PROOF: Decades of CPSO Criminal Acts | Dr. Akbar Khan
November 24, 2022
Profiting in the Coming Economic Collapse, Part 2: Canada Under Attack
Adrian Spitters, Bryce Wade, Warren Keane
Profiting in the Coming Economic Collapse, Part 1: The Great Taking
Adrian Spitters, Bryce Wade, Warren Keane
Dr. Akbar Khan has filed criminal charges against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. His website documents multiple cases of obstruction of justice, fabrication of false evidence against doctors, destruction of incriminating evidence against the CPSO, and much more.
And it’s been going on for much longer than the covid narrative.
Cases date back to 1998. In this interview Dr. Khan discusses the illegal activities of the CPSO and his plan to have them removed as the governing authority over doctors.
- Why is the CPSO not answerable to an overseeing body?
- What is their real agenda? (It’s definitely not to protect public health)
- What are the precedents for Dr. Khan’s legal action against them?
- How many people will die because the CPSO is shutting down ethical doctors?
Please share on your social media accounts
Will Dove 00:15
Most of you are aware that the colleges of Physicians and Surgeons across Canada have been silencing doctors who prescribe effective early COVID treatments, or who advise their patients not to take the toxic COVID vaccines. What you may not know is that corruption of the colleges goes back much farther than the COVID narrative. I have with me today, Dr. Akbar Khan, an Ontario doctor who has been successfully treating cancer patients with alternative therapies since 2007. Dr. Khan has collected evidence of illegal acts on the part of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has filed criminal charges against them for those actions, and posted the evidence online at CPSOcrimes.com. He is also working on a plan to have the CPSO removed as the province’s medical authority. Dr. Khan, it’s a pleasure to have you on the Show.
Dr. Khan 01:08
Thank you for having me. Will,
Will Dove 01:10
I want to start with a little bit of history, because as I said, most of our viewers are aware of the things that been going on the last two and a half years with the COVID narrative. But even I was shocked when I reviewed your website to find out just how far back this corruption goes. So could you give us a brief history of the CPSO? And your knowledge of their illegal acts? And how far back they go?
Dr. Khan 01:32
Yeah, of course, yeah. So um, so the College of physicians, surgeons, for people that aren’t really aware, they’re the body that regulates doctors, so they give us our license. And they also are supposed to make sure that the doctors are practicing safely. So there’s a mechanism where people can complain, if they think there’s a problem with their doctrine, the CPSO can investigate, and then they can take action. So their, their mandate is to protect the public. And that’s, you know, if you find look on their website, you’ll find that their official mandate is protecting the public. So that’s really their role. But unfortunately, because of the way the regulations have been structured in Ontario, and I’m, I’m presuming it’s similar across Canada, the college really is not accountable to anyone, and they’re protected by legislation against any civil lawsuits. So that basically allows them to run amok, you know, so they can do whatever they want. And you can’t sue them to stop them. I mean, you can sue them, but you can’t bring evidence in from your college proceedings. So if they committed misconduct during a college proceeding, you can introduce that into evidence. So that’s the protection. And then, you know, it’s difficult to file criminal charges, which we’ve done, and I’ll get into that a little bit, but there isn’t an oversight. So that’s the problem. There’s nobody to complain to if the college misbehaves. So this goes back quite a long way.
Will Dove 02:55
I just wanted to clarify something there, because something I read on your website, and that you’ve just made reference to is that they police themselves. There’s no overseeing authority that you can appeal to, if they are breaking the law, then you have very clear evidence on your website, that that is exactly what they are doing. But what you’re now saying to me is that even if you catch them doing that, you can’t do anything about it.
