The Crimes of the CPSO | Drs. Trozzi, Phillips, Luchkiw, Michael Alexander

SUMMARY KEYWORDS
patients, college, doctors, people, restrictions, investigations, professional misconduct, injected, exemption, hearing, license, charter, worked, wrote, investigated, lawyers, act, case, phillips, suspended
SPEAKERS
Dr. Trozzi, Dr. Luchkiw, Michael (legal counsel), Will Dove, Dr. Phillips

Will Dove 00:00
As many of you are aware of the persecution of doctors across this country who have chosen to practice medical ethics, telling their patients the truth about masks, about vaccines. I have with me today, two of those doctors, Dr. Mark Trozzi and Dr. Crystal Luchkiw, along with Michael Alexander, their lawyer. Both of these doctors are now facing disciplinary hearings from the CPSO, and Dr. Luchkiw has had her license suspended, in all cases, simply for practicing medical ethics. Now, we’ve got three different people here coming from three different places. We also are hoping to have with us Dr. Patrick Phillips, he was here, he dropped out. I know that Dr. Phillips sometimes has problems with his connections as I’ve interviewed him in the past. We’re hoping he’s going to be able to join us. But we’re gonna go ahead with the interview. And hopefully he’ll be able to come in at a later date. So all of you, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today.

Dr. Trozzi 01:00
Thanks for having us. Will.

Michael (legal counsel) 01:02
Great to be here. Will.

Will Dove 01:04
Now, Michael, I want to start with you as your lawyer, you’re doing something unique in this case, because as I said, all these doctors are facing disciplinary hearings for cases of professional misconduct, which they can’t possibly be under the CPSO’s own rules. Would you please begin by explaining to our viewers, first of all, what are those three restrictions that they’ve been placing on them? And why it is that they cannot be examples of professional misconduct?

Michael (legal counsel) 01:31
Sure Will, well, the three restrictions are people – I mean, doctors may not say anything, may not say anything, make a comment, contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Second is no doctor may write a medical exemption for COVID-19 injections, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. And the third is nobody may prescribe alternative, though approved medications for the treatment of COVID-19 or its prevention. And here we’re talking about Health Canada approved drugs like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine Luvox. So these are three restrictions now, and they have been used to bring, to allege that my clients and many dozens, dozens of other doctors in the province are in violation of the rules of professional misconduct, because they haven’t followed the restrictions, they violated them. And investigations have been brought on these grounds. And now doctors are heading towards hearings, where an attempt will be made to revoke their licenses permanently. Now, the problem with this whole thing, the core problem is that these restrictions are not binding rules, they are not rules that go to professional misconduct, professional misconduct is based on a regulation. And there are a list of items there. Matters that were or actions that would constitute professional misconduct. These restrictions were never passed into that regulation. They were never even established as college policies. They simply showed up on the College website one day, we don’t know who wrote them. We don’t know if they came from Whitmore directly the registrar or whether they came from the legal department. We don’t know who did it. But they now have been used to prosecute doctors unjustly. Now, the shocking thing about this whole case is for the past 18 months, this is the very point I have been arguing with College lawyers is that you can’t apply these restrictions, which I’ve said are really just recommendations or guidelines as if they were binding regulatory norms. Well, lo and behold, when I got the college’s Factum, for this hearing this past week, they admitted that the restrictions are just recommendations or guidelines. So the point I made in the first five to 10 minutes of my one hour submission was that the college has essentially conceded my case. And insofar as these are only recommendations or suggestions, there can be no investigation, there can be no prosecution, there can be no hearing, and my clients should go free.

