Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts

Published

9 minute read

Dr. Mark Trozzi

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Tuesday, outspoken COVID science critic Dr. Mark Trozzi will appeal a decision to take away his medical license. Due to a new legal standard, a successful outcome may positively impact Canada ‘in all domains of government regulation.’

Medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi will present his legal case on Tuesday when he appeals the stripping of his medical license in January by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The case will be heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC) and, according to attorney Michael Alexander, a successful result would have far-reaching legal implications impacting freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

Appearing in a late September interview with Canadian politician Derek Sloan, Alexander explained the history of the case leading up to the revoking of Trozzi’s license on January 25. In their view, “the college was primarily concerned … that Mark had been making statements about COVID-19 science and public policy that amounted to ‘misinformation’ and he was misleading the public and in doing so causing harm.”

It was also relevant that Trozzi was not even in practice at this time but had taken a sabbatical to study these issues more carefully and start a daily newsletter regarding his research.

The concern of CPSO “was the substance of his views,” the attorney assessed, “so they wanted to censor him in some way” and “eventually took him to a discipline hearing where he was found to be unprofessional, incompetent, and in violation of the standard of practice in the profession, primarily because he just presented an alternative point of view.”

READ: Dr. Trozzi stripped of medical license over COVID stance, plans to appeal

Ironically, Trozzi was not able to be present for the interview himself because he was traveling in Japan, with an invitation to speak before its parliament. He had already addressed the Romanian parliament on issues related to the COVID-19 response.

While the highly regarded former emergency room specialist “is a persona non grata in Ontario,” Dr. Trozzi’s attorney observed, “he’s in high demand around the world as someone who is providing important insights into the whole COVID era, COVID science, COVID public policy, and his criticisms are taken very seriously.”

Trozzi case could impact ‘the country in all domains of government regulation’

For more than three decades, the Ontario Divisional Court has been legally directed to judge such cases only according to a low-threshold standard called “reasonableness” that Alexander describes as the court basically deferring to the judgment of such regulatory tribunals as CPSO with regard to facts, the law, and “particularly on the interpretation of the law that the tribunal adopts.”

What makes this case different is that since Trozzi has a “statute-based right to appeal” and thus a 2019 Supreme Court decision now requires the ODC to adopt a higher standard, referred to as “correctness,” in examining the CPSO decision.

Therefore, according to this new standard, “you must get all findings of fact correct, you must get every interpretation of your statute correct, you must interpret all case law correctly,” Alexander explained.

“So, the CPSO has never had to face this before, and this (case) is the first major fundamental challenge to a regulatory body on this standard of correctness in Ontario,” he continued. Thus, this case is “extremely important. If we were to win, it would affect the whole regulatory framework of the province in a positive way.”

“So these same judges, who have been cutting a lot of slack to the College of Physicians in particular, are now going to be facing similar issues that they have faced before but on this new standard of correctness,” the attorney said.  “So they are going to have to adopt a completely different mindset in assessing the case.”

Therefore, “I guess you could say (this is) an existential moment for the judiciary in Ontario,” Alexander proposed.  “I mean will the Divisional Court step up to the plate and fully apply the standard of correctness and have the courage to do it?”

According to Alexander, a successful outcome in this case “would have a ripple effect not just in Ontario for the 22 health colleges here but for the health colleges all across the country,” forcing them to reconsider their policies in this regard.

And given the case regards the fundamental freedom of expression, a successful outcome on these arguments “would have an impact across the country in all domains of government regulation.”

“So this is not a case that’s just about Mark,” the attorney clarified. “We are trying to change the way this country is governed, and the college’s case has given us that opportunity.”

In 2020 during the “pandemic,” Trozzi, an ER veteran of 25 years, noticed that the mainstream narrative surrounding the public health “emergency” was deeply flawed. While media reported overflowing emergency rooms, Trozzi’s hospital remained relatively empty. This inspired him to research the science facts of COVID.

In the interest of protecting not only his own patients but people everywhere, Dr. Trozzi promoted alternative COVID-19 treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation, Dr. Trozzi was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots, masking requirements and testing in 2021. He was not alone: Ontario’s Dr. Rochagne Kilian was also similarly barred.

At the time, CPSO said the interim orders were given in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, which allow restrictions on a member’s license if a regulator believes a certain practice “exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury.”

