I'm angry. I'm optimistic that the court will just do its simple job. The science and the law are clearly on our side. And I'm also realistic that if we get to the court, and the court says, "We're not going to look at it.", or "Sorry, it's a safe, effective vaccine.", or you know, "Two plus two is five.", then my declaration will be very simple. Dr. Killian was right long ago when she talked about a crisis of legitimacy. And at that point, we'll have to recognize that the entire institutions of government and courts are completely illegitimate, and we have to think how to survive without them.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  16:59 But that's a long and hard road, I would prefer that the court does its job. And we begin prosecuting the crimes of COVID. And we reinstate every doctor, and every nurse going back to Dr. Phillips. So these good doctors who do their job and know what they're doing, and start cleaning up the mess that these people have created.   Will Dove  17:20 Thank you. Now, Michael, you mentioned earlier that this appeal is going to be brought before the court on the standard of correctness, correctness of the law, correctness of procedure, and you've told me that this is fairly recent, that there's been very few review boards, such as the CPSO that have now been subjected to this standard. So can you give us some details on what sorts of questions are going to be asked at this appeal? And, more importantly, perhaps, what difficulties are representatives from the CPSO going to have answering those questions?   Michael Alexander  17:52 Well, we have argued from the very beginning, that the College never had reasonable and probable grounds to initiate investigations against Mark. Now, under the health legislation in Ontario, all the colleges have to have reasonable and probable grounds, which is the criminal law standard. And to initiate an investigation otherwise they must have evidence in front of them, that in all probability, a serious offence under their legislation has been committed. And they must also prove in all probability, or they must establish in all probability that there's evidence, at a doctor's office for instance, in order to establish that the offence has occurred.   Michael Alexander  18:34 And look at the three investigation orders that were issued against Mark. They don't even name the offence. You could never go before a judge and as a prosecutor, or as a police officer and ask for a search warrant. And say, well, we think in all probability, the fruits of the crime or this office or this location, and we've got to get an informant on this, someone very reliable, and you know, and we'd like the warrant. The judge would say, well, but what's the offense? Oh, it has something to do with property, something to do with property, you're getting fraud, theft, arson, willful destruction, just take our word for it, it has something to do with the property. You'd be thrown out of the courtroom. And at the College they get orders like this all the time. So, the orders themselves invalidate this entire exercise.   Michael Alexander  19:32 So, if the appeal court in this matter does the right thing and applies the law on the criminal standard, which is very well established, the Supreme Court established it back in the 1980s, then Mark should walk on this. The other thing is the College says that Mark violates the standard of practice. Okay, and what he said about COVID and running some medical exemptions for COVID. There was no mention of the Standard of Practice where the investigation was. Again, there's no mention of an offence. So they've got a problem there. And then on top of that, in the course of all these proceedings up to this point, it's become quite clear that what the College is doing is it's applying guidelines and recommendations and statements. And applying those, say, Mark didn't follow some of these guidelines that we laid out and some guidelines that some other professional organizations laid out. Well, that's it. And so that's the reason we're proceeding against it. That's a real problem. Because under the legislation, failing to follow a guideline is not an offence, it is not an act of professional misconduct, as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in 2017, that quite specifically in relation to colleges, health colleges in Ontario, that they cannot apply guidelines and recommendations as if they have the force of law.   Will Dove  20:54 I want to clarify some things because despite the fact we've done several interviews on this, this bit about no actual offence being named, that has obviously escaped my notice to this point. So I just want to clarify this. Dr. Trozzi, Dr. Luchkiw, Dr. Phillips, Dr. Shoemaker, the long list that Dr. Trozzi had just mentioned for us a few minutes ago, all these people have been brought up before tribunals with the CPSO, and they've had their licenses yanked, and no actual offence has been named, other than to say, well, they're not following guidelines, which you've just said, but you can't use that for punitive action against the doctor. It's just a guideline.   