Hello and greetings.

Welcome to the special edition of True Hope Cast,

the official podcast of True Hope Canada.

Recently, the Standing Committee of Health convened

to discuss the safety of natural health products

with Health Canada representatives.

During this meeting, Dr.

Shapiro Sharma made a staggering claim

that natural health products were responsible for the death

of Ezekiel Stefan in the year 2012.

However, when the committee questioned her further on this

topic, she could not provide any additional information

beyond what was reported in the media.

As a result, David Stefan Ezekiel's father

and constitutional lawyer, Sean Buckley, felt compelled

to address this contentious issue in this interview.

We trust that you'll find the discussion

informative and engaging.

Enjoy the show.

Welcome, everybody that's viewing this.

You're either viewing it

through the True Hope cast from True Hope canada.com,

or you're viewing it through the nhpa uh, dot org channels,

um, which is a great resource for, uh, finding out

what you can do to help protect your rights

to accessing natural health products here in Canada.

Or you're viewing it on my personal Facebook page,

uh, wherever you're viewing it from.

Welcome. I've got Sean Buckley, uh, here.

You've probably seen us together before.

Um, we've had a number of interviews, great interviews.

Sean is a wealth of information.

He's a constitutional lawyer,

and we've just found ourselves connected

so many times over the last two decades in relation

to court matters in relation to the, the battle

that we find ourselves in,

in protecting our rights to natural health products.

Um, so welcome Sean.

Really glad to be here, David. Thanks for having me.

Alright. We're gonna be talking about a, uh, a little bit

of a different topic today than,

than just honing in myopically on natural health products.

Um, there's something that that kind

of popped up recently where

That made us both angry.

It's made you angry. Oh, it made me really angry.

Alright. Alright. So we're gonna be talking about

what made makes Sean angry.

Um, I wasn't so much angry

as I was just looking at it be

because it's expected, I guess it's just, I don't know if,

if I've come to a place in my life where this is just

what I'd expect from the government, you know, you know,

dirty tactics and whatnot, even though it's a,

it's an extremely personal matter.

Um, I guess I've just gotten to that point where, um,

I don't expect any different from them.

Um, extremely low, extremely dirty, what they're doing.

And they've now gone personal in relation to a story

that, um, that I've lived.

And that, interestingly,

Sean has also been a significant part of

that story in living that through for basically 10 years,

um, with my wife, with myself and, and our family,

and spending a lot of time in courtrooms.

And so, a lot of

time, I've spent way too many time.

Yeah. You've spent too much time in a courtroom.

I've spent too much time in

a courtroom and I'm not a lawyer.

Alright, so we're gonna cover real quickly

what Health Canada is doing.

So you, and then we're gonna talk about this from a very

authoritative standpoint,

because the two people in, in the world

that would know this story best

and how to combat what Health Canada's doing

are right here on this podcast.

Mm-Hmm. And so, bear with us,

watch the video from Health Canada

and we'll be back with you in just a few moments.

Represent these products. They are generally low risk,

but they're ha we had a tragic 19 month old in Alberta

that died because of using natural health products instead

of treatment for meningitis.

Dr. Steve Findel and his emergency physician, um,

in Toronto had a patient that was stable on medications

for seizures, was taken off,

those medications was put on zinc,

went into status epilepticus, which is

constant seizures and died.

So it does happen.

And so it's, it's really the principle is Canadians should

be able to, they're self-selecting.

There's no, so they're self-selecting these products.

They should have the assurance

and they're going into a safe marketplace

when they're picking up a product.

What's on the label is what's in the bottle,

what they're claim, what the advertising claims

that have been made are accurate,

and that the quality of that product that's in

that bottle is high quality

and it's not gonna be contaminated

with bacteria or other things

as well. That's the principle.

Uh, Dr. Chara, I wanna go back to one of your,

your comments that you made earlier on.

Uh, and you, you referenced, um, some deaths from, um,

attributed to natural health, uh, health products.

One was the 18 month old, uh, toddler in Alberta.

Uh, I believe it's Ezekiel, uh,

Stefan that you're referring to.

Isn't it true that, um,

the situation is different than what you're stating?

The, the, the baby didn't pass away from using

or taking natural health products.

The baby, um, ultimately passed away

because the parents didn't believe in going

to the hospital and they took the baby.

The, the baby was very sick

and they tried home remedies to try

and get the baby better first.

Um, and it wasn't necessarily,

the death wasn't necessarily attributed to an,

a specific natural health product. Isn't that correct?

So again, the, the information that we have is the same

as people have in terms of the, um, of what was in the news.

So my understanding was that, um,

and they were using natural health products

and natural treatments instead of

Like garlic tonics Antibiotics instead of antibiotics

because the child ended up having bacterial

meningitis. That's what, correct. Yeah,

Correct. But you

can't specifically tie that

to one specific natural health product

that was mislabeled or dangerous. Is that correct?

So the the point I think there was just, um,

and this was in, it was in relationship to another comment

of people thinking

that a natural health product might be

used for something that's not.

So what you're saying, your your,

your comments were being misrepresented at the

Time. No, no, I was just giving context.

And so the other context,

But the context, if, if with all due respect Yeah.

I, I believe you to be a good cur good person.

But the con the context that you,

you used in your testimony today was to say that, well,

you know, a vast majority of these health products are safe.

You know, uh, there was a loss of a, a, a tragic loss

of a toddler from one.

You used that as your, as your testimony.

And the reality, your testimony is,

is you misrepresented that situation.

Is that correct? Respectfully

Chair. The idea

is that we did a survey,

products are making claims against cancer.

They're not allowed to make treatment claims against cancer.

This, but I'm not talking about cancer.