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that last year Dr. Robert Malone spoke out against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

READ: Dr. Robert Malone leads thousands of scientists in calling for a total end to ‘orchestrated’ COVID crisis

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVID: Mary O’ConnorKilianCeleste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Alexander also made clear that while the CPSO has the typical governmental “blank check” of “unlimited resources,” including “around 10 lawyers on staff” and “access to outside council,” he is in need to hire “clerks to do special kinds of filing” and is seeking free-will donations.

Having donated “hundreds of thousands of dollars of billable time” into this case, Alexander has no regrets, stating that “it’s too important to the country not to litigate and we are the ones who pioneered this approach, and so it’s us or nobody.”

To assist Dr. Trozzi in winning his precedent-setting case, please donate here.

Alberta

Charges dropped against 50 Freedom Convoy-inspired Coutts protest

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Government attempted to bring charges against individuals and companies who allegedly had equipment parked on and near the highway during the Coutts Freedom Convoy protest.

Some 50 truckers who protested COVID mandates by participating in the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired blockade protests at the Canadian-U.S. border with have seen their tickets dropped, the freedom-orientated legal group representing them has said.  

In a press release, The Democracy Fund (TDF) announced that in partnership with Williamson Law (WL) it was able to successfully “defend against tickets” issued under Canada’s Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation and other regulatory statutes, for some 50 or so truckers who protested at the Coutts, Alberta border with the U.S. State of Montana in 2022. 

“WL lawyers requested disclosure and held multiple discussions with the Crown, resulting in the withdrawal of tickets for all but 11 cases,” noted TDF. 

As for the remaining 11 cases, the Crown was “determined to proceed” with them, so TDF with WL’s help “sought subpoenas for the Alberta Premier’s Office, Alberta Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Criminal Intelligence Service Alberta (CISA), and Provincial Security and Intelligence Office (PSIO) to give evidence in respect of disclosure issues.” 

TDF observed that because of seeking the subpoenas, along with additional “discussions” with the defense counsel, it was able to “resolve” the 11 remaining tickets for only “$1 each.” 

“As a result, no client was convicted at trial and all matters were successfully resolved,” noted TDF. 

Lawyer Chad Williamson of WL reacted to the results saying it “represents an outstanding victory for civil liberty clients of The Democracy Fund.” 

“The Government attempted to bring charges against individuals and companies who allegedly had equipment parked on and near the highway during the Coutts Freedom Convoy protest. In the face of a robust and steadfast defence, we were successful in having close to 50 charges withdrawn immediately,” he said. 

Williamson added that when the Crown sought to “prosecute the remaining 11 truckers, we sought subpoenas for parties we believed had relevant knowledge of the underlying events.” 

“These cases show that a strong and vigorous defence is the best protection against charges levied by the Government against peaceful protestors.” 

While many Canadians who fought COVID fines, charges, and rules were successful in getting them overturned, others have not been successful.    

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Trudeau-appointed judge recently sentenced two men involved in the same 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta, to six years in prison.

Also, Canada’s Supreme Court recently decided it will not hear appeals to two high-profile cases brought forth by People’s Party of Canada (PPC) leader Maxime Bernier and former Premier of Newfoundland Brian Peckford. The pair had alleged their “Charter rights” were violated because of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government’s COVID jab travel mandates, which banned the vaccine-free from flying.    

COVID vaccine mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.   

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Nurse testimonials reveal ‘perfect storm’ of hospital COVID protocols leading to patient death

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Hospitals were given money bonuses to enact dangerous protocols on COVID patients, according to whistleblower nurses who were themselves punished for speaking out.

Nurse testimonials reveal that hospitals not only used a deadly cocktail of protocols facilitating the death of patients during the COVID outbreak but punished whistleblowers, an author and researcher recently explained.

COVID policymakers “created one of the biggest terror campaigns in the history of mankind,” Ken McCarthy told Polly Tommey of Children’s Health Defense last month while sharing the most shocking findings of his tell-all interviews with nurses who worked the COVID pandemic.

McCarthy told how when he began to speak with nurses about their experiences, he realized that COVID-era hospital abuses he knew were taking place in New York City were in fact taking place nationwide due to “top down driven” protocols from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

These protocols, McCarthy said, were being “filtered through” chief financial officers (CFOs) of hospitals, because they were being “heavily” financially incentivized. And they were, according to all that he had learned from the nurses, dangerous and even deadly to those were designated COVID patients.