Will Dove 04:16
Right. And I want to get back to that hearing in just a couple of minutes. But first, Dr. Luchkiw, you are first of all, you’re you’ve had your license suspended. But you have a very convoluted story for how you got to this point. So would you please briefly describe for our viewers what’s happened to you, since you stood up and did simply what was right – practice medical ethics

Dr. Luchkiw 04:41
From the beginning of 2020 when the pandemic started, I had grave concerns about isolation, particularly with my patient population in the elderly. And I started seeing changes very early on in my own practice patients and my community. I started to see how quickly people were changing their behavior and attitudes towards one another. And I just kept practicing medicine lawfully and ethically, I was working in the hospital in my community, as well as my own private practice. And I saw some very cruel treatment of patients, their families and others may not describe it as cruel because they feel it might be necessary. But I do in fact, describe it as cruelty, if you look up the definition of cruelty, I saw some unethical actions and experienced them myself. I was coerced aggressively to change a death certificate and a patient passed away of cancer. They wanted me to change it to COVID. And so there was so much happening, that it really was sickening to my stomach. I couldn’t participate in that environment anymore, in that hospital. So I resigned my privileges. And they were mandating things. And I had asked questions, and I was being attacked for asking questions in my own profession of medical science. I was on a podcast and I had expressed what had happened to me and the hospital and the experiences that I had, professionally. The chief of staff at the hospital was, was quite upset by that. One of my community patients had been hospitalized right around that same time, who previously had a, an organ transplant. And so he was considered to be immunocompromised, he had an exemption. But nobody saw the exemption. Nobody. He didn’t tell them it was from me. And it was assumed that it was from me. After the chief of staff found out about this podcast, he then used that as an opportunity in my mind to send in a complaint to the registrar of the college, alleging and assuming without any evidence that I wrote this exemption. Again, these are guideline statements, I knew that they were because they were only based on guidance from Nancy and from the government itself, the Ministry of Health. So the college attempted to raid my office for any and all patient files that they wished or at their whim. And I wasn’t even aware of any investigation against me. I declined them coming into my office and was able to speak with Michael Alexander. Since that time, they have been absolutely not agreeable to answer my questions and my requests that they provide me transparency, and show me with due diligence, and due process, that they are, in fact entering into an investigation against me in a lawful manner. They have limitations, the College, they can’t just do what they want, and raid doctors offices and take private confidential information about patient rights. And they truly believe that they have that authority, or at least they act as if they do, because they’ve never been challenged. But that in and of itself became their quest to take me to disciplinary tribunal because I was not cooperating. And they think that we have to cooperate regardless. They have to first meet the legal criteria, before Section 76 is even looked at. What Section 76 is, is that we have to comply with their orders or their investigations. It has to be a legitimate and lawful initiation, which there are criteria. And they refuse to show us anything. They ended up putting a restriction on my license because of the communication that we had back and forth. And I had not provided them with any records because they didn’t feel that investigating me based on guidance statements, was appropriate, and they wouldn’t engage in any kind of transparency, discovery and negotiation. And then they suspended my license in March – again, based on our statements back in our questions to them. It’s really a highly abusive process and has nothing in my mind to do with patient safety. It has everything to do with that I’ve challenged the legitimacy of their authority to enter into an investigation against me and that’s really never been done until this time and there’s actually a number of us To that have all been treated the same way and had the same questions and concerns and done similar research and had similar legal advice. I think we’re at a very new moment in medicine and the CPSO. At least I hope we are, because this has been going on for a long time. So it’s very convoluted. And I have been suspended and no one has any objective evidence or empirical evidence. It’s all based on hearsay assumptions, presumptions and allegations.

Will Dove 10:36
So let me just see if I can sum this up. Because if I’m getting everything clear here, you’ve had your license to practice medicine suspended, because you asked questions they didn’t want you asking, you refused to violate your patient’s medical confidentiality by handing over their records, and an unfounded allegation that you wrote an exemption to an immunocompromised patient.

Dr. Luchkiw 10:59
Absolutely.

Will Dove 11:00
Dr. Patrick Phillips has been able to rejoin us, Patrick, thank you for coming in. You also have had your license suspended. Now I’ve interviewed you twice in the past and people who’ve been watching my interviews for some time know this. And the last time I interviewed you, you were under investigation, but you had not yet had your license suspended. So if you would please, once again, tell our viewers your story of what led you to this point.