And if somebody believes, and if somebody believes

that claim and takes that medication for cancer instead

of treatment, then that could have serious

Cons. Consequences,

yes. For, for a child

Specifically who has meningitis in the case,

Ms. Smma

specifically for this,

Just trying to finish my

Sentence for this, this testimony.

I have a short period of time, sorry.

And we're, we're just, but your testimony was, you,

I'm gonna interrupt you for one second.

Just, uh, uh, your, your time won't stop. Dr.

Sharma, you are entitled to as much time

to answer the question as it takes him to ask the question.

Right. And, and I will make sure that you get that,

but you won't get any more. Go ahead.

So I, I just wanna be clear

and give you a chance to clarify or,

or withdraw that statement

because in fact, it is misrepresentation of this.

And I, and listen, I I don't want anybody

to pass away from taking natural health products.

I had a natural health store back

in the nineties as well, too.

That dates me. I, um, but, um, you know,

and so, you know, I too was on the end of saying, well,

this is the next thing that's gonna get you muscles

and what have you did, did I know?

No, I didn't. Um, but I, I guess your point today was that

because of unregulated

or that a product being unregulated, we saw that the death

of an 18 month old toddler, that was

what your comments came across.

And I'm just asking you to, to probably withdraw that

because in fact, it was

that the parents did at their wishes were not,

they didn't believe in hospitals at the time.

They thought they could deal with the, the, uh, sickness.

They didn't, I guess, didn't understand the, the depth

and the seriousness of the, of the illness.

And they tried with home, home remedies to, to make the,

make their, their child, uh,

they loved their child by all accounts.

I, I believe that they were charged with, uh, undue care.

But, uh, ultimately,

but, um, I just,

I think your comments were, were misleading.

You may not intended it, it wasn't that child didn't die

because they used a natural health product.

They died because they didn't get the appropriate treatment

at the time in, in a timely fashion. Is that correct?

Okay. Now, Dr. Sharmer, you won't be interrupted.

You've got two and a half minutes to answer the question.

Thank you. And that is the last question. Thank you,

Mr. Dory Soory chair.

Um, I'm a pediatrician.

I, that's my, that's how I was trained.

I was trained to look after children.

I don't think there's anything more

tragic than the loss of a child.

And I don't think any parents

could, should have to live through that.

And I'm sure that these parents

very much love their, their child.

That was not the intent. The intent.

And the, the, the discussion that we're having is

that if you have natural health products

that are making claims against serious diseases,

and people believe that,

that they may be using those treatments instead

of using treatments

that could potentially help their own condition

or that of their loved ones.

That was really the context.

And the context is that, for example, uh, the other,

the other example was a physician that said that one

of their patients was taken off their medications

and put on a natural health product for seizures

and had tragic consequences.

So it was just in the context of that,

I don't wanna cast any aspersions on any parents.

It's just that when products are being misrepresented,

then there can be consequences. And it's not point of

Order chair the Point of toxicity

of the product itself.

Um, you know, I think that what we asked was

that there would be an answer to the question, not an, uh,

an expansion of it or direction around other things.

What the question was very clear was related to the fact

that you cannot regulate what parents do to their children

and regulating natural health products is not going to,

would not have made this child live longer

if their parents chose to do something different.

That an, that answer does not.

I'm, I'm answer that question at all.

I'm sorry Dr. Ellis, that isn't a point of order.

And if you could finish your answer, Dr.

Sharma, and then we'll, um, get on

with the last round go. Thank you. Go ahead and finish.

Thank you Chair. I'm, I'm, I'm done. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

Thank you. A Question

that just might clarify for everybody,

If, well, the, the,

the last question's gonna go over here.

Okay, well, just on this, I,

I think would help all of us, and Dr.

Remer, in, in that case, was the product that was given,

did it make a claim that it would treat the,

the particular element that the child had?

So we don't have the details,

but the understanding was that the parents believed

that it could treat the condition that the child had.

Okay. The last, All right,

Now you see, and I, I told you

that this had made me angry, David,

when I see somebody just spouting what are,

in my opinion, complete falsehoods,

Well, I was gonna, I was Gonna,

that makes me angry. So

I was gonna include by saying what a,

what a pile of minutiae.

Um, yeah. Okay.

So how, first of all, on all sides there,

you spent a lot of time in the courtrooms,

you sell the medical files of, of, of Ezekiel, uh,

or what medical files were actually released to us

because we never did get them in their entirety.

Um, there were some black holes there that were left out.

Well, listen, da David, we can, we can shorten this.

Our, our highest way of finding truth in our society

is calling witnesses under oath.

And then having an impartial trier of fact

f make findings of fact.

There were two trials in which there was big, he,

did Ezekiel have bacterial meningitis?

Trial number one? No.

Ezekiel did not have bacterial meningitis as a finding

of fact, trial number two, no,

Ezekiel did not have bacterial meningitis

as a finding of fact.

So why, why do we have Dr.

Sharma claiming that Ezekiel had bacterial meningitis

when in two trials there was a clear

and specific finding of fact effect

that Ezekiel did not have bacterial meningitis.

So what, so what medical treatments being delayed here,

and, you know, what were the parents, what were the parents,

you know, missing?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Ezekiel's running around

with other kids in church two days before.

Right. So I've, I've got pulled up here.

Yep. We, we didn't need to go there yet, but,

Okay. Well, you

know, you, you, you made the, oh,

You thought that you've got the Yeah, exactly.

So, so you've got the judgment there.

So he had

viral meningitis, which just is not, it's not, I mean,

it's too bad they even use the words, same word, meningitis,

but that refers to the menes.

So, um, but it's, it, you don't die from viral meningitis.

And Ezekiel didn't die from, you know,

viral meningitis and it just wasn't there.