Dr. Khan 03:19
Basically, yeah, so the problem is we’ve tried all kinds of different things, a civil suit, you can’t do because you can’t bring the evidence in. And so reporting them to the to the government, we’ve tried that as well. So I’ve reported them to my MPP. And the MPP basically says we’ll take your complaint back to the College. You know, so it’s laughable. So we did that, you know, just to make them happy. And just to say, Okay, well, well, let’s see where this is really going to go. We made a complaint to the College about the College. And they said, Okay, we’ll investigate this. And their investigation resulted in one line response, which was, we’ve investigated this and we find nothing wrong. I mean, it’s just it’s stupid, right? So technically, also, there is one accountability mechanism, which is the Minister of Health. But that’s difficult, because, you know, reaching the Minister of Health is, is a problem, first of all, so for every little complaint, what I’m gonna go right to the top to the Minister of Health? So, I mean, they’re not going to entertain that, you know, there could be 100 complaints coming against the College, how’s the ministry, we’re going to deal with it? So but that is the ultimate accountability mechanism is right to the top to the Minister of Health. That is the only mechanism. And that, of course, is very difficult because the Minister of Health does not want to do anything about the College. This legislation that protects them was put into place for a reason. And the problem with legislation is it’s overly broad, and it protects them even if they commit misconduct. So it’s one thing to protect them against frivolous lawsuits, but it’s another thing to protect them in all cases, even if they’re breaking the law and even if they’re committing crimes. So this is the problem is that the host system is structured to protect them. And therefore they feel like they’re above the law. And they will just do whatever they want. And the example of that that really goes back 20 years over 20 years is the Michael Code Memorandum, which I can explain if your viewers are interested.
Will Dove 05:15
Yes, I was going to — that was going to be my next question. The Michael Code Memorandum, I read it over, it’s from 1998. So folks, that tells you how far back this corruption goes. Dr. Khan, would you please give us the details on that?
Dr. Khan 05:27
Yeah. So, you know, as you said, this goes back quite a ways. So, you know, other doctors who are practicing in alternative areas of medicine, or I mean, what they call complementary medicine or integrative medicine, what it really means is new and innovative ways of practicing. So there were a group of doctors that were practicing in this way. So they were departing from the mainstream medicine, but still very science-based and very innovative things that they were doing. And they felt that they were targeted by the College – targeted unfairly. So what they did was they retained a criminal lawyer at that time, he was a criminal lawyer, Michael Code. Now he’s the judge. And he was very independent, because he’d never defended doctors, he had nothing to do with doctors. So they retain this guy as kind of an independent legal expert. And he reviewed their files. And what he found was shocking, because he found evidence of repeated misconduct, including misrepresentation of evidence, and going so far as likely what he said was likely they were committing the crime of obstructing justice, which means they were manipulating the legal proceedings. And so that report was released to the public, there was a press conference back in I think, 1999 or so. And the government at the time, they did something with it, they commissioned a report, but there really was no outcome, there were no real changes that happened. So the College has still been running the same way out of control, without proper accountability. And they’re causing a lot of harm in the process.
Will Dove 07:07
And correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that that most of the people who don’t always think there’s a board or whatever, on the CPSO, most of the people who make these decisions over doctors are not themselves doctors.
Dr. Khan 07:20
So it’s a mixture. So there are doctors, and there are also public members. And so that’s the way that it’s structured. But the people that are I think the public members are appointed, and I’m not sure how the doctors even get in there, probably some of them are appointed, some of them are elected. But I don’t think most of them like at least the key decision makers are not elected. So I’m not sure who these people are, how they’re getting into their positions. But clearly, they’re not working in the public interest. They’re not protecting the public. And what they’re doing is really protecting their own. So they’re protecting doctors who they’re protecting many bad doctors. And we’ve seen that, you know, historically, it’s happened many times had been articles in the Toronto Star about it, but they’re also protecting their friends, who, least from my experience, their friends are the academic doctors, the big university professors who are bringing in, you know, probably millions of dollars in research funding from the pharma industry. They’re protecting them, you know, effectively because if we come up with a new cancer treatment that’s based on a generic drug, which is the cheap old drug, they’re squashing that so they can help protect these academic oncologists who continue to make you know, millions in research money. Because what we do our work is competition for their work.
Will Dove 08:32
Or as you’ve just said, something very significant. Basically, it sounds to me, like, what they’re really protecting is their financial interest and their ties to BigPharma.
Dr. Khan 08:44
That’s what it seems like but so far, I don’t know if anybody has been able to prove that they have direct ties to BigPharma. All we can prove is they are protecting these academics and the academics, we know that they are making big money from BigPharma.
Will Dove 08:57
Right. Okay. So there’s a potential connection there.
Dr. Khan 09:00
That is that we know right, but are the College people themselves getting money directly from big pharma that we don’t know. We don’t know. speculate, but we need to investigate that.