Dr. Phillips 11:25
Yeah, so I have a number of allegations against me. And it’s quite a complicated story. But it all I’ll summarize it briefly leaving out some some parts of it. But yeah, basically, the beginning of 2021 is when I used to, I started speaking out against the public health measures. So it was mostly freedom of speech issues, bringing up concerns about informed consent, about the development of the vaccines and the harms from the lockdowns, that’s when the investigations that need to be started. From there, it kind of it spiraled in a few ways. The main one being that I started seeing adverse events report in an emergency patients coming into the emergency department where I was working, and I started filling out adverse event reports, I filled those out and sent them to my public health officer, as I’m obligated to by law. He rejected every single one of them. He sent me a letter saying same thing. And so I, I sent a letter back to him being like, why are you are you rejecting all of these adverse events, and he didn’t reply, and so I went public with it. As a result of that he retaliated and reported me to the CPSO, and I’m being investigated and prosecuted for every one of those adverse events. There’s a number of other things as well. like for example, prescribing preventative treatments for COVID, prescribing ivermectin, I wrote vaccine exemptions for my patients who are being coerced against their will often crying, because they’re going to lose their job if they don’t if they’re not injected with these vaccines. And I wrote some letters saying, supporting them in their autonomy. The College took offense to that. And based on these guidance statements restricted my license, preventing me from prescribing ivermectin, provide – preventing me from giving any kind of exemptions to to COVID related measures, and I lost my position at the hospital around the same time. From there, I started my own family practice while under these restrictions. And the interesting part somewhat is that basically all my patients knew I was under investigations, and I had a restricted license. And so I gravitated towards myself, a lot of patients who are awake to a lot of these things that are happening, quite a number of them were vaccinated, but was against their will and but most of them were not, they saw the the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario as an enemy of their autonomy and of their health care when the College asked me, and they wrote an Order outside of my investigations, because at this time my investigations were over, they reserved the right to at will demand any patient’s chart the entire chart to be sent to them. The main purpose of it was to ensure that I’m following their restrictions. So I discussed this with my patients, because it felt like a violation for me to hand over their entire files, often because they’re most of the people that are coming after they want to know people who’ve got exemptions for vaccines. But anyway, my patients were not okay with it, or at least enough of them were not that I sent a letter back to the CPSO demanding that at the very least, they need the consent of my patients who needed to just send that to them under Section Eight of the Charter, which states that all Canadians have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And these patients didn’t give the consent. They’re not being investigated for anything. And they didn’t have a warrant for any of these, these patient files and so I sent them a letter saying the same that if you want to ask my patients for consent, I will send them all of my files. I’m not here to keep myself from being investigated. I’m here to put protect the privacy of these patients, especially because these patients distrust with very good, good grounds to CPSO and don’t want them to know their vaccination status or their personal health information. I know for sure, I would never want the CPSO to have my information, especially the way they treated patients over the last few years. That was May 2. And since that time, I’ve been “off” pending trial for all the allegations.

Will Dove 15:25
So in your case, you you had the temerity to do what you’re supposed to do, and report injuries for which and we’ve interviewed on this in the past for which they would turn around and tell you no, no, no, it had nothing to do with the vaccine, I believe there was even one or two cases where they actually called the patient up, told them that and told them, they should go get another shot. So there’s a common thread I’m seeing here between both yourself, Patrick and Crystal. The allegations against you are not coming from patients. They’re coming from other doctors. So neither of you have had – ever had a patient complain about you to the CPSO in the last two years.

Dr. Luchkiw 16:00
I have one of my but she’s actually she was also a nurse that I worked with at the hospital, she sent a complaint in against my infectious disease protocol and my social media posts, I was allowed the opportunity to provide my own response to that with evidence. And I was exonerated from that on November 4th, and then November 10th, without any new information that I’m aware of the registrar launched an investigation against me for those exact same things that I was just cleared of. But this is unlawful, it’s abusive, it’s threatening. It’s disrespectful. And it’s basically trying to just threaten the entire profession into compliance with whatever whim the College has and I cannot. I just cannot participate in that, because it’s just unethical. And it’s so wrong and harmful to the patients of Ontario.

