From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Mark Trozzi

‘the Court has released its decision in my case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Unfortunately, the ruling went against us on every point, disregarding key evidence and legal standards to reach its decision’

As many of you know, the Court has released its decision in my case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Unfortunately, the ruling went against us on every point, disregarding key evidence and legal standards to reach its decision. This disappointing outcome reflects the Tribunal’s previous findings, which accused me of spreading so-called “misinformation” and acting dishonorably for providing alternative viewpoints on COVID-19. Despite the setback, I remain committed to defending the right to ethical medical practice and freedom of expression in healthcare. I am grateful for your continued support.

You can read the court’s ruling here: (Click Here)

Here is the latest Justice for Medicine Case Update from my lawyer and friend, Michael Alexander.

Case Update

November 8th, 2024

Hi Everyone,

As many of you may have already heard, the decision in the Trozzi case was released last Friday, far in advance of normal timelines. I am sorry to report that the Court ruled against us on all points of law, and in fact, ran roughshod over major issues to get where it wanted to go.

By way of background, the Tribunal had ruled in November of 2023 that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation concerning COVID-19, which had the potential to cause harm to the public, for instance, by encouraging people to take ivermectin or stating that the COVID-19 shots had not met appropriate standards of safety and efficacy. The Tribunal also ruled that Dr. Trozzi had failed to maintain the standard of practice by providing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots. As well, it found that Dr. Trozzi had acted dishonorably by engaging in uncivil discourse.

I launched an appeal of the Tribunal decision in early 2024, and the matter was heard by the Divisional Court on October 8th. The decision was reviewed on the standard of correctness, which is the highest standard of review in the court system. It requires the Court to hold the lower decision-maker to the single, right answer on every point of law.

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

In my written and oral submissions before the Court , I argued that the College Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence and had otherwise misrepresented relevant evidence. The Tribunal did not even mention Dr. Trozzi’s two scientific reports on COVID-19 science, which were tendered to respond to the expert witness report provided by Dr. Andrew Gardam, the College’s main expert on COVID-19 science. Dr. Trozzi’s reports contained references to over 160 articles from internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals, dozens of articles waiting for publication approval and statistics taken from Public Health England, Our World in Data, Statistics Canada and Public Health Ontario, while Dr. Gardam’s brief report referred to less than a dozen sources.

Dr. Trozzi’s reports were put into evidence at the Tribunal hearing. They were the subject of my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, the College’s re-direct of Dr. Gardam, and were also hotly debated during closing submissions. Yet, the Court ruled that the reports had never been introduced into evidence and were, therefore, irrelevant. This is an absurd ruling on its face, and flies in the face of the fact that the parties had reached a pre-hearing agreement to put the studies into evidence in a joint book of documents.

In my oral and written submissions, I noted that the Tribunal had failed to even mention my cross-examination of Dr. Gardam, during which Dr. Gardam admitted that he agreed with the major points of science advanced by Dr.Trozzi’s reports. In legal parlance, this is referred to as “impeaching the witness.” It refers to a mode of questioning whereby the witness is put in contradiction with his or her previous oral or written statements.

It goes without saying that impeaching the College’s main expert witness and turning him into a witness for Dr. Trozzi is highly relevant since it subverts the College’s allegation that Dr. Trozzi had been spreading misinformation that could cause public harm. However, the Tribunal did not even mention the cross-examination in its decision. That is clear evidence of bias and should have led the Court to overturn the Tribunal decision.

In the course of its decision, the Court approved the Tribunal’s failure to grapple with my cross-examination of the College’s expert witness on “misinformation,” Dr. Noni MacDonald, and brushed over the fact that the Tribunal illegitimately applied mere guideline documents as if they had the force of law; as well, the Court refused to recognize pre- and post-Charter Supreme Court cases that have established the absolute right of every citizen to express a minority or dissenting opinion on matters of public importance.

READ: Dr. Mark Trozzi: COVID tyrants must face justice, or we’re all at risk

While there was always the chance that the Court would affirm the Tribunal decision, since Dr. Trozzi did provide medical exemptions contrary to the College’s standard of practice, though without causing any patient harm, and had also engaged, at times, in uncivil discourse, it does not follow that the Tribunal had the right to ignore material evidence or misrepresent guidelines as legal norms. A positive ruling on those points could have been a major victory for all health care professionals, even if the Court had still chosen to affirm the Tribunal’s decision.

The Trozzi decision and other recent cases involving doctors dissenting from the public COVID-19 narrative have confirmed the following propositions:

1. Any health college may conduct an unlawful search and seizure of a member’s office, which is to say, without establishing reasonable and probable grounds, as required by the Health Professions Procedural Code;

2. Colleges may apply mere guideline and recommendation documents as if they have the force of law;

3. Any College discipline tribunal may ignore or manipulate material evidence;

4. Health professionals do not enjoy the fundamental right to register disagreements with government public health policies and recommendations.