Michael Alexander  21:37 I've seen the investigation lawyers and all the people you just mentioned, because I've represented all of them at various points, not one of them meets the standard, reasonable and probable grounds. Now, one of the investigations, mentions the actual offence - defines the actual offence. And so this is what the College wants, you see, they want to be very vague, start their investigation, and as they did in Mark's case, they wait a couple of years before actually stating what the offence is. Well, that defeats the whole purpose of reasonable and probable grounds or what in the US is called probable cause. Right? The whole point of the state having probable cause, that you can't interfere with somebody's life, somebody's fundamental rights and freedoms, right to privacy and so on. You can't harass somebody within an investigation, unless you've stated the offence and your probable grounds for believing this person committed the offence. So, it is a fundamental principle in the Western world.   Will Dove  22:30 Isn't this exactly the same as putting, throwing somebody up on trial and throwing them in prison. But there was no actual charge?   Michael Alexander  22:40 Right. That's moving ahead with an investigation, suspending people's licenses, robbing thousands of people of medical care, which has led to, you know, immense harm, and in one case of suicide, a patient in one of my clients. And, you know, they do that without actually stating at the beginning, what the potential charge is. So just from a strict administrative law standpoint, the doctors would never put on notice as to what they were facing during the investigation process leading to a hearing.   Will Dove  23:16 Alright. Now, Mark, we've covered this in the past. But for people who may have missed the past interviews, or it's just been so long, they can't remember. I think it's very important at this point in time, that you should tell our viewers at what point in time was your license suspended? And at what point in time, was it basically withdrawn? And then showing the sequence of events that led up to that, please?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  23:42 Sure. So, Michael, might help me a little bit with this. So again, I contacted the College in about February 2021. And said, I'm taking a sabbatical from practice to do human rights work, exactly what I did. Then we get into the summer of 2021, when many people not wanting to poison themselves or their children were desperate for this thing called an exemption note. And at that time, I was, of course, deeply involved in the global community of scientists, and doctors, and lawyers, and activists, and so on, this is when all of us met. It was in 2021.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  24:29 And so I consulted extensively with Michael Alexander, and with various constitutional lawyers and lawyers from multiple countries all the way from Africa to the USA. And we looked at the violation of international, every country, every province and the colleges like the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The violation of the rules that this injection campaign was, this was coerced injection. People were being forced into a medical experiment, which is a complete assault by the way. But people were still in that situation. They said, yeah, maybe this is illegal, like my case, yes, it's illegal. What the College is doing to me is completely unlawful, but they're doing it. It's sort of like somebody being raped in a park. They're like, well, you can't do this. Yeah, you're right. They can't, but they are doing it. And yes, it needs to be stopped as soon as possible, and the criminal needs to be punished, and society needs to be protected.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  25:33 But anyways, the bottom line was this crime was being committed, and people were desperate for a note that said exemption, so they could again avoid poisoning themselves or their children. So we looked at this quite in detail. And we said, "well, wait a minute, this whole thing is against the law". It doesn't matter if an injection is good or bad. Now this one was terrible. But no one is allowed to carry out any medical procedure, injection, surgery, anything on anyone who doesn't want it. And if you recognize that they're being coerced, then that means they don't want it.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  26:14 So a classic case, a girl comes in to the hospital says she's got her boyfriend with him, he looks kind of like a bit of an unusual guy, a bit scary, perhaps. And she says, "I'm here, I need you to refer me for an abortion." But something doesn't feel right. So the doctor takes a moment and gets a chance to speak with her alone and says, "hey, kid, what's going on here?" And she says, "well, I don't really want this abortion. It's actually totally against me, but my boyfriend said he'll throw me down the stairwell if I don't get the abortion." Okay, at that point, I know, the doctor knows that she's being coerced. And it is a crime to participate in that abortion, irregardless of ethics on abortion, I'm just saying.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  26:56 And that's true of any medical procedure, even if you need stitches, if your arms cut open, and I'm very good at cleaning and stitching wounds, I've been doing that a long time, I've been teaching that. It's a shame that people like me are not in hospitals taking care of Canadians right now. However, if you say, "Don't do it. Don't do it.", I can't do it. It's against the law, even though you need it to say, well, "For God's sakes, your arm is bleeding. You need the stitches. I can do this well. Your arm will be 100%." If you say, "No, no, no, I don't want it." It's against the law. It's called assault.