Dr. Trozzi 17:01
Like Dr. Luchkiw and Dr. Phillips, I mean, what’s happened with me in essence is I’ve continued to be a good doctor. When, for instance, a company like Pfizer, Maderna releases an experimental genetic injection, I actually read what’s in it. So I know when an injection is not a vaccine. I know when injection has never even been tested properly. I know that when you put something in pegylated nanoparticles that means you’re trying to get it into everything, including the patient’s brain, including the unborn child inside of its mother, and even into the unborn child’s brain.

Will Dove 17:01
Dr. Trozzi, many of my viewers are very familiar with you. You have worked in cooperation with my own organization Strong and Free Canada for quite some time. Many of them follow your own excellent daily blog at DrTrozzi.org. Now you currently still have your medical license, but you too, are facing a disciplinary hearing. What has happened with you?

Dr. Trozzi 17:23
Now the Hippocratic Oath requires a doctor to do our homework. You can’t just be making stuff up. I can’t just say well, you know, CDC said safe and effective. I knew by very early in 2021 that Pfizer’s own early research showed that these injections kill 3% of the people they injected it in within a few months. If you weren’t in the 3% that died within a few months, you were in the approximately 28% that were injured either permanently or ongoing. I knew that from their own data that approximately 100% of the pregnant women injected, aborted their babies, which is better performance at aborting babies than the abortion pill. And it makes thalidomide look like a Flintstone vitamin. People like Nancy Whitmore, the head of CPSO, now she’s actually a medical doctor, and she actually has a responsibility to do the same stuff. She’s supposed to do her homework. So for instance, she decides that she’s going to make a suggestion, statement, mandate, whatever they want to call it, their legalistic terms. If she decides she wants to tell everybody, every doctor in the province to go along with these injections, and say they’re safe and effective. Well, you know, she should probably at least read the monograph, she should actually read it. So either she didn’t read it because she’s therefore negligent and she just believed CDC or Bill Gates or she read it and knew that for a virus with less than 0.3% mortality which causes zero serious disease or death in children, that she was ordering everyone to go along with injecting everybody with the experimental genetic pegylated nanoparticle adenovirus and you know, people that are looking at this, this is not a vaccine. I knew because I do my research that we have known for almost a decade that Corona viruses, which are a messenger RNA virus, are inhibited in the replication through an amazing drug called ivermectin, which is one of the safest, cheapest and most effective medications in the world. And yes, it also works for parasites. And yes, it is used for horse deworming as well, but its for a lot of things. So what happened with me was I followed my Hippocratic Oath and remained an intact intelligent human being with a heart. And no matter how much money I could have been paid to help kill off the citizens of Ontario, I wouldn’t do it. I know what a vaccine is. I’ve taken tetanus shots, I’ve, this is not a vaccine, this is a lie. So either she didn’t read her homework, and she’s criminally negligent or she did read it and thought, Oh, what the hell, it’s a lot of money in her. I don’t know how it’s working for, but I’m going to order all the doctors to inject everybody with this stuff. And let’s start out by killing 3% of the population like they did with Pfizer’s own study. Let’s start aborting the babies. Let’s start causing heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, let’s cause neurologic disorder. Let’s have people’s own brain cells plugging up with Spike proteins. I mean, so while Nancy was doing that, so was Tam and so was a lot of other people that really should be locked up if we still have any rule of law in our society. I just stuck to the old Hippocratic Oath and the golden rule. And I just now over the last two years, I’ve learned more about this than you can imagine. This has been my full time thing for two years, I gave up making a living Yes, I have a license, but I haven’t been using it really. But what I have been doing is researching and teaching and working with lawyers and working with pathologists and looking at electron micrographs. And studying statistics. I’ve told people the truth, this is not a vaccine, this is not safe and effective. This will kill you and shorten your life. This will abort your babies. This will sterilize you. Another thing I mentioned that I know that they should know is that in 2020 when they said everybody’s dying of COVID and we had this new disease killed everybody. Yeah, we had a virus. And you know what everyone that died, could have been cured. Well, 85% of them would have lived – approximately, if we’d given them cheap safe, effective medicine, like the one Patrick Phillips prescribed, and like the one they’re trying to take his license to practice medicine away for doing it. I commend him, I admire him. Exemptions? This is another issue. What planet are we living on? It’s your body, you don’t need an exemption not to have anything done you. Listen, even if I don’t want to take vitamin C, I don’t have to. If I want to take vitamin C, I’ll take vitamin C. But if you don’t want to be injected with a genetic experiment that the manufacturers own research shows kills 3% of the people that take it within a few months, I think you have a right not to take it, you don’t need an exemption. But people are running around being abused and coerced by this. So yeah, I wrote some of those pieces of paper because people needed the magic word ‘exemption’ on it. But you know what I wrote on the paper and you know, I talk to people experts on the Constitution. And here’s what I wrote. I said, this person doesn’t want it, therefore, it’s an assault to give it to them. They’re exempted from being injected by me or anybody on the planet. And even if you’ve twisted their arm up their back and said, you ain’t gonna feed your kids if you don’t take the injection, you’re gonna lose your home if you don’t take the injection. That doesn’t mean they agree to it. That’s called coercion. That’s a crime. We’re not going along with it. So Miss, ‘I want to kill everybody’ ordered 19 investigators to investigate me, I have worked my butt off for two years. My website is so full. I’ve worked at the World Council for Health I’ve worked with you, Will Dove. If anybody was hired to investigate me, then that would mean that they’ve been exposed to the statistics, the data, the electron micrographs, the microscopy, the physiology, the biochemistry, they know what I know. Either that or they’re another bunch of negligent bunch who investigated me. And instead of looking at the facts, they sat around like they’re trying to with Dr. Luchkiw sniffing around to figure out how can we hurt them? How can we get them in trouble, and that’s not their job. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is supposed to protect the public. They’re supposed to make sure doctors aren’t doing stupid stuff like not reading the monograph and getting a bunch of money from Pfizer to inject people with deadly goo.