Like what the media said had nothing to do with what

you know was happening in the courtroom. Right.

So, with the judgment here, this is from 2019,

and this is when we had a much better stab at it.

We'd gotten more medical evidence at this point in time,

and we were able to present far better than,

than we were in the first trial.

We were caught off, off guard a lot.

Um, I mean, you, they gave you more medical evidence,

mid preliminary hearing in 2014,

rather than giving it to you well in advance.

So you had time to prepare for it. Right.

Like they were playing real dirty.

And so by 2019, we had way more resources available to us.

And this is what the judgment comes out, is that yes,

at autopsy, he did have viral meningitis and Yeah,

But I mean, but recall at the first trial,

justice jerky made a specific finding effect

that Ezekiel did not have bacterial meningitis.

Like, so you're, you're looking at Justice Claxton the

second trial, but they both,

because he didn't have bacterial meningitis

and the pathology slides are still there.

And you know, David, the big, the big kicker for me is,

so just so the viewers understand, so, you know,

we've got the Crown pathologist, Dr.

Adi Asbo with the first trial saying, oh yes, he had,

you know, bacterial meningitis, you know, and largely

because there's, you know, a predominance of neutrophils in,

you know, the slides of the tissue.

And then we call his boss, the Chief Medical

examiner for the province of Alberta at the time

of Ezekiel's autopsy, who had, had actually hired Dr.

Adi Asbo. And I'm sorry, I mean Dr.

Sjo is probably one of the top 10 pathologists in the world.

Let's not even talk about Canada, the world.

And the slides are still there for anyone to go and look at.

And she says he did not have bacterial meningitis.

It was viral meningitis.

Now, here's the thing that got me, David, is so

after the first trial, they know we're gonna be calling Dr.

Annie Sjo to be saying, look it, I went,

I looked at the slides.

This is viral meningitis. It's not bacterial meningitis.

So you tell me they didn't have another pathologist

go and look at the slides.

Mm-Hmm. But they didn't call another pathologist to say Dr.

Sjo was wrong.

Mm-Hmm. And they didn't have Dr.

Abo go back and re-look at the slides,

And they had the opportunity to do

So. So you tell me

in a political show trial

that the Crown didn't have another

pathologist look at the slides.

If they didn't, if they didn't, then they knew

that they would have a problem,

that the pathologist would say, no,

this is viral meningitis.

And then they, and then if they're ethical,

they have to disclose it to us.

Right. So they, 'cause I'm sorry, I'm Crown counsel

and I've just had a star witness come in for the defense

basically completely contradicting

my star essential witness on the point

of the trial, like the major factual point.

And I've got a lot of time between trials,

and you tell me that I don't have another pathologist.

I mean, they've got lots of pathologists in the

medical examiner's office.

You tell me. I didn't have somebody else look at that.

Well, if I didn't, I deliberately didn't.

'cause I know I should, because then I'll call another

pathologist to say, Dr. SAOs full of crap.

Exactly. And you're bang on now

when the ward meningitis comes up.

I mean, that, that, that, that can trigger some,

some emotion for people like it's mm-Hmm.

Some seriousness. Do you recall

at one point in time in 2019 when you were cross-examining

Annie Savio wherein she had stated that

the viral meningitis that was found at time of autopsy

wasn't even progressed enough to have caused Just, just

to rule it out, just to Mm-Hmm.

Just to, to say it was not the cause of Ezekiel

needed to get into an ambulance.

Do you, do you recall that, that it was not

Well, I, I, I may not recall the exact testimony.

You're, but I mean, she was clear, she listened

to the nine one one call

where you can hear Ezekiel breathing.

And she was clear, that sounds like a partial obstruction

of an airway

caused by croup.

And he had just, And he had rhinovirus one of the,

you know, leading causes of croup.

And he had, you know, based on, you know, I'm gonna correct

In enterovirus.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. The enterovirus. Yes.

So Intero and Rhino are very, very similar.

It's hard to delineate, but Yes. Yep. Go ahead.

So, yeah, I mean,

can we talk about the elephant in the room?

Yeah. So, and,

and I mean, really people should go back to the first trial

and listen to the audio tapes of the paramedics where one

of them is crying on the stand,

crying on the stand be

because Alberta Health Services, all the,

all the ambulances in Southern Alberta have three different

ways of getting an airway.

And they're all fully stocked for any age from birth to,

you know, a hundred years old.

And some bureaucrat

or bureaucrats make the decision.

This is a deliberate administrative decision.

Well, let's destock the ambulances of all three ways

of getting an airway for anyone under the age of 12

Mm-Hmm.

And the paramedics are telling management,

the first infant we get that needs an airway is dead.

The first infant we get, they're begging,

they're sending emails like this, this isn't a secret.

You're an ambulance, you're emergency services,

and you, if you're gonna get an infant that needs an airway.

So for a full year, the paramedics are, are complaining.

And that's why, I forget which one was crying on the stand,

but I mean, was just so upset about what had happened.

And then, what was it, three days

after Ezekiel's death, they're all magically restocked

Within the Week. Did

you tell, you tell me

that somebody at Alberta Health Services, someone,

or some, you know, several people are not guilty

of criminal negligence causing death.

You tell me. They're not

Given the, given the response a hundred percent.

The fact that, you know, I mean, they both testified,

both paramedics testified to the fact

that they had been making those requests for, uh,

approximately a year.

Mm-Hmm. And all of a sudden that request is,

is is finally honored within a week

after the passing, Ezekiel, within one week, all

of a sudden these ambulances get all this equipment.

It wasn't like they ran out

and that they had a budget as issue,

and they just couldn't, it was like you said, it was, they,

They had, they were all stalked

And then they pulled it out proactively.