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  27:27 So based on that, not so much that I was going to be the one doing it for everyone, but I fired a shot across the bow and I wrote about 20 exemptions. And those exemptions were really just statements of law. And they said this person does not want this injection, and they are being coerced, therefore it is an assault for me or anyone to give it to them. I thought what could be more, I mean, what would be harder to attack than a doctor simply stating the law. So that's when they launched an investigation then . So they launched an investigation, my license was still active. Okay. 19 Investigators. Now, I thought at the time, because I still thought that these people would be reasonable. I didn't think that they would basically, you know, take money to like lead people to their death. In any event, I thought, well, that's great, 19 people investigating my website because my website was chuck-full of information. I was working full time on this. They could learn all sorts of things about COVID treatment. They could, you know, once people started dying from the injections, they could look at autopsies that some of my colleagues did in Europe. I mean, this isn't just make believe fantasyland. This stuff's so real and hard - it's as solid as a rock. So I thought, well, that's great. I'm gonna carry on with my mission. They'll do their research, and they'll be stopping these injections. There'll be reinstating Dr. Phillips and others who they've attacked. They didn't do that.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  28:57 But this is where it gets even more interesting. It was skipped forward to, I believe it was December, am I right, Michael? In mid 2022, Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, another very admirable doctor from Barrie who took great care of her patients, specialized in chronic pain, palliative care, helps people in some of the roughest parts of their lives. And she wasn't going along with the criminal agenda of COVID. You know, things like she wouldn't commit fraud on death certificates for instance. She wouldn't say a person died of COVID when they died of stage four cancer. So, and then someone alleged that she wrote an exemption for a man with a liver transplant. Now everybody was in danger from these shots. Somebody with a liver transplant that would be, I couldn't think of a worst thing to do except maybe hit him in the abdomen with an axe than to give them one of these shots. Anyways, they went after her and they suspended her license. Well, that left about 1700 patients who had high needs for their doctor, without a doctor.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  30:02 Michael reached out to me and said, "Mark, your license is still active. Can you take care of Dr. Luchkiw's practice?". And I said, "Michael, I am so busy fighting this war." Like, "I know I don't have income, but I am working so hard. There's no way I could take on a practice. But let's reach out to one of the other good honest doctors who did his duty in this province, my friend, Dr. Chris Shoemaker, and see if between the two of us we could locate ourselves to bury for a significant amount of the time when we could take on her practice." Which meant I had to notify the College in writing on this day, I will be returning to practice. Because you remember I told them I was taking a sabbatical from practice two years earlier.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  30:42 On December 6, 2022, it was my first day in practice, and the College knew it, and they knew the address. So I guess they knew that here, Dr. Shoemaker and I were going to come to the rescue of mostly the patients for Dr. Luchkiw, so she could you know, continue to feed her children and hopefully have her career intact when this crime syndicate was wrapped up. So here's two things that I say a lot. I say a lot about the medicine, and I say a lot about the College. And how lawless they become.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  31:15 So that morning, I saw four patients. And those patients needed a lot of attention because they hadn't seen their doctor in six or seven months because they had shut down her practice unlawful. Those patients, all of them while their doctor was not available to advise and protect them, they had all been injected with this fraud, this genetic experiment so that all their bodies were now genetically modified to produce the toxic portion of the Coronavirus.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  31:49 So here's what's wild, I saw four patients that day. Now, both of you, I think are familiar, and I think a lot of our audience is familiar with the common adverse events associated with these injections. Over the intervening period, since they'd been injected at their doctor had been banned from practice up until the day I saw them, in four patients, I saw these six. Some of them had two of these adverse events. I saw shingles and Bell's Palsy. I saw new brain cancer, new lung cancer, a record setting extensive blood clot through the leg and blood clotting in the lungs. And in addition to those six things, two of the people had a very typical hemorrhagic rash that happens when you inject somebody with genetic material that causes them to poison themselves of spike protein.