Will Dove 24:05
So Dr. Trozzi, I just want to point out in case you missed that, folks, the only reason why Dr. Trozzi hasn’t also had his license suspended is that he hasn’t been practicing for the last year and a half. He took a leave of absence early last year to do exactly what he’s been doing to tell people the truth. If he hadn’t done that, he would also have had his license suspended by now. So Michael, I want to get back to you now because we’ve heard from these three doctors, very ethical doctors who are trying to protect their patients trying to practice medicine ethically, as it’s supposed to be practiced. And you have come up with what I think is an extremely clever approach to this problem because they’re basing these disciplinary hearings from the CPSO, but you’ve done something that’s never been done before, and it happened this past Wednesday. Please tell us what that was.

Michael (legal counsel) 24:57
Well, I tried to take advantage of the rules of procedure of the college, which allow for motion hearings prior to actual scheduled hearings or trials. So I made the argument to the tribunal, that my clients should have the opportunity to raise fundamental issues of law that go to all of their cases in a pre hearing motion and to raise Charter claims to the process and jurisdictional claims against the College and to make the basic argument that they should not be investigated or prosecuted for acting contrary to mere recommendations or guidelines. And I said, if we resolve these legal issues, then we don’t have to have a hearing, it will turn out that this whole enterprise has been unlawful from the very beginning. I made this argument in the fall of 2021, the adjudicator at that time who we were dealing with, denied that we could do this. Months later, I raised the argument, again, with the Chair of the tribunal, David Wright, and he agreed with me that under the rules, we should have the right to do this and he issued a decision in that regard. And so that’s what led to the motion hearing on Wednesday, this has never occurred in the 32 year history of the College under its current legislation, the Regulated Health Professions Act, which came into force in 1990. So there’s another reason this has never been done before. Doctors across the country pay into something called the Canadian Medical Protection Association Fund. So the CMPA Fund, okay, they purchase services of insurance lawyers, essentially, who represent them in malpractice suits, and also in relation to the Colleges. And what most doctors don’t know, is the CMPA has written into its policy, that it will not raise jurisdictional and Charter questions before the colleges. So the CMPA lawyers just accept the framework that the college gives them for an investigation or prosecution without calling into question whether the framework itself is just, and this has been going on for decades. And it’s a tragedy. And actually, it’s a perfect fraud. It’s really been perpetrated on the entire profession. And so someone like me, who is an independent lawyer, who is not with the CMPA, comes forward out of the blue and says, Oh, by the way, CMP lawyers, it’s time that you challenge the framework, and raise the fundamental questions of law, that should have been raised 32 years ago. And that’s what happened, it was historic, it’s a game changer.