It was removed. It wasn't just that they'd ran out of it

because of an influx of babies and toddlers needing airways.

No, it was a, it was a deliberate decision.

So how is that not criminal

that a bureaucrat will have ambulances, stock destocked.

So equipment that is absolutely essential

for preserving life is taken out of ambulances.

Mm-Hmm. Like, how is that not,

how is that not criminal?

Let's revisit the, the, the cause

of death in a, in a moment.

I want to, I wanna touch on real quick though,

because we just see this, this false narrative

emerging again, and, and it hasn't been

res it hasn't been in the airways since 2021

when we were preparing for

It was, it was, it was surprising, wasn't it?

Now, so just so your audience has the, the context.

So Health Canada is moving to take away all

of our natural health products with, you know,

basically finally getting their, their long-term wish

to fully regulate them a hundred percent

the same as chemical drugs.

And, and the goal is to get rid of the products.

So the public is putting pressure on

the standing committee of health.

And so they call this special hearings

to be asking these questions.

And so it's in this context to basically justify

taking away our natural products that all of a sudden,

Ezekiel is used as one of three examples.

And none of them sounded like very good examples.

And, you know, really, so wait a second.

Um, so the, so Ezekiel's in distress and,

and you know, the mother Colette is doing CPR

while you guys are driving to meet the ambulance,

and we all know that it's, there's a 9 1 1 call.

He's coaching her. We all know what's happening.

So he, he's in distress. He, he does need an airway.

And because the equipment wasn't there,

it was a FAA full eight minutes

and 38 seconds according to the ambulance records.

Mm-Hmm. Eight minutes and 38 seconds when he is already in

distress, you know, from a, an ox, he's been on CPR.

Um, you tell me that that's not the cause of death.

Well, the chief medical examiner

found that's the cause of death.

So the cause of death was they couldn't get an airway

for too long because they had destocked the ambulances.

Mm-Hmm. So I'm trying to figure out the logic here, Dr.

Sharma. So if somebody commits criminal negligence causing

death by destocking ambulances of vital equipment,

and then an infant die, be dies

because of that, um, then that is

because of a natural health product

or parents being reluctant to go to, um,

engage the medical system.

I, I am just, the logic's not clear to me, David, here,

maybe, maybe I'm one of these people that just,

just can't see things that are obvious.

And I really say, how dare you Dr.

Sharma, how dare you? Mm-Hmm

Mm-Hmm. Really?

Right?

So he didn't have bacterial meningitis,

and you're pretending he is,

you're using this publicly in

the standing Committee of health.

It is a specific talking point that you have chosen as one

of your three examples.

So you have chosen this

and he didn't have bacterial meningitis.

And you can go and look at the slides yourself,

but you won't 'cause you're afraid of what you're gonna see.

I wanna, I wanna touch on that real quickly here.

Uh, the two things I want to touch on, um,

because some people can get their,

their logic a little clouded in relation to the,

the emotions of, well,

you should have taken him to the hospital anyways.

He was really sick. Kinda like, you know, um,

Todd Doherty had said there, the MP from,

uh, from Prince George.

And the reality of the matter is, is that five hours

before Ezekiel wasn't demonstrating any symptoms

that he had been previous for, you know, the few days

where he was lower energy and all that type of stuff.

And, and he appeared to be turning back around.

So there's, there is a mysterious element to all

of this that caught us off guard.

So just to get that right out in the air, right off the bat

so that people aren't saying, yeah,

but you still should have taken him to the hospital.

Well, if we would've taken him to the hospital, you know,

before he went down for his nap

and then woke up with all of a sudden this breathing issue,

um, they would've said, well, that's nice of you

to bring him to the hospital,

but what do you have him here for?

Sure. Okay. What symptoms did he have two days ago?

But he's not displaying those right now.

So there would've been that issue right off the bat.

But, but that's Tuesday. And you said two days ago,

wasn't he running around at church two days before?

Right. A yeah, according to

The child's meeting. But maybe,

but maybe when parents see their kid running

around with other kids at church that that's a sure sign

that you should take the child to the hospital.

Okay. Yeah.

No, so there's that, there's that element

that I wanna touch on.

But, you know, so we, we've covered that just to, just,

if anybody's viewing this

and saying you still should have taken him to the hospital

as if that's grounds for Health Canada is Right.

No. If you were in our position as a parent

and you would've seen, you know,

you would've said, I'm not erotic.

Why would I take him to the hospital just to expose him

to stuff that he ought not

to be exposed when there isn't really anything

that is triggering to a parent saying he's in need

of care at that point in time, like need of medical care.

So that's the first thing now. So we cover that.

So now I want to touch on this. You're talking about Dr.

Sharma and that she had the opportunity

to investigate deeper rather than just referring

to the media as her source of information.

Right. And what media,

because the media was eventually, it all kind

of came to be congruent.

Well, I just find it funny.

Here's, you got a Health Canada person who knows

that the media's deliberately used to spread misinformation.

Like basically saying, oh,

and I'm relying on the news reports.

Well, how dare you reply?

Rely on news reports as an example

of a death caused somehow caused by natural health products.

I'm gonna suggest that Health Canada perhaps

knows more than they're letting on.

And the reason why I'm going to, to suggest that is

we saw in the disclosure during the police investigation

that Health Canada had been making inquiries into the death

of my son back then back in 2013.

I'm, I'm gonna suggest

that they probably got the information

that they were looking for, and that they know exactly

what took place, and that they're claiming ignorance

and now citing media rather than the truth.

That's what I'm gonna suggest.

And if not, they had the due diligence, like you say, to go

and look deeper into it before citing the death

of Ezekiel as a reason why.

Well, I mean, all, all of those are stretching.

And I mean, the whole thing's a farce anyway.