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  32:41 And the other thing that happened that day was the College immediately suspended my license. So, the way I interpret that is no, you're not saving Dr. Luchkiw. Like, when there's a bully, punching some girl out in the schoolyard, and one of the other kids runs out there and says, stop, I'm going to protect her. And oh, you're going to protect her? Yeah, we're going to beat you up, too. That's how I interpret it. And then we went through their kangaroo court, you know, where they claim Dr. Makalah Denari talk and I've read, they rejected the expertise of Deanna McLeod, probably Canada's top expert on clinical trials, because she would have shown them what they were negligent in, which was, "Hey, guys, you knew in February 2021, if you did your homework, Dr. Whitmore, and anybody else who's a doctor who's supposed to hit up these organizations, you should have known that this thing was far more harm than any good, in fact, no good at all."   Dr. Mark Trozzi  33:39 And so after that hearing, they took months to deliberate. That says a lot. And then after many months of deliberation, they announced that I owed them $94,000, and that I needed to be punished. Shortly after that, they announced that the punishment for me would be much worse than the punishment they gave immediately before my penalty hearing, which was to a guy who has multiple sexual charges for sexual acts that are unlawful against his patients. I mean, that's what they're dared to do. No, they let him walk. But this good doctor, they decided my license need to be permanently revoked. And at the same time, from my perspective, they decided that they clearly chose their side of history on this thing. I consider them the enemy of the people of my province. I consider them the negligent murderers of many people who are dead. And, that's where we are now.   Will Dove  34:44 Michael, just before I get back to you one question, Mark, of those four patients that you saw that day, in that narrow window of time before they suspended your license, and all of those extreme side effects that these people were suffering. Of those four people, in your opinion, as a very qualified doctor, how many of those people have had years potentially shaved off of their lives because of those shots? And second question, how many of them could have saved some of those years if they'd gotten to see a doctor sooner?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  35:19 Well, I would say that their lives were shortened, all of them. I agree with Dr. Shoemaker, for instance, when he calls the injection, a 'life shortening injection', and that's a doctor who's has taken too and regret some. If they could have seen Dr. Luchkiw and Dr. Luchkiw wasn't like all of us in the province under this, basically mafia style management of the College, then the truth is, any good doctor without the arm twisting of the College, would have done a little research. And hopefully, it would have turned down the exceptional money that was to be made injecting this stuff into people. And it would have went with the science and the ethics and would have advised their patients against it. So on the one hand, I think those harms wouldn't have happened, if they hadn't been injected at all. And then the truth is, even following the injection, if they were to see a doctor, like Dr. Luchkiw or Dr. Phillips or Dr. Shoemaker, and myself or Dr. O'Connor, etc, then the doctor would have recognized that underlying their pathology was the spiked protein poisoning, the autoimmune attack, the dysfunction of the immune system as a result of these injections, and would have begun to do the things that we can do which are significant to help them. So, I would say 100% to both of your questions.   Will Dove  36:50 Michael, this is as we were discussing, prior to the interview, one way or the other, this is a landmark case, whether the Court of Appeal decides on the standard correctness, the CPSO was on the line, or whether they uphold what the CPSO did. And the reason being that if they rule in favor of your challenge when standards of correctness and they say, "Sorry, CPSO, you're way out of line here." Obviously, many of the CPSO decisions will have to be reviewed, and hopefully reversed. Or we find out the courts corrupt, they uphold what the CPSO was done. And we reveal the level of corruption in our courts to a degree that they simply can't be ignored. Because as you've made clear, these standards of correctness of the things that you're bringing before the court, they're extremely clear, as you were talking about just a few minutes ago, there wasn't even a formal charge laid. It just boggles the mind, that they stripped the licenses of all these doctors, without as obviously follow any kind of proper procedure. So one way or the other. This seems to be a landmark case. And I'd like you to speak to what your future actions would be, regardless of which side of the coin comes in. If you win the case, what do you do from that point? If you lose the case, what do you do from that point?   Will Dove  36:50 Thank you, Mark.   Michael Alexander  38:18 Well, if we lost the case, I imagine that the College would try to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal from the Divisional Court, which is the first court of appeal in this process. But the court of appeal has discretion to refuse to hear and affect the second appeal. So, whether we have to appeal or the College has to appeal to the court of appeal. You know, it's an open question as to whether that appeal will happen.   