Will Dove 09:10
But here’s the thing, folks, and this is what struck me when I read this, at least one of the drugs that Dr. Khan is using is an older, proven safe drug that has a lot of science behind it. And doesn’t this sound like ivermectin, the same story again, squashing something, because there’s no money in it for BigPharma? Could you please explain briefly your therapy and by the way, Dr. Khan and I are going to be doing another interview on his cancer treatment. So we don’t want to get too deeply on that today. But just briefly, Dr. Khan, if you could explain this treatment that you’ve been using. Yeah. My own organization has been looking for over a year now to try to find some financial connection with the colleges and to the globalist agenda, and we haven’t been able to find anything, which makes it a real mystery to me of what’s going on, but you’re at least explaining some of it. But I want to move over to your own experiences. 2007 You’d launched a clinic that using alternative therapies to treat cancer.
Dr. Khan 10:08
Of course, yep. So in 2007, the University of Alberta published a remarkable groundbreaking study, they basically showed that this old drug called DCA, which stands for dichloroacetate, that this old drug, which is off patent, and cheap, as you say, can treat cancer in a completely new way. And this new way is, unlike chemotherapy, which is a poison, and basically a controlled poison that kills the cancer cells by damaging them, this drug doesn’t do that. This drug goes into the cells, and it affects the ability of the cancer cell to generate energy, from sugar, from glucose. So it basically blocks an enzyme that cuts off the cancer cells ability to use sugar for energy and that then triggers natural cell death. So the cancer cell will then commit suicide. So University of Alberta published this paper, they explained in detail how this drug works; the mechanism, and that’s their big discovery. And based on that, we actually started to use the drug. And the reason we were able to do it was because the drug was an old drug, and there was actually human data on it, not for cancer, but there was safety data. So there were actually phase two clinical trials that showed that the drug was safe to use in humans. And so that allowed us to go ahead and proceed, and start treating end stage cancer patients initially, who had no other option. And they were basically begging me for, you know, anything that we could come up with, including this drug. So the remarkable thing is we started to use it. And very soon, we started to see results, including shrinkage of tumors, reduction of pain, improvement in people’s blood work, a whole bunch of things. So, I mean, I was kind of astonished because it’s uncommon for something that’s, you know, showing promise in the lab to actually translate into good results in the human. Right. There’s a lot of people do lab studies on things, and not necessarily all of them turn out to be useful. But this one actually did. And so that’s how it all got started.
Will Dove 12:11
So you’ve successfully treated I don’t know how many patients roughly in the last 15 years?
Dr. Khan 12:16
Oh, we have probably over 2500 patients using this drug alone, right.
Will Dove 12:20
And for that the College of Physicians and Surgeons came after you.
Dr. Khan 12:23
Yes, many times. So almost immediately, when we started using this drug, once it became known that we were doing this, and we you know, we had lost quite a bit of media coverage. We started getting complaints from other doctors, and the nature of the complaints were almost all the same. Why is Dr. Khan allowed to use this drug, this drug is not approved, he should lose his license. You know, this kind of thing. And so the College would always investigate and back then I actually think they were reasonably fair with me, they would investigate. And you know, we would answer the complaint. And because we weren’t doing anything wrong, and because we actually sort of checked with the College before we started using the drug, and we checked with Health Canada, and we checked with lawyers and everything. We had all our, you know, homework done beforehand, so they just would dismiss the complaint. And so many complaints like that came in from physicians over the years about my use of this drug, DCA, and ultimately, all of them were dismissed.
Will Dove 13:23
So I just want to jump in. The complaints weren’t coming from your patients. They were coming from other doctors?
Dr. Khan 13:29
Yeah. Not from patients at all. They were all coming by doctors. Yeah.
Will Dove 13:32
And I’ve heard that story many times before from other doctors during this whole COVID narrative. The complaints aren’t coming from their patients. It’s coming from the other doctors.