They're, they're saying we need stricter regulations,

which in effect, I mean, you anyone looking at

what the self-care framework's proposing?

It's like, no, we're gonna lose all our products.

Well, they're not taking into account the risk

of removing the products.

So if you, if you really meet care about people's health,

you go, well, how do we get good health outcomes?

We've got all these products on the market.

So you mean to tell me we're gonna remove 80,000 health

products from the market and there aren't

gonna be health consequences?

Hmm. I mean, David, do you know about the True Hope trial?

'cause you were there, you watched the whole thing,

including the judgment.

Mm-Hmm. Where, you know, we basically have the judge saying

that there would've been more deaths in the oral judgment

if True Hope had listed Health Canada.

So, I mean, here we have Health Canada restricting access

to Empower Plus for a short period of time

by seizing it at the border.

And we have a number of deaths. Mm-Hmm.

And the court acquitted on the basis of necessity.

I mean, you were basically saving, threw up

with saving lives by, by leaving the product on the market.

Despite Health Canada's objections.

I mean, I, I use Strauss as an example.

I mean, that's a product that has saved tens of thousands

of Canadian lives.

So when I, these are just picking two products

that I've run court cases on.

So, but there's product after product

after product where people are only alive because of them.

And we're gonna take those off the market

because she can come up with three

off the wall examples. Like, let's,

Let's touch on that double

standard. I mean, this is becoming,

So there are more people, more people die

of lightning in Canada strikes in a year than she

can cite as examples.

Exactly. Natural products.

She can't cite any examples.

As you, as you know, in our previous podcasts, you,

you've stated that there's no evidence

of any deaths being caused by natural health products. Not,

Not, not that I'm aware of.

Not of any credible ones.

Now, in all, in all fairness, I mean, my access

to information requests when I was asking Health Canada

to provide me with, you know,

you show me every death cost in Canada

by a natural health product.

Um, and they said, well, we'll go back

to 1965 when we began our adverse reaction database in

response to thalidomide.

And since then we've had robust adverse reaction reporting.

And it's not just chemical drugs.

You can report adverse reaction to anything like,

so, and they couldn't point out a, a single death

in the adverse reaction reporting database

caused by natural health product.

Now, because we know they're trying to get rid of all these

of natural health products, they're, they're looking for

any evidence they want.

Like, so that's why we're, we're talking about Ezekiel.

But the, the problem David, is, is, you know, I'm willing

to accept because there's, you know,

good 80,000 plus products out there that, you know,

maybe there's been the odd death,

but we can't, the fact that we can't actually,

we can't point to a credible case.

Mm-Hmm. Tells us it's extremely rare.

You know, we can point to about 40 deaths each year caused

by Tylenol or acetaminophen, I should say,

because it's off patent.

And, and likely the lion's share of it is sold

as acetaminophen.

But, you know, people will recognize it as Tylenol.

Well, Tylenol kills one person per million in Canada a year,

and there's 40 million of us and that's taken as directed.

And, you know, so, so one year of Tylenol use

where we can point to 40 deaths a year

is more dangerous than the entire natural hub product

industry as long as we have records for.

So what are we even talking about?

What do you mean we need stricter regulations?

What's the damage we're doing now

by products are already too expensive now

because of the regulations?

They've gone up three or four times. Mm-Hmm.

Um, what they, what they should be, they're three

or four times the cost of, of the same products in the us.

Um, where they're not, they don't have,

they're not treated as chemical drugs.

So what's the health consequence there that, that people

that are economically disadvantaged in Canada already,

they can't access natural health products.

They, they, they can't afford it.

Exactly. There, there's already, um, indirectly deaths

that are, that are resulting from an inaccess to

lifesaving products, uh, obviously for economical reasons.

But let, I wanna touch on the glaring there.

There was, as you were speaking about five minutes ago,

there was a, this double standard,

just like smack me in the face.

We both have experience firsthand with, with the two,

two examples you use.

Right. My son's death

and, um, the deaths that were a result

of Health Canada's actions against True Hope.

And when we're taking a look at this, in both instances,

you have deaths that have occurred due to the actions

or inaction.

Actually, B of 'em are actions because to proactively remove

Actions of government.

Yeah. And the government has blood on their hands,

and yet they're using, they, they're, they're still trying

to move forward with exploiting the death of my son

to actually cause more deaths. Really?

Maybe we're just missing it

because maybe what she's trying to say is, is

that government causes death.

Yeah. I think we call that demo side like the leading

cause of death in the world

actually in the last a hundred years.

Yeah. I think longer than that,

I'd agree with you.

Just from what's actually, what,

what is actually been documented thoroughly in the last a

hundred years by far.

The if, if, if you wanna be concerned,

be concerned about your government.

So we see that the government of Canada has, uh,

the government of, of Alberta, Alberta health services

causes the death of my son.

And, and, and there was other cases happening

around the same time as well.

Uh, similar in nature

where there was some serious medical misadventure happening

in ambulances during that particular time period

of transitioning over to Alberta, Alberta Health Services.

It's like they wanted to create a crisis, a greater crisis.

You got somebody who ends up in a crisis

and it's just like, all right, let's,

let's make it even worse by the time we get to the hospital.

Right. Is what it, I I

I don't know what the, I don't know

what the motivation is, but I I,

but it's just like a kindergarten student's gonna know

that if you take away equipment that's needed

to get in an airway for someone, um, you take that out

of ambulances that are dispatched for people

that age when they're like, there's gonna be death.

Like, and that's why the paramedics were telling

management there's gonna be a death.

Mm-Hmm. And, and begging for the ambulances to be restocked

because they would be the ones witnessing the death.

Mm-Hmm. Exactly.