For the time being, we have lost in spite of our best efforts because the Divisional Court of Ontario is perversely committed to enforcing the government’s narrative concerning COVID-19, even though we all know that it is utterly false and has caused injury and death to hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

This, however, is not the end of the road. Trump’s victory in the U.S. will change the zeitgeist around all public health issues, as will the appointment of RFK Jr. to a Cabinet position.

READ: Canadian doctors warn against new ‘self-amplifying’ COVID shots rolled out in Japan

Further, currently, I am defending municipal council members who have been penalized under a new provincial censorship regime simply for expressing an independent point of view on policy matters. These cases involve many of the same legal principles at play in the Trozzi case. If I am successful in one of the municipal cases, this could lay down some case law that will help our beleaguered doctors and their patients.

Best wishes,

Michael Alexander

Reprinted with permission from Dr. Mark Trozzi.

From the Brownstone Institute

By Jayanta Bhattacharya 

The House report on HHS Covid propaganda is devastating. The Biden administration spent almost $1 billion to push falsehoods about Covid vaccines, boosters, and masks on the American people. If a pharma company had run the campaign, it would have been fined out of existence.

HHS engaged a PR firm, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), for the propaganda campaign. The main goal was to increase Covid vax uptake. The strategy: 1. Exaggerate Covid mortality risk 2. Downplay the fact that there was no good evidence that the Covid vax stops transmission.

The propaganda campaign extended beyond vax uptake and included exaggerating mask efficacy and pushing for social distancing and school closures.

Ultimately, since the messaging did not match reality, the campaign collapsed public trust in public health.

The PR firm (FMG) drew most of its faulty science from the CDC’s “guidance,” which ignored the FDA’s findings on the vaccine’s limitations, as well as scientific findings from other countries that contradicted CDC groupthink.

The report details the CDC’s mask flip-flopping through the years. It’s especially infuriating to recall the CDC’s weird, anti-scientific, anti-human focus on masking toddlers with cloth masks into 2022.

President Biden’s Covid advisor Ashish K. Jha waited until Dec. 2022 (right after leaving government service) to tell the country that “[t]here is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well.” What took him so long?

In 2021, former CDC director, Rochelle Walensky rewrote CDC guidance on social distancing at the behest of the national teachers’ union, guaranteeing that schools would remain closed to in-person learning for many months.

During this period, the PR firm FMG put out ads telling parents that schools would close unless kids masked up, stayed away from friends, and got Covid-vaccinated.

In March 2021, even as the CDC told the American people that the vaxxed did not need to mask, the PR firm ran ads saying that masks were still needed, even for the vaxxed. “It’s not time to ease up” we were told, in the absence of evidence any of that did any good.

In 2021, to support the Biden/Harris administration’s push for vax mandates, the PR firm pushed the false idea that the vax stopped Covid transmission. When people started getting “breakthrough” infections, public trust in public health collapsed.

Later, when the FDA approved the vax for 12 to 15-year-old kids, the PR firm told parents that schools could open in fall 2021 only if they got their kids vaccinated. These ads never mentioned side effects like myocarditis due to the vax.

HHS has scrubbed the propaganda ads from this era from its web pages. It’s easy to see why. They are embarrassing. They tell kids, in effect, that they should treat other kids like biohazards unless they are vaccinated.

When the Delta variant arrived, the PR firm doubled down on fear-mongering, masking, and social distancing.

In September 2021, CDC director Walensky overruled the agency’s external experts to recommend the booster to all adults rather than just the elderly. The director’s action was “highly unusual” and went beyond the FDA’s approval of the booster for only the elderly.

The PR campaign and the CDC persistently overestimated the mortality risk of Covid infection in kids to scare parents into vaccinating their children with the Covid vax.

In Aug. 2021, the military imposed its Covid vax mandate, leading to 8,300 servicemen being discharged. Since 2023, the DOD has been trying to get the discharged servicemen to reenlist. What harm has been done to American national security by the vax mandate?

The Biden/Harris administration imposed the OSHA, CMS, and military vax mandates, even though the CDC knew that the Delta variant evaded vaccine immunity. The PR campaign studiously avoided informing Americans about waning vaccine efficacy in the face of variants.

The propaganda campaign hired celebrities and influencers to “persuade” children to get the Covid vax.

I think if a celebrity is paid to advertise a faulty product, that celebrity should be partially liable if the product harms some people.

In the absence of evidence, the propaganda campaign ran ads telling parents that the vaccine would prevent their kids from getting Long Covid.

With the collapse in public trust in the CDC, parents have begun to question all CDC advice. Predictably, the HHS propaganda campaign has led to a decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccines.

The report makes several recommendations, including formally defining the CDC’s core mission to focus on disease prevention, forcing HHS propaganda to abide by the FDA’s product labeling rules, and revamping the process of evaluating vaccine safety.

Probably the most important recommendation: HHS should never again adopt a policy of silencing dissenting scientists in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus in favor of CDC groupthink.

You can find a copy of the full House report here. The HHS must take its findings seriously if there is any hope for public health to regain public.

Author

Jayanta Bhattacharya

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute, and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.