Dr. Khan 13:38
Right. Yeah. So the other doctors, I think, you know, there’s many reasons why they complain. One is, if their academic oncologist, I think they feel that it’s a, you know, potentially a competition for what they’re doing. They don’t like it. Because if I continue to get success, well, that puts their research grants in jeopardy, right? Because I could potentially then say, well, I want research funding, although we haven’t done that we’re not really a research center. But let’s say I did want to, you know, publicize the fact that we’re getting these great results. And maybe I’m going to ask for, you know, for research grants. Well, that’s competition for them, right. So they don’t like that. The second thing is they don’t believe in it, because it doesn’t have large clinical trials. So they just are biased against it. They’re just gonna say, Well, this is all garbage, what you’re doing. It doesn’t matter that I have data, I have solid data we’ve published we’ve actually published several papers, they just seem to ignore it, because we don’t have, you know, a study of 500 patients. And I also think they’re jealous because we’re charging privately, you know, so the clinic actually makes a profit, not from the sale of the drug, but from the treatments that we’re rendering. So I think there’s a number of factors, why they’re upset, and so they take it out on me by making a College complaint. So that’s how it all got started. But then a really interesting happened thing happened in 2000. And while 2013, I guess is when it things started to really change. So If you’d like me to explain that a little bit, I think that’s where it gets interesting. Please go. Yeah. Okay, so in 2013, we were still doing this treatments with this drug DCA. And as I said, the College had investigated and they’d never really found anything wrong. So they didn’t do anything. But then we had a new treatment that we brought it to Canada, we were the first in Canada to bring this. It’s called Safe chemo. It’s a special type of chemo that doesn’t have all the side effects, because there’s a protection drug that goes with it. And this is a remarkable treatment developed by a doctor in California. He’s a brilliant researcher and scientist. And so we were privileged to be the first clinic in Canada to be permitted to use this therapy. And as soon as we started using it, we started seeing phenomenal results, like I would say, between 80 and 90% of patients were actually responding well to this treatment, including advanced stage for patients and all types of cancer. Even difficult cancers like pancreatic, we were seeing great results. So again, physician complaints start coming in. But this time, things took a bit of a different turn. So the college did investigate, they got three experts, they got a nurse, they got a pharmacist and an oncologist. They all interviewed me they all came into the clinic, they turned us upside down and inside out, they check the patient charts. They did not find anything seriously wrong. They said oh, maybe you could improve your charting here and there. But you know, but no incompetence, no harm to patients, no danger to the public. So now it gets interesting. Now, I’m thinking okay, that’s great. They’re going to dismiss this complaint, just like, you know, all the previous complaints because really, I haven’t done anything wrong. We’re helping patients, right? We’re not killing patients like with conventional chemo, right? You know, regular Chemo kills a percentage of patients, but not this therapy.
Will Dove 16:43
Let me interject, because Dr. Khan and I were talking briefly before the interview, and as many of you know, I went through stage four throat cancer six years ago, and the chemo drug they gave me with cisplatin, which is the nastiest of them. And to tell you just how nasty it is, 50% of patients don’t get the third round because it might kill them. Yeah, that’s how poisonous these drugs are. Please do continue. Dr. Khan.
Dr. Khan 17:07
Right. So we were using carboplatin, which is very closely related. And it’s a little bit safer than cisplatin. But with this thing called Safe chemo, there’s this protection drug that goes with the carboplatin. And it reduces the side effects literally, 14 times less. And we have data to prove that. So at this point, the College had investigated, their three experts interviewed me like I said, they checked everything, they did not find anything seriously wrong, no incompetence, no harm. So then out of the blue, they hired another expert, and they didn’t tell me this time, because they always tell my lawyer, they tell me, okay, we’re hiring an expert, you’re gonna have a chance to, you know, comment on the expert opinion and so on. And but this is who we’re hiring, right? So it’s all transparent. This time, they didn’t tell me, they secretly hired the Chief of Oncology at McMaster University. And this guy wrote a report that was opposite to all the other three experts. He said everything was wrong. I’m harming patients or potentially harming patients. I don’t know what I’m doing. Anyway, it was quite a nasty report. And so what the College did was they basically tossed out all the other three reports that said, there was nothing wrong. And they hung their hat on this guy’s report, and they said, Oh, now we have to discipline you. Now we have to punish you, because you don’t know what you’re doing. And of course, we protested quite a bit. Because really, this guy’s report was a fraud. So not only did he contradict the College’s own three other experts, but he actually fabricated his report. So you’ll see this on CPSOcrimes.com. He made multiple false statements in his report, like verifiably false statements, not medical opinions where he could say, Well, I think you know, Dr. Khan should have done something differently. No, it wasn’t that. It was he said, Well, Dr. Khan failed to order, you know, test ABC. And I was like, No, I did here, look on page 14 of my chart. There it is right. Now. Oh, Dr. Khan failed to refer the patient to a specialist. No, look on page 200 of my chart. There’s the referral. Right. So he made multiple statements like this. And we – I was very upset. And