Now let, let, let's go back to the,

what the government's motives are today.

'cause we see, we see now 2021,

everything kind of comes to a close.

They cancel the third trial

because things go awry with, with their star witness at ya.

Bo ends up on credential fraud investigation

in two different states in the us He has no credibility.

He's not gonna be able to be sworn in as a expert witness

for sure, based on, on, on everything that

that's come, come to light.

And so they have to cancel the third trial a day after.

Hi, uh, uh, Addie IBOs own criminal proceedings.

Were scheduled June 21st, 2021. They're scheduled June 22nd.

You receive a call, you phone us, we're all happy. Yes.

Third trial's gone.

Finally, maybe we can breathe a little bit

and then we continue on to the Supreme Court.

But this, this kind of just dies down

and all of a sudden the narrative comes back up at this

time with a different agenda.

What, what agendas, what,

what are the glaring agendas thus far that they have, uh,

tried to attach the death of Ezekiel to, to try to push, um,

their agendas forward here in Canada?

What, what, what did we see in 2016 and 2015?

I mean, they, they, they hate natural health products.

They want to move us into strictly a chemical drug model.

Like that's, that's crystal clear.

I mean, even when she's testifying there, she's saying,

well, the danger is, you know,

if a natural health product claims

it can work for something.

And she used the, the, um, example

of cancer, I think mm-Hmm.

Well then people are gonna delay getting proper treatment

and then they're in danger.

And how does she know?

Like the chemical drugs are our leading, you know,

three of our leading top 10 causes

of death in western democracies are linked

to chemical pharmaceutical drugs.

Mm-Hmm. Likely if we outlawed chemical pharmaceutical drugs,

we would, we would've better health outcomes.

Like just across the board, far better,

right Down to even antibiotics.

Like just the whole thing, Dan, bang, if it,

if it's not natural, um,

although antibiotics are, would,

would fit under natural product definition anyway.

But let's say we just got rid of all chemical drugs.

The irony is as likely we would have better health outcomes.

So, you know, like if we wanted good health policy,

the policy should be, especially for chronic illness, you,

you do everything you can to treat it with natural remedies.

And only if you are unsuccessful there, then,

and only then will we try a chemical pharmaceutical drug.

Mm-Hmm. Like that, that should be our health policy.

But they flipped it on the head

and said, well, let's use, you know,

the chemical pharmaceutical drugs,

which are extremely dangerous.

Mm-Hmm. Um,

and, you know, can we talk about, I mean, her assumption

that they work, she knows that's a fraud.

Mm-Hmm. She knows the drug approval process.

Can we talk a little bit about the drug approval process?

Let, let's, because I think it's one

of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the Canadian populace.

I mean, when health, oh, it's, it's been approved

as safe and effective.

So it works like Yeah. Giving

A false, really, Like, you, you believe that, like,

does anyone out there believe that?

Some people do, unfortunately

for themselves still to this day.

But, you know, eventually, uh, through sad circumstances,

they'll, they'll come to realize

that the medications have done them far

more harm than, than good.

But before we get there, okay.

So we see that, we see the agenda being pushed right now,

that they're trying to exploit Ezekiel's death

to actually actually overregulate uh,

natural health products out of existence.

But if we were to rewind the clock, actually by nine

and a half years now, what agenda was the government trying

to exploit Ezekiel's death for back then?

Well, I mean, they, you know, they were trying to use this

as a show trial to scare parents into vaccinating.

Right. And,

and I, I'm gonna try to quote you verbatim, albeit I,

I'm gonna botch it, but I'm sure it's gonna be pretty close

because I know I was shocked in, in,

in the preliminary hearing in 2014, so first week

of June, 2014, you're in Southern Alberta and, and,

and we're, we're, we're trying to find out what the defense,

what should be right with the case as well as hopefully

to get, get it turfed.

And it's, every doctor

that's getting on stand is just spewing this vax Oh yeah.

All of a sudden it's all about vaccine.

Which really, really surprised both of us.

Yeah. So I, I remember you actually getting up

and objecting at one point in time when,

when finally it gets to the point that the medical, the,

the, the medical, uh, forensic pathologist gets on stand

and starts going off about vaccines.

And you, you stated that I wasn't aware

that vaccines were gonna be a part

of this trial, something to that effect.

And the crown fired back at you

and said, oh, actually it's gonna gonna

be a big part of the trial.

And then you guys went

and had a, a collaboration during lunch.

And then you'd come back and you'd stated to, to myself

and Colette that what they're looking

to do is set a precedent in Canada that as a parent,

if you didn't vaccinate your children,

you could be held criminally liable.

Right. That you would've a, that you would've a higher

onus to go to the hospital.

Which is just kind of funny.

I mean, I just went

to the Children health defense conference in, in, uh,

Georgia, I guess last month now because we're in December.

And, um, you know, it's like, it's become

so clear the more you vaccinate your child,

the worse the health outcomes.

Mm-Hmm. So it actually should be the opposite.

Like if we're going to distinguish,

but this is awful policy.

So under section two 15, this failure to provide necessities

of life, I mean, it was meant for like, you know, parents

that don't feed their kids, you know, or beat them to death

or, you know, they have to sleep in the barn

and they freeze, or they're sent out, you know, in 40

below with no jack.

Like, it's meant for, oh my gosh, this is

like just total abuse and, and neglect.

And, and when we get in the area of medical care, this is,

and say, well, you should have sought medical care sooner.

You know, we get a little tricky there. Mm-Hmm.

Um, so like if you have an a obese child,

do you have a higher onus to go

to the doctor now when your child is sick?

Because, you know, we all know that obesity is a,

is a major co-factor.

Um, you know, if you,

if you basically feed your child processed foods, I mean,

we know you're gonna have worse health outcomes.