Michael Alexander  38:44 If we win, then yes, that does have a profound impact. In fact, many doctors have been prosecuted, who've been penalized by the College in relation to their COVID-19 guidelines and recommendations. All those cases that have been revisited in those judges that have to be vacated. I also think that if the court does its job, and it accepts our arguments about how clear it is that the College failed to meet the standard of reasonable and probable grounds, that then you might have a toward action, because there's a toward action called misfeasance in a public office. So if you want to sue the government for damages, because they made a decision that cost you something to hurt you in some way, then you have to prove two things. First of all, you have to prove that they acted unlawfully and they knew they were acting harm. Second, you have to prove that actually crunching harm. Well, the harm part is not, is easy to prove. But can we establish that the College has late acting unlawfully? Well, these are such basic issues. I think it's an open question. And so I think they could be looking at perhaps even a class action for damages in relation to a possible victory on one's part.   Will Dove  39:59 What about spilled over because here, we're dealing specifically with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. But we've also had numerous nurses, some of which you have represented who were dismissed by the College of Nurses under the same grounds, would it then necessarily spill over into that as well?   Michael Alexander  40:15 Yes, there are 22 Health colleges that operate under the Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario. And all of these colleges, I shouldn't say all, but from my experience, many of these colleges have crossed the line in the way that CPSO has. College of Dentists, in particular, the College of Nurses, College of Psychologists, in the case of Dr. Peterson. So yes, this would have a ripple effect all across the health professions in this country. And I think it would have a ripple effect across the country, for other doctors who are facing similar situations with their own colleges, and of course, all health professionals if they're lucky. But of course, that depends on whether they had a statutory right of appeal under the legislation in a particular province. In many provinces, there is a statutory right of appeal. So, victory in Mark's part would have an impact across the country.   Will Dove  41:07 All right. Now, last question, in terms of this whole procedure, you filed the appeal last Friday, as we're sitting here last week of February, having this interview, what's the timeline, from this point forward, to the point where we can expect to get a decision?   Michael Alexander  41:22 Parties have to agree initially on a timeline for submission of their materials. So I will be in correspondence with the College about that in the next few days. Then we go to the court, we say this is the timeline we want. And then either the court that's it or it doesn't, it sets its own timeline. And then, the court will give us a hearing date. So I suspect we'll have a hearing on this sometime in the summer or early fall of 2024. We may get a decision, late 2024 or early 2025. But it's gonna take several months for this process to work its way through.   Will Dove  41:55 Now, I don't know about the colleges in Ontario. I do know that the Government of Alberta back under the administration of the former Premier Jason Kenney used immense delaying tactics when they were brought to court over the COVID mandates which have since been found illegal here in Alberta. Could the CPSO use similar tactics to delay this?   Michael Alexander  42:18 No, there are really no delay tactics here. Because this is a pretty straight appeal. We know what the record is because we have a tribunal where both parties submitted the evidence. So we have a very clear record to bring this forward to the court. And the legal issues are clearly defined, there's not really an opportunity in this process to bring forward a motion unless either the College or Mark wanted to introduce some new evidence, or some new case law for some reason. Right now, I don't think that we would have any interest in doing that. But you can ever tell, thus, decisions are coming down all the time. But that's the only kind of motion that could legitimately be brought in this situation. And that would substantially delay the proceedings.   Will Dove  43:00 All right. Thank you. Mark, I have two questions for you based on what you said earlier. One of them is a little off topic, but it jarred something in my own mind. And I'd like you to address it, because many Canadians have this mistaken perception that doctors in Canada don't get payment from Big Pharma or acting as pushers for their drugs. But that's not true. And you made reference to the money that could have been made by doctors, were injecting people with these drugs. Could you fill us in more on data on what kind of money we're talking about? And what's the process by which the doctors get that money?