Will Dove 27:39
Now, there’s been no decision handed down yet. But there’s a couple of very important points that I think we need to cover here. And first of all, I once again want to make sure that I’m getting some facts straight. I know that this is a complex legal issue. But it is at its core, your argument to them is that these restrictions are not laws, they’re not part of the professional code of conduct. And therefore, these doctors cannot be investigated for professional misconduct. for refusing to follow them,

Michael (legal counsel) 28:08
There is a regulation passed under the medicine act, which as Patrick pointed out earlier today, has list of 32 items that constitute professional misconduct, any one of them, you know, constitutes professional misconduct should you violate and these restrictions were not passes regulations, they’re not on the list of matters of professional misconduct, they also can’t be held as a standard of practice, the only way that you can establish a standard of practice in Ontario, is to make a proposal, the College has to make a proposal to the Minister of Health, who then takes it to the Cabinet, the Cabinet must pass that proposal into law as a regulation, that has not happened ever in Ontario. And it certainly has not happened in relation to these restrictions. So we do not have any legal norms in place on the basis of which you could accuse my clients or the other doctors who are, you know, under siege, of actually committing acts of professional misconduct. So this is the most basic point on which we proceed is is that you can’t accuse somebody professional misconduct without having a law or regulation in place to justify that.

Will Dove 29:20
If they rule in your favor. Then it follows that all of these investigations against these doctors, these accusations of professional misconduct have to be dropped, because they’re invalid.

Michael (legal counsel) 29:30
That’s right. All In fact, the implication would be that all the prosecution’s of doctors in this province and in other provinces where they have similar restrictions would have to come to an end. And I might add, Will, that we also argue that even if the panel were to consider these restrictions to be binding norms, I don’t see how they could that they would still be fatal that in other words, they would still fall in relation to Charter claims because they violate the right to freedom of expression and the right to life, liberty and a security of the person, which is the basis on which we all have a right to informed consent. And so, and also, again, if they were to regard these things, these restrictions as discretionary decisions on the part of the registrar, they can also be attacked on Charter grounds under a Supreme Court case called Doray. So we say, however you look at it, the College cannot succeed here. And it’s now in the hands of the panel.

Will Dove 30:29
All right, so and I want to just add a little bit of weight to what you’ve just said about the Charter, because most of my viewers know that I have interviewed the honorable Brian Pickford several times, he’s the sole surviving author of the Charter. I have asked him outright: Does security of the person mean you have the right to say, No, you can’t inject me with anything without my consent? He said, Absolutely. That’s one of the things it means. There’s other things as well. But that’s one of the things that means no, you can’t do that

Michael (legal counsel) 30:54
One of the most brazen things that the College did in this hearing, and in its legal brief, is it denied that the principle of informed consent, the right to informed consent, is constitutionalized, under Section seven of the charter? Well, I mean, I’ve cited Supreme Court cases, including the most recent one, R. v. Carter decided in 2015, in which the Supreme Court has been very, very explicit about the fact that the right to informed consent is reflected under Section seven of the Charter. And so the college says, oh, no, no, no, you’ve got that all confused, that isn’t what the law is and so on. That’s not an argument, that’s misrepresentation.