Do you have a higher onus now to go to the hospital? Mm-Hmm.

If we were actually to follow the science

and then, so understand the more you vaccinated your child,

the more likely they are to be sick

and have poor health outcomes.

Do you really like, you know,

do you have a higher onus to go to the hospital?

Like, the thing with me,

every parent has been in this situation.

Like, I, I remember it well when my kids were young,

like somebody, and I'm sorry, I,

I think in Fahr Fahrenheit when I think

of dangerous temperatures.

But, you know, we've all had those conversations, you know,

temperatures at 103.

Do we go at the hospital at 1 0 4?

Do we go to the hospital now? Do we go at at 1 0 5?

Do we do the Cold Bath thing instead?

And like we, we've all had those decisions

and none of us expect to go to prison if we get it wrong.

Right? Mm-Hmm. Like, I mean, even

that idea is quite fantastic.

But, you know, let, let's talk, I,

I want your viewers to understand even how ridiculous it was

that the crown would want to turn this like, oh, like a,

they, they have to show he died of bacterial meningitis and,

and both trials found no,

he didn't have bacterial meningitis.

We couldn't die of bacterial meningitis.

Um, but let's say Ezekiel, let,

let's say we, we were dealing with bacterial meningitis.

The difficulty is, is, is the vaccine is for one type of a,

a family of bacteria.

So there's hemophilia influenza, and there's type A

and there's type B and there's type C and there's type D,

and I think goes down to F And then there's a whole

bunch of un type ones.

Like who knows how big the family is?

And it's really common.

Like if you and I did nasal swabs right?

Now, chances are we both have this family in us.

Like, so it's not like we have to be afraid of

anyone with bacterial men.

We already have it, right. So to speak.

But what's interesting, and,

and, um, you know, we had to hire two vaccine experts,

and I think it was Dr.

Tony Bark, I'd have to go back at the, the expert reports.

They, they only vaccinate for type B Mm-Hmm.

And it appears that

that vaccine might work

or other factors have, have come into play.

But in Alberta, if a child presents

with bacterial meningitis, they're not gonna have type B.

Like, it's just, you're more likely to be struck

by lightning twice, literally, you know, on your way

to the courthouse than a child presenting

with bacterial meningitis in Alberta and it being type B.

So if, if no child, like it's, we still have children dying

of bacterial meningitis, it's just now other types, right.

Of, of bacteria.

So, you know, so that's problem number one.

Now, interestingly enough is we didn't have to vaccinate

for type B until a different childhood

vaccine was introduced.

And one of the changes in our overall

cultural health was all

of a sudden now we're getting spikes in

bacterial meningitis for type B.

So it's first of all, interesting

that the only reason we're having to vaccinate

for it in the first place, back when it was meaningful, um,

was because we introduced a different vaccine

that changed something in our pool of children,

where now all of a sudden they're, they're susceptible

to this type of bacteria,

but they couldn't say Ezekiel ad type B.

Nope. Oh, well, you know,

he may have ha we found some hemophilia influenza in a

nasal wash, but we can't tell you

what type it was.

So just wait a second. So it has

to be type B or it's meaningless.

Like they had a factual problem.

And I think it speaks volumes. David.

So you already shared with

how at the prelim we were surprised Mm-Hmm.

Vaccine, vaccine vaccine.

Like what, what does this have to do with, with anything?

And why on earth would the Crown want to create a precedent

where, you know,

vaccination status somehow changes the legal test in a,

a section of the criminal code,

but we have to 30 days

before the trial, like that's, we can, that's

the latest we can do it.

I have to give the crown notice

of the experts I'm planning on calling at, at trial.

You know, there are qualifications in the summary

of their evidence, and I serve them

after, you know what, a year

and a half of this where, oh, it's all vaccine.

And all of a sudden, as soon as they read, you know,

my experts, it's like they know they're going to show

and tell without anything to show.

Oh, vaccine isn't an issue. It's not relevant.

And so at both trials, there was an agreement with the crown

and defense in front of the judge

that vaccination is unrelevant.

If a witness goes there, we'll steer them off.

And it's, you know, in the judge alone trial,

it has no bearing at all.

So both trials were run,

not calling evidence of vaccination.

If it came up, we'd just kind of in front of the jury,

pretend it's not significant,

and the judge would charge the jury to ignore this.

So how can it be, David, that at the Alberta Court

of Appeal on the second trial, you guys have been acquitted.

Mm-Hmm. And the Crown appeal saying, you know,

the judge may have shown bias towards an expert.

And, you know, we don't like how the judge, you know,

how the judge found the legal test is in this section,

the Crown is not appealing anything to do with vaccination.

There's no factual record for vaccination.

I can tell you court of appeal, you know,

if you didn't argue something

and lay an evidentiary foundation,

they won't even let you go there.

And I mean, it's hard, you only if maybe you could show

there was no way you could have discovered that evidence.

Mm-hmm. Beforehand then,

and only then maybe you might be able to talk about like,

but they came out and basically said that, you know,

if you don't vaccinate, there's a, there's a higher onus

for like, this is a factor now for failing

to provide necessities.

How can we do that when everyone agreed going in?

It's not an issue. No one led evidence.

So I didn't lead evidence showing, well,

you didn't have type B and the vaccine's only for type B

and nobody gets type B anyway.

Mm-Hmm. So like, how could a vaccine

for something nobody gets,

and they can't even say he had it any like that, you know,

he was that, you know, one, one in 10 million

rare outlier.

Mm-Hmm. Well, but like, it, it's just, it's

so we nobody even led that evidence to say that, so

that the Court of appeal could say, oh yeah, actually,

you know, in this facts, this is completely meaningless.