you know, my lawyer wrote to them and said, No, this guy has made, here’s all his wrong statements. Here’s the references. Look in the chart, check it out. So the College ignored all of that. They got him to write a rebuttal, his rebuttal to my corrections was, I have no changes to my report. That was it, one line. Okay, so then I knew things were not going to go well, right. I knew and this is the thing, you cannot stop the College at this stage. So this is the big problem. You can’t take them to court, right. I mean, you can but you’re not going to get anywhere because the court’s gonna say one of two things. They’re gonna say one, this is premature, because we need the judicial process to complete first. So basically, the courts gonna say, Look, we haven’t done anything against you yet. Yeah, the guy may have fabricated his report. But then the College needs to look at that and say, yeah, it was fabricated. We’re gonna throw it out. So you haven’t given them a chance to do that yet. So we’re not going to hear the case. That’s called prematurity. Okay, so that’s the first thing the judge will throw it out. And the second thing is, if you question the expert and say, Look, this guy doesn’t know what he’s doing the college the judge will say, No, we give deference to the college is the principal legal principle called deference, which means they defer to the expert, and the college is supposed to be, you know, the body that governs the practice of medicine. So they are the experts, and the person they hire is the expert. So what is Dr. Khan? No, no, no, no, the college expert is the real expert. We give deference to this expert. Okay. So that’s why you can’t stop the middle of in the middle of the process, right? Because normally, you would think, well, this is crazy what they’re doing, I’m just going to take him to court and put an end to this, but you can’t. Okay, so that’s, you know, they’ve got their whole MO all down, they know what they’re doing when they want to get you, they will get you, right, because they don’t follow any rules. So this is an example of how they operate. So anyway, the ultimate conclusion of that was, they did take me to discipline they held a hearing, and they found me guilty of all kinds of things, which was all false because it’s based on fabricated evidence. It’s based on this, this guy from Hamilton, you know, from McMaster University, who wrote a false report. The funniest thing was when he testified under oath, he actually admitted all the wrongdoing in his report. And the College ignored all that too. And they took all his testimony, and they accepted every word of his testimony.
Will Dove 21:31
Right. So I have to stop you there. This went to court.
Dr. Khan 21:34
It’s their court. Right? Oh, it’s their College’s own court. Yeah.
Will Dove 21:39
So he was so even under oath in their own court, he confesses that he’s made all this up?
Dr. Khan 21:44
Yep. And they ignore. They ignored it. They accepted everything he said, all the other statements that he made, where he said, Oh, Dr. Cohn did this wrong and that wrong. And so even though he’s admitted now that he’s lied repeatedly in his report, right? They accepted everything he said, at face value against the protests of my attorney. And they even broke one of their own rules of proceedings, which was that this guy is he’s supposed to sign a form before he writes his expert opinion, His form says that, look, I understand my, my responsibilities. And I understand, you know, the fairness and this and that, and he never signed the form. And but their rules require him, they say he must sign this form. Before he writes his expert opinion report, and he didn’t do it. So my lawyer brought it up and said, Look, he violated your own rules, throw it out. Right. They changed their rules in the middle of the hearing.
Will Dove 22:35
Right. And may I assume that the signature on that form, places him in a position of liability for his report?
Dr. Khan 22:43
Yes. And but he signs and reforms —
Will Dove 22:44
which would be why he didn’t sign it.
Dr. Khan 22:46
Yeah, exactly. But he signed it a week before the hearing, right? So years after he wrote the report, now he signs the form. And clearly that’s not allowed, right. So when — it’s also,
Will Dove 22:57
I know a little bit about the law, it also basically makes the document invalid, right? Even if you can’t, you can’t apply a law on something that was done way after it was supposed to be done it, it can’t be applied to his actions at the time, because he didn’t set it in advance.
Dr. Khan 23:17
You can’t Yeah, you have to sign in advance, you can’t sign it after the fact that means nothing. So Right. That’s what my lawyer said. Now, it used to it’s actually was called the discipline committee of the college before now, it’s called the tribunal. But the kangaroo court of the college that’s hearing this case, basically changed their own rules in the middle of the hearing to say, we’re going to waive our rule that required him to sign this in advance, or we’re gonna ignore that rule. Now, we’re gonna change our rule. Now, this is clearly obstructing justice, right? Because now what they’re doing is they’re changing all the rules. They’re changing all their procedure just to find me guilty. And they’re using a witness who’s a known liar. And who admitted under oath, that he repeatedly wrote false statements in his report against me, he admitted all of that, and they’re still relying on him, which is just insane, right? And of course, then they find me guilty. And that’s why they revoke my license. Again, the problem is, you can’t stop them, because all these things that they did wrong. This is a kangaroo court of theirs it’s a civil proceeding. So you would have to take them to court and sue them. And again, they’re protected, right. And the legislation that protects them is called the Regulated Health Professions Act, Section 36, subsection three. So if anybody wants to look that up, you can read it regularly, our HPA Regulated Health Professions Act 36, subsection three, where it says that no documents or evidence or anything from a college proceeding may be used in any civil proceeding, so you can’t sue them.