Will Dove 31:32
Now, I want to raise one more important point about some dirty dealings going on here. Now, this happened, it was put up live on YouTube on Wednesday, I was able to watch a small part of it before my own schedule meant that I just couldn’t keep watching it. There was a disclaimer, and I noticed it myself, right at the beginning of it that said, A anybody was forbidden to reproduce that recording, and be that they would be facing a $25,000 fine if they did. But then it gets even worse. At 8pm, approximately that evening, as they were approaching 20,000 views. The video was taken down. What is it, they don’t want people to see, Michael?

Michael (legal counsel) 32:09
Well, they’ve been put in a very difficult situation here. I mean, normally, if you had an in person hearing, you might be able to accommodate maybe 50 to 100 people at the college. And but since you’ve gone virtual, of course, which is what they prefer at the College as a result of COVID and they want to keep it in place. You can have a much larger audience. But even so they have a private YouTube channel for viewing, which probably accommodates, again, around the same number of people, maybe maybe 50, to 100. So we all contacted our supporters throughout the country and other parts of the world to ask that they write to the college over the past weekend, demand the right to witness this hearing, which which should be public under the rules of there’s something called the Statutory Power Procedures Act, which governs all administrative bodies in the province. And it says that motion hearing should be in public. So we said yes, let’s go in the spirit of being in the public domain. And so they were so inundated with requests that the chair of the tribunal and I give him great credit for this did the right thing. And he issued a statement on Monday saying that due to the volume of requests, they would have an open youtube channel where anybody around the world could watch this hearing. So he did the right thing there. But that is still under this Act I just referred to where if you actually record a public hearing, that appears electronically, that’s the term they use electronic hearings, then you will be fined. And then also, there’s no obligation after the hearing is streamed for it to remain online, under this Act. And the college is now taking advantage of that. I have no doubt that if we kept this up, that we would go over a million hits on this. And the college doesn’t want that to happen. And they’re relying upon the Act to prevent it from happening. So that’s very unfortunate. You know, I have appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada. And when I appeared there, it was on live television, and then it was recorded, and it was made available to people on a regular basis on CPAC. You could also access it on the Supreme Court site for a number of years now the Supreme Court has taken all of this hearings and made them available in video format on their site, which is great. All hearings in our court system should be in public. When is Ontario and the College is going to catch up with the example that the Supreme Court has said that we need transparency and accountability in our court system. I’m asking people now to write to the College and demand that this video will be put up in the interests of justice.

Will Dove 34:54
They’re calling these prosecutions. These aren’t prosecutions, these are persecutions because none of these Doctors have done anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional. In fact, they’re doing the exact opposite. They’ve tried to protect their patients and tell people the truth, it’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. So, to me this, this is, I would like to be optimistic. And you’ve said to me prior to the interview, that you’re hoping to get a judgment before the end of the year on this hearing that happened this past Wednesday. Sadly, I’m not optimistic. And the reason I’m not is because they are clearly trying to keep this under wraps, which means either there’s something that they don’t want people to see. Or they know, they know that what they’re doing is wrong. They don’t want that exposed to the public. And so I’m going to ask each of you for your final thoughts on that. Michael, starting with you.

Michael (legal counsel) 35:46
Well, I’ve said this was before today, but I’ll say it again, these restrictions have prevented people from getting preventative treatment for COVID 19 doctors in the province that are terrified that they run afoul of these restrictions, that their careers will be over. The ultimate people who suffer here are not doctors. Patients, they are the ones who suffer, patients have been injured, and they have died because of these restrictions. Dr. Whitmore has blood on her hands. The investigators and the lawyers who have assisted her have blood on their hands, they should all be fired and subject to criminal prosecutions. That’s the only way in which we will achieve real justice here.

Will Dove 36:24
Dr. Luchkiw, your thoughts?