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  43:43 Well, I'm proud to say I never gave one of these injections to anyone. And also in my career up until the point at the end of 2020, I was not very involved in billing. I chose to work in emergency settings and hospital settings, and actually avoided billing because I didn't like my brain to be distracted by it. So I wouldn't call me as an expert on billing. But what I do know is this, that procedures related to COVID were not billed as normal things. So these injections were emergency procedures. And it's my understanding and you know, I'd like to get an expert in the billing industry to come and talk to you. I think we'll find someone to do that, although they might want their identity scrambled unfortunately.   Will Dove  44:34 We can do that.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  44:35 Where a regular injection might be a $5 fee for service. These injections were more like a $70 or $80. Now imagine the ease of that if you just, let's forget about good and morals and good medicine and all the things that actually matter a lot. If you just look at this from a business point of view, if you have a couple thousand patients, and they are all being forced to take an injection, because you know, they want to keep their job, keep their house, feed their kids. And you're the source, and it's an emergency procedure. This is an opportunity to print money. I mean, you could pay an RPN 35-30 bucks an hour. Now remember, this was all a violation of Nuremberg Code. Even if people signed up for this experiment, it was supposed to be-- now listen, look at the Nuremberg Code, look at my early work doctors, nurses' ethics and the law.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  45:29 But, as it was happening, the Nuremberg Code and all these laws were completely violated, but if you could pay an RPN, say, 30 bucks an hour, and she can inject, say, 30 people an hour, because they just had to roll up their sleeves and get stuck. You know, imagine $70 times 30 people subtract $30, what's the hourly profit, it's over $2,000. So, you know, and that's one of the things, if I did admonish my other fellow physicians in this country, to be careful, because sometimes people get so caught up in studying the billing codes that they forget to study the science and the ethics. And if you practice based on billing codes, you're terrible doctor. So that's my comment on the money.   Will Dove  46:23 Now, let me just ask for clarification here. Because it sounds to me like what you're telling me is, if I went to my doctor, to say get a B12 shot, that's five bucks. But if I go when I get a COVID mRNA shot, that's 80 bucks. So, who determined that the COVID shots are $80 for service and the B12 shots, five?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  46:48 Well, you have to remember that the whole way that human rights were undermined on the planet under this WHO agenda was that it was an emergency. So, it's an emergency injection. It's an emergency procedure, which curated different billings I understand. I know it sounds insane, because it is insane. But this is a government B12 shots.   Will Dove  47:13 So, the government, when they say they are emergency procedures, they're the ones who set that to be much more valuable?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  47:21 I think so in fact, you know, we've clearly identified we're overdue to get somebody who did billing through 2021-2022. Like, there's people, that's their job, they work in a doctor's office, they do billing. Now, they'll want to keep their identity quiet, but it'd be nice to have them run through the details of the profiting on this illegal, harmful experiment.   Will Dove  47:45 Right. Now, the second question I had for you, and I know the answer, but our viewers do not. CPSO was now fined you $94,000. Now, this was for the process of the hearings that you went through, what was the cost per day that they're charging you?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  48:04 Well, they charged us $10,000 a day. And this is why a lot of good doctors didn't go through it. I mean, if you look at for instance, one of the best surgeons in the country, the founder of the surgical humanities, Francis Christian, when he was in a similar position, he just retired. Because he said, "Look, I can't go through their court, they're going to spend as much money as they can on it." I mean, they're the ones making the money. And then they're going to say, I lost and then assign their costs. So we knew they are coming into this, right?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  48:40 But I think I would hope that other people can relate to this. Like if you knew what I knew at the end of 2020. Like if you knew that your fellow Canadians, your neighbors, et cetera, we're going to be coerced into an injection, which would harm them, would kill a portion of them, would shorten their lives, and decrease their health for life. Would you make the sacrifices I made? Would you give up your income and work tirelessly? Would you give up your home? Would you give up your financial security? I hope some of you would. I did.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  49:15 You know, and that leads me a little bit to the financial issue, because we don't know if the courts work. And I think both Michael, and Will, you both identified that. I mean, if this appeal is rejected, then it doesn't mean two plus two equals five. And it doesn't mean the shots are safe and effective. And it doesn't mean that any of this nonsense is lawful. It means that the courts are illegitimate. But we're hoping that's not the case. And if that is the case, we better know, it's better to know than to live in denial. But we're hoping that this is going to have a great impact and begin to normalize society again and restore human rights and the rule of law in Ontario. But one thing's for sure, if the courts work, that's a big if, they don't work cheap. And if people look at how much have I invested, like, nevermind my time, normally I'm a $200 an hour professional, I'd been working 10 to 16 hours a day, without income for three years plus, on this mission, to save my fellow Canadians. Do the math on that.