Will Dove 24:46
It’s just absolutely unbelievable. At what point in time did they suspend your or, revoke rather, your license?
Dr. Khan 24:54
So by the time they actually revoked It was July, middle of July of this year. So 2022. So that it the all these processes take time. So, but the interesting thing, so this is what I really wanted to get to as before they revoked my license. I found just by chance this, this amazing paralegal. And he was the one who told me, Hey, look, do you know that you can actually file criminal charges against the College on your own, without going to police that there is actually a mechanism for a member of the public to file a criminal charge? And I didn’t know this. And none of my lawyers ever told me this. So this paralegal told me and he’s like, I can help you do it. So I was like, Okay, great. We’ve got all the evidence, right. And so this, this was amazing. We’ve we actually filed the criminal charges, which means that we took evidence to a court, and there was a judge or a technically, a Justice of the Peace, presiding. The Justice of the Peace reviewed our evidence, and said, Yes, you have evidence that which on the surface of it, it does appear that these people in the College were committing criminal acts. And you may now proceed with a what’s called a private criminal prosecution. So we were able to present evidence to this Justice the Peace and then what happens is, then it has to go to a second judge or second, Justice the Peace and they reviewed the evidence in more detail. And at that point, the Crown Attorney appears and that Justice the Peace also agreed with our evidence and said, Yes, I believe that you have enough evidence here, that crimes had been committed, and we may now proceed to a criminal trial. So, we actually got that far and that was not even with all the evidence about this specific case. That was some other — it was another case against me where they also committed crimes, they just keep going, you know, they won’t stop because you can’t stop them, right? So but the funny thing was at this – at that point, the next thing that happened was the Crown Attorney, who is actually legally required to take over the prosecution at that stage. And then they’re supposed to, you know, call the College to answer the charges and then, they may proceed to trial. Without even looking at the full evidence they threw out the charges, the Crown Attorney threw out the charges, and, and we had way more evidence, he didn’t even want to hear it. So again, very, very fishy. You know, I know that College has their tentacles run deep. And now I’m wondering, did they even, you know, have a word with this Crown Attorney? Or did they have a word with his office and say, Look, there’s criminal charges being filed? What are you guys going to do about it? And this guy, clearly, he didn’t, wasn’t interested in hearing the full extent of our evidence. And he immediately dismissed the charges and said, Look, I don’t think there’s any reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Will Dove 27:36
I’m sorry, I’m, as much as I’m aware of all the corruption is going on. I’m having a hard time getting my head around this. I just want to be sure that I’m understanding the chain of events here. You’ve got two different Justices of the Peace who looked at your criminal charges, said yes, it appears that you have evidence of crimes on their behalf. Yes. And then it goes to a Crown Attorney. And he just throws it up, he threw it out. So basically, your case is dead?
Dr. Khan 28:02
Well, those charges are dead, no charges. I mean, technically, we could, you know, file them again, with more evidence, and then, you know, do the process all over again. But that’s not what I’m interested in doing. I actually have much more serious charges to file and charges to file against people higher up in the organization. And so that’s actually what we’re preparing right now. And we’re going to prepare a little bit differently, this time to present to the Crown Attorney in such a way that it’s going to be very difficult for them to simply toss the charges.
Will Dove 28:31
Dr. Khan, I want to finish up with this final question, I need to frame it. Because as I said, we’ve been looking for some time now, my own organization, for any kind of ties with the Colleges of Physicians and the WEF or BigPharma paying them off, what are and we aren’t to find anything. But the picture you’re painting to me seems extremely clear that there is this biopharmaceutical industry, of which the College has seemed to be an integral part. And it’s all this big package to protect the profits, to protect the industry. And to do so at the cost of doctors and worst of all of patients.