Dr. Luchkiw 36:26
I agree with Michael, fully. What is transpired in Ontario in terms of the medical profession, the hospitals, the behavior, the attitudes, the treatment towards patients, all comes back to the restrictions and the fear of acting outside of those guidelines that have been imposed upon us. There’s no denying that they, the use of these statements have caused immeasurable harm to countless people. It’s torn families apart. It’s sent patients to the hospital in fear because their own family members weren’t vaccinated. We’ve never seen anything like this before in medicine. And if it continues, we’re going to continue to see things we’ve never seen before. And that’s really worrisome. You know, there’s a point of no return. And, you know, we we should never try to get to that point. And we have a chance to really turn it around and do the right thing.

Will Dove 37:31
Dr. Phillips, your thoughts?

Dr. Phillips 37:32
So I just want to reiterate just the importance of these proceedings in these cases against us. While it might seem like they’re just kind of coming out two or three doctors, although they are coming after more, we’re the ones that that defied their regulations we’re the ones that that stood up for the ethical patient care, we’re not really the ones that are the most affected by this, in my opinion, the ones most affected by this are the patients of all those other doctors that followed those regulations, right? These suggestions that they know they’ll lose their license if they if they defy. So those are the patients that were gaslit were had vaccine adverse events and we’re told that, that it’s all in their head, and they should get their second shot. Those of the people who are coerced into vaccinations and had no support, and no promotion of their autonomy, which is one of our main functions as doctors. Those are the patients that didn’t even get to hear about adverse events because they all got rejected, their doctors wouldn’t even report them, because they knew they’d be reprimanded if they did. It’s so important for people to realize that the success of this case, the success of our cases, will not just influence us, but it will other doctors will see this and be like, Oh, wow, okay, we don’t have like, we don’t have to follow mere guidelines or whims of the leadership of the CPSO. We actually have rights

Will Dove 38:57
and Dr. Trozzi?

Dr. Trozzi 38:59
Well, I mean, I guess the number one thing I’d say to people is don’t take these injections and don’t let them inject them into your kids. If you’ve been injected, don’t take any more injections. Get on detoxification protocols. Know the WorldCouncilforHealth.org. Look at the Spike protein detox guide. This isn’t about us. I mean, sure. I mean, it’s unfair what’s happened Dr. Luchkiw, Dr. Phillips, what’s happening to myself, what’s happening to Dr. McCullough and I mean, there’s a long list. The reason we’re doing what we’re doing, obviously isn’t for the money. Because that was the gig, right? The gig was you go along with this. I don’t know if you folks realize you make a lot of money injecting this stuff into people. So not only do you need to do whatever you have to do to not have your kid or your mother or your by the way, it doesn’t help anybody. It increases your risk of COVID three times to have three shots more than 3.05, according to Canadian data that they stopped publishing because it looks so bad. But that’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s got way more dangerous for you. Join the resistance, stand up and fight because they’re seriously, they’re seriously killing people. If anyone doesn’t believe that, just look at global death statistics, this is easy to follow, go and look at the death rate in countries around the world year after year after year after year. And you know what you see, it’s kind of the same, it goes up and down a little bit. It doesn’t change much. And it didn’t change in 2020 when they released the virus that had a mortality rate of less than 0.3%. So not only do people need to, yeah, support us, sure, sure. But the truth is, we’re supporting you. We’re trying to protect you. Were putting everything on the line, because everything is on the line. What’s worth more than your life? So join the fight. The CPSO, they’re your enemy. So are a lot a lot of people who push this: Bill Gates, Fauci, they’re your enemy. They want you dead. People are dying at unprecedented rates, and it’s being covered up.

Will Dove 40:53
I know that my viewers will join me in thanking all of you for what you’re doing. Michael Alexander for taking up this fight and for doing so in such an extremely competent manner. I think that your your approach to this is extremely clever. And despite my own fears that the deck is stacked against you. I think you’ve done the absolute best and smartest thing you could have done and hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully they will rule in your favor and these ridiculous investigations will be dropped. And to doctors Trozzi, Phillips and Luchkiw, thank you so much for your courage and integrity in doing what you’re supposed to be doing by looking after your patients.