McCarthy went down the line naming several incentivized hospital COVID protocols that inflicted harm on these patients, beginning with the denial of anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen, as well as inhalable steroids.

“That’s the normal way you treat respiratory distress. You knock the inflammation down and you give people steroids. If you had a positive COVID diagnosis, they wouldn’t give you those basic treatments. This is like a fireman showing up at the fire and saying, let it burn a little bit more before we do anything,” McCarthy shared.

The next harmful practice hospitals used on “COVID” patients was to strap BiPAP masks on patients, a form of non-invasive ventilation that when administered improperly, caused many patients to have panic attacks.

“When you treat somebody with that, you have to warn them … It’s like if you were driving at 80 miles an hour and then one of your passengers stuck their head out the window. The wind is going down that fast. They didn’t prepare the patients, they didn’t comfort the patients. They would just slap this thing on and leave them alone,” explained McCarthy, adding that this “understandably” triggered panic attacks, at which point they were offered tranquilizers.

These tranquilizers relaxed their muscles, including their diaphragm, thereby weakening their breathing.

The drug was also dropped from a clinical trial for Ebola in 2018 after it was found that it had the highest death rate of the four drugs being tested, Dr. Bryan Ardis shared in a 2021 interview. In addition, according to attorney Thomas Renz, 25.9% of those prescribed Remdesivir for COVID-19 are recorded as having died in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) database. The death rate for COVID patients prescribed Remdesivir dwarfs the fatality rate of COVID patients prescribed Ivermectin, which is recorded by the CMS database as being 7.2%.

The deadly clincher to these protocols was the invasive intubation, that is, the use of ventilators, which were also financially incentivized.

McCarthy told Tommey that such intubation is for “when you’ve exhausted every other possibility” for a patient, because it is “a dangerous procedure.”

“The nickname for it among the hospital people is the garden hose. It’s large. Then you have to give somebody a feeding tube … You can cause abrasions, you can cause bleeding, infections.”

McCarthy learned that, moreover, intubated patients are typically given anywhere from five to 15 different drugs, including analgesics like fentanyl needed for the severe pain of invasive intubation, paralytic agents, and drugs “to just knock you out.”

He explained that normally a respiratory therapy is supposed to watch over four or five intubated patients, whereas during COVID, there was typically only one such therapist “for an entire ward of people.”

“Recipe for disaster. And indeed there was disaster,” McCarthy said.

“Now, here’s the really sinister thing. If you kept (a patient) on for 90 hours or longer, you got an extra bonus,” he continued.

“Every respiratory therapist will tell you as soon as you intubate somebody, within 24 hours you’re testing to see, hey, has this person recovered enough that we can take them off the intubation? Because every day you’re on intubation, you are closer to death. That’s just a fact.”

“So by what stretch of insanity did they incentivize hospitals to keep people on for 90 hours?” said McCarthy, adding, “I’d love to know who was in that room planning out these protocols.”

The author stressed that hospitals nowadays act as corporations, and not charitable institutions like they used to be — that is, they are “bottom line people.” So when they are given money bonuses for enacting certain protocols, they simply direct their entire staff to carry them out.

McCarthy said that in order to hide these deadly protocols, hospitals punished whistleblowers, according to nurse testimony.

A group that “was literally affiliated with the United Nations,” Team Halo, who McCarthy noted was devoted to counteracting “anti-vaxxers,” “metamorphized” during the COVID outbreak into a group that went after whistleblower nurses.

“They gave out nurses’ addresses and telephone numbers. They encouraged unhinged people to show up at their door and threaten them,” said McCarthy, telling how one whistleblower nurse who lives “in the boondocks of Nevada” had people “showing up at her door” after she was doxxed.

“They also had people filing complaints against the nurses with the nursing boards. Many of them had their nursing licenses challenged,” McCarthy added.

“And these were the thugs that went out and terrorized these nurses. So not only did the nurses get abused on the job — they were all fired. Anybody that spoke up and wouldn’t stop speaking up was fired. They were also tracked down afterwards and punished. They went through hell,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy’s book about his findings, “What the Nurses Saw,” is currently being sold on Amazon and has garnered an average of full five-star reviews.

Continue Reading

Trending

X