But yet they've now created a legal precedent.

But as God moves in mysterious ways, David,

because, you know, we're at the point now

where any parent vaccinating a child for COVID-19,

I'm sorry, you're criminally negligent.

And if death ensues, you're guilty

of criminal negligence causing death is my my legal opinion.

Mm-Hmm. And if they're, if they're harmed by it, you know,

sterilized or or other health problems, then you're guilty

of criminal negligence causing bodily harm

because there is so much evidence.

Even the fact, I'm sorry, I I any parent,

like most parents are gonna be in their late,

at least late twenties, early thirties, they will know

that young people just have never dropped dead before.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Thi thi things are turning.

But will we see the judiciary, um,

judiciary actually acting on that?

Oh, but where I was going is, is now the irony is

that Alberta Court of Appeal case, like once it becomes

obvious to everyone that the vaccination,

definitely the covid vaccination Mm-Hmm.

Um, makes your child more likely to be sick.

Well, now vaccinated parents are gonna have a higher onus

to seek medical care than parents of children

that are unvaccinated.

That's the irony that, like,

that's the full blown irony is once the truth comes out,

then parents of vaccinated children are, you know,

are at higher risk for criminal prosecution.

Mm-Hmm. If they don't seek medical attention going forward.

Mm-Hmm. It's, it's interesting, you know,

that we just see this, I don't know how many,

how many things they can pull outta their hat,

the government, but they're, they've now really on a number

of fronts, attempted to exploit the death of Ezekiel.

The first one was vaccines. Mm-Hmm.

And then that was just blown outta the water. No evidence.

You're just, you're blowing

smoke. And you were hoping that we,

But not by the media, I mean, to the, to the rest

of the world, it's still a, a case to say,

vaccinate your kid.

Mm-Hmm. Yeah. Well, exactly.

But it was blown outta the water and, and,

and didn't get the precedent that they were hoping for,

except in the minds of the public.

Because I had people come up

after the first trial in 2016 saying,

do you think I should go and vaccinate my children?

Now? I don't wanna end up like you.

And, and I'm just like, uh, no.

Stay true to your convictions. Do not do that.

Don't go and harm your

child, especially when you know better.

Right. Just for fear of,

of potentially ending up in this situation that we are.

But then they shifted gears and,

and we had the CBC roadshow across Canada,

and every natural path across Canada will remember this

because all of a sudden there's this potential

to deregulate

or un, you know, remove the licensing

of natural paths across Canada

because it's just too harmful that you end up

with deaths like Ezekiel.

So now they're using it to exploiting his death to try

to attack naturopathy right off the bat.

And now it's a, a full front attack that they're trying to,

to use to justify just the removal

of natural health products.

I'm, I'm curious how many more times that they can try

to exploit the death of Ezekiel based on, um,

a completely fallacious story.

And they know that it, that, that it's,

Well, and why isn't the media talking about the fact

that Alberta Health Services destock the ambulances?

Mm-Hmm. And for a full year,

the paramedics were saying the first infant we get is dead.

Like, like it's under oath.

Anyone can go read the transcript or listen to it.

These paramedics were not mincing words.

They were angry that they had to experience

what they experienced

because they tried with the equipment they had,

but they, they didn't have the right equipment.

So Why, like you'd think that'd be a huge story

that the media would be all over.

Alberta Health Services kills Ezekiel, Stefan, you know,

according to the testimony of the Chief Medical Officer,

and you can infer it from the paramedics,

It was a story that was covered once back in 2013,

a week after we were charged.

Uh, we finally, Collette

and myself went into studio, uh,

to Global News in Lethbridge

before they'd gotten their marching orders on

what the narrative was to be Mm-Hmm.

And they actually ran a story, uh, in relation

to the ambulance issues.

And we weren't even the ones that were really,

they were pushing for it.

And I wasn't even wanting to go there.

'cause I didn't have all the facts. We hadn't had the

paramedics crying on the stand yet.

We didn't know all the details.

And so I wasn't even wanting to go there.

And they still went there and,

and they created the story out of it.

And, and it shocked me a little bit,

made me a little hesitant to do any more interviews,

realizing they'll take what I have to say

and they'll, they'll add it to a

different narrative altogether.

Right. But they were willing to go there.

Now, you know, you fast forward to 2016

and they all go silent on the matter.

Mm-Hmm. Nobody's talking about the ambulance issues now

that it's come out clear in the courtroom

that there's clearly,

clearly criminal negligence resulting in death.

And it's, it's on Alberta Health Services, hence.

So when we're taking a look at what, what the, uh,

the government's doing, I just wanna ask this question.

Can we trust, can we trust anything that they have to say

in, in, in, as they're continue to move forward?

Can we, can we trust anything that the government has to say

that these bureaucrats in he Canada have to say?

Well, you know, that's a tough question

because, you know,

sometimes the bureaucrats might get the time

or the date correct.

Um, usually they get their names correct. Okay.

Um, you know, but really it's a rhetorical question.

'cause the point you're making is, is that

this is really problematic.

I mean, you've played this piece of Dr.

Sharma and she basically gave three examples

and they, even without knowing about Ezekiel's, you know,

the, it, it just sounds like they're stretching Mm-Hmm.

And again, like, so what you, you can find three cases

that somehow you make relevant,

but you're totally ignoring

that people rely on these products for their life.

You're just assuming they're ineffective. Mm-Hmm.

Because you have an end goal of taking them off the market.

Mm-Hmm. I mean, we have a political agenda

and they're moving to that agenda.

So we're just seeing politics in motion and,

and what do we expect?

I mean, they have a narrative to support

what their end goal is.

And you and I just happen

to be particularly angry about this one

because we have so much personal experience.

And Ezekiel was your son. Mm-