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  50:20 I sold my house, I had to give up all my investments just to pay off the debt associated with them. So my retirement, the plan that I had anyways, is gone. Okay, so not only have I invested three years of my time, but I've invested a couple million dollars in this, and I don't really have anything left. I mean, that $94,000, I don't have it. I have enough money to buy my family groceries this week. And that's all I need. I mean, you don't have to be rich to do a great job. Gandhi wasn't rich, you know what I mean? So when I turn to people and saying, Well, what's your part? To the listeners, are you going to contribute? Will you go to justiceformedicine.com and chip in some serious funds? Will you support the World Council for Health? Will you support the Iron Will Report? Will you support Dr. Trozzi, drtrozzi.org, because we're giving up everything, save all of us including you and your children. So, I think that anyone who's awake enough to be watching the show, should and probably a lot already have. And I salute a lot of you for the work you've done for the contributions you've made. But, it is needed, and you can't win a war after it's over. Now is the time for this fight. And people have to gird up their loins and make some sacrifices of time and money for our children to have any hope of a decent life.   Will Dove  51:45 Right. Now, Michael, I wasn't there at the CPSO hearings. I don't know how many people were in the room. I don't know what kind of resources they needed to use for this. Is $10,000 a day in any way, a reasonable sum?   Michael Alexander  51:57 Totally unreasonable, Will? And this is where we get into the problems with the legislation, we could solve these problems with the colleges in Ontario, with the two pages of amendments, maybe even less than that, to the 100 page Regulated Health Professions Act. But, for instance, the Act gives the colleges the right to set the daily fee for a hearing. So, the College the CPSO decided, well, we'll just set it at $10,000 and change. Oh, why did they do that? Because they want to use that, that's weaponizing their own system. They want to use to discourage anybody from coming before them to challenge their decisions. So this is incredible corruption. And yet the government just looks the other way.   Will Dove  52:46 I'm going to put you on the spot, Michael. You're a very experienced lawyer. You've been doing this for a long time. Given the resources that had to be dedicated to these hearings, what would have been a reasonable cost per day?   Michael Alexander  52:59 Oh, well, lawyers for a hearing would generally charge for a full day, maybe something like $3,000. It may depends on the lawyer. It could be anywhere from $1500 to $5000, I imagine. But for them, I mean, they're already on salary.   Will Dove  53:18 The CPSO representatives, they are already being paid for their time.   Michael Alexander  53:21 They're already being paid for their time.   Will Dove  53:22 All you need is a room and a lawyer.   Michael Alexander  53:25 Right.   Will Dove  53:27 So, maybe $3,000? Start at $1,500 to $5,000, depending on the lawyer. So maybe $3,000 to $4,000 a day would have been a reasonable sum.   Michael Alexander  53:36 Right. And that was not a salary. Right? I mean, if you already been paid to be there, why should Mark have to pay a second salary, too?   Will Dove  53:45 So I'm sorry, I'm getting a little lost here. I mean, obviously, there's Mark having to pay you. But that's a separate from what the CPSO was getting.   Michael Alexander  53:56 Yes, that's separate. So yeah, I have my own fees, which are generally not covered, I mean I probably got, well, somewhere in between probably around $750,000 in pro bono, billable time wrapped up in Mark's case now over two and a half years. Most of the time, we were very grateful for the donations, but we don't even begin to cover the actual costs of litigation. Most of the donations we get go to paying assistants to do various things and preparations for hearings. So but just to make this point, yes, anybody who goes with a lawyer has to pay his or her own lawyer, and then pay the College lawyer on top of that or pay the college, in effect for the legal services that they are providing during the hearing. But those legal services already covered by this hours they pay the lawyers. So then you begin seeing the dimensions of this.   Will Dove  54:26 So the CPSO lawyer who's in that room is already being paid a salary by the CPSO.   Michael Alexander  54:53 A very good salary.   Will Dove  54:54 So why are they billing somebody like Mark for that lawyer? They're already being paid?   Michael Alexander  55:01 Well, they're saying it's our entire process. And, you have to pay for the tribunal and the investigations that took place. I mean, that's the rationalization. But actually, it's just an attempt to discourage anybody from challenging their authority.   