Dr. Khan 29:09
Exactly, that’s the worst thing is they’re actually harming the public, right? I mean, the Okay, you can harm me, you can harm a handful of doctors, who cares, like I’m sure the public doesn’t care, but you look, you’re harming not, you’re not just harming a few doctors, you’re harming 1000s, or even potentially millions of patients, by taking away innovative doctors, you know, who have great ideas and like, like I said, like for our cancer treatments, they’re actually much safer than standard treatments. They’re very effective, right?
Will Dove 29:35
Yes. Dr. Khan, thank you so much for, as I’ve had to say to so many doctors, sadly in the last year and a half, your courage, being willing to sacrifice your career, your reputation, to do what’s right. And to truly try to help your patients. I think it’s worth noting, folks, of course, that since Dr. Kahn’s license has been revoked, since what was it June, middle of July, middle of July? How many patients now of yours, can you you can’t treat them,
Dr. Khan 29:35
So we could potentially impact, you know, hundreds of 1,000s or even millions of patients if if our therapies were more widespread, but they’re blocking that. Right. So the circumstantial evidence is very strong, that the College is really working for the medical industry, they’re protecting the status quo. They’re working for pharma directly or indirectly, we don’t know. And, as you say, you know, we don’t have documentation of that. But the circumstantial evidence shows who they are protecting So I can’t treat them. So we initially, our patients were in chaos. Because the types of treatments that we’re doing, nobody else is willing to do them because they’re all scared of the College. So here’s another problem. You know, I can’t just hand over my patients to somebody else and say, yeah, please take over their care. Because everybody says, no, no, thank you, I’m not interested in using these drugs. I don’t want to be attacked by the College, either. They everybody else wants to protect your license. So for about a week, our patients were in chaos. And then we got very lucky. And we found an excellent nurse practitioner. And he’s he took over the practice. So now he’s working under my supervision. I’ve given him a crash course in everything that we do. And he’s a senior nurse, very, very experienced. And so he’s taken over almost all the patients, the only ones he cannot take over are the pediatric patients because his license doesn’t extend to pediatrics. So there’s a there’s a couple of kids that we have with cancers that are stable, and unfortunately, they’ve been left without a doctor. So now they have to find other ways to get their medications. So it hasn’t been perfect. So again, the College is really they’re harming people. And this is very, very serious, right? I have a child, she’s only, I think about 10 years old, and she has a brain tumor, glioblastoma, which is I don’t know if you know, maybe Gord Downey, that when he was famous, see, that’s the one he had. And this little girl has been in remission for years with glioblastoma. She technically should have died a long time ago, but her medications are working. And she’s left now without a doctor. So her mum is scrambling to get her medication some other way. And here, this is the College is supposed to protecting the public, and they have no concern whatsoever for this little girl who’s potentially now going to die because she has no treatment.
Will Dove 32:20
So Dr. Khan, once again, thank you for everything that you’re doing. Dr. Khan and I are going to stay in touch, we will bring you further updates as things develop. And he’s also agreed to do an interview with me in the near future on his treatment for cancer, which I think will be very interesting. Thank you again.
Dr. Khan 32:37
Thank you. Will, I really appreciate it. And, you know, keep telling the truth. This is what we have to do. This is how we’re going to overcome all these evil things that are happening in our society today.
Will Dove 32:47
Absolutely. If you found this content informative, I’m going to ask you to go to our website at www.StrongandFreeCanada.org and sign up for our newsletter. It only takes a minute of your time. With all the censorship bills our government is pushing through the legislatures. Email is the only way you can be certain of continuing to receive the interviews, videos and other resources that Strong and Free Canada provides. In addition, due to censorship, some content is released only on our website. While this content is free, subscribing to our newsletter is the only way you will know about it. Secondly, if you weren’t able, please donate to our efforts. We have several options on our website for this including two different options for offline donations. We are fighting for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, and have been doing so since August of 2020. But we’re also fighting to save lives. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology has predicted that by 2028 700 million people will die globally from the toxic injections that are being falsely marketed as vaccines. And even more sadly, many of those deaths and severe injuries will be in children. We are working desperately to save as many as we can, and Your donation will save lives. Finally, if you yourself have been deceived or coerced into receiving these injections, you will find our treatment protocols at our partner organization, the World Council for Health, which will help to clear the spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles from your body. I urge you to also visit WorldCouncilforHealth.org to access that information
100% Secure Donations
Recurring monthly donations only. Updated manually.