Will Dove  55:15 Let me be really clear on this, Michael, you're telling me that, outside of yourself and Mark, and that's separate from the CPSO's expenses. The only people who were in that room are representatives or lawyers for the CPSO and they're already being paid a salary by the CPSO?   Michael Alexander  55:32 Exactly.   Will Dove  55:34 So, it seems to me the only rational fee that there might be, could be a rental charge for the room, maybe if they didn't have a room dedicated for that kind of thing already.   Michael Alexander  55:45 You're correct.   Will Dove  55:47 So, we're backing up now to when you said $3,000? That sounds excessive still.   Michael Alexander  55:55 Yes. There's no rational for charging $10,000 a day. They have rationalization.   Will Dove  56:04 Right. Because doctors who challenge these judgments, and grows his appeal process, know that if and when they lose, they're gonna get billed $10,000 a day. Right?   Dr. Mark Trozzi  56:17 Right. And that's well known among doctors, and I had multiple good doctors. Reach out to me and say, Mark, don't do this, that you've lost so much. And now they're going to just make the same decision, and they're going to charge you a fortune. But again, somebody had to walk the gauntlet. And Michael, just mentioned, I'm not some guy with a ton of money. And Michael has not been made, Michael has committed his own time and his own money to this process, as of I, but somebody had to walk this gauntlet, so I had to go through that circus, and that abuse. So there would be a record that we could take to the courts, to see if the courts function. And if they do, hallelujah, and Tara will be saved as well O'Connor.   Will Dove  57:07 Yes, let's hope so. Michael, I want to take one last little rabbit trail. That's not directly related to what you're doing. But we were discussing it before the interview, some very promising judgments that have come out of Saskatchewan recently, one of which concluded that the vaccines are not safe and effective. That seems quite significant. Would you please explain that one?   Michael Alexander  57:28 Well, there's the case, a case called Strom, Strom was a nurse in Saskatchewan, who, on our Facebook page made some pretty strong criticisms of the elder care system in Alberta, or rather, excuse me in Saskatchewan, and she had parents who were in the system, and she felt they were being treated badly. And the College of Nurses tried to take away her license saying, if that's - you can't criticize the system that way, you're a nurse, you have to work within the system. And so she won on appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal said, in very strong terms, that the College was essentially trying to suppress a right to freedom of expression. And the court made the point that we would hope that people who are part of the healthcare system would be the very people who would have the right to speak out, because they know the system very well. And on top of that corset, and we need that because our healthcare system is very opaque. So her right to free expression was vindicated.   Michael Alexander  58:33 And then there was a subsequent case called OMS. It's family law case. We had two partners who are in dispute about whether their kids should be vaxxed. And the issue came out, can the court take judicial notice that these so called vaccines, genetic objections, are safe and effective? And the court said, no, we're not gonna go down that path, because safe and effective is a highly misleading term. First of all, there are side effects to every medication, there can be adverse events, but on top of that, safety and efficacy has to be judge in relation to the individual patient and his or her particular health profile.   Michael Alexander  59:16 So it is just wrong to say that any medication is safe and effective. And in fact, the court didn't make this point, but we made this point, which is that in our hearing materials, the authorizations for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Don't say the vaccines are safe and effective. That is not a term of art that is used by Health Canada, there are metrics relating to safety and efficacy. But there's not a statement that says we guarantee these shots are safe and effective. So strangely enough, the College in disciplinary cited this OMS case in its favor, when in fact meets a verge in its entire case. So on appeal, we will be exploiting.   Will Dove  59:56 Excellent. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time for this interview today. Is there anything, before we go, because you filed this appeal, is there anything of practical value that viewers can do to add some weight to your case or to help out?   Michael Alexander  1:00:04 Well, two things. One is you can write to the College and say, "We don't like what you're doing here." And the second thing is that we do have a donation site. It's called justiceformedicine.com. And if you are in a position to assist us with our costs going forward for this appeal, we would greatly appreciate it.   Will Dove  1:00:37 Alright, thank you, gentlemen. Obviously, I'll be staying in touch with both of you. And I do have my weekly news shows, so certain updates may be provided there, but I'm certain I'll be having you back as we get to the point of this hearing. And, hopefully, we're going to finally see justice done. And the domino effect that's gonna come from that.   Michael Alexander  1:00:59 Thanks, Will.   Dr. Mark Trozzi  1:01:01 Thanks to you and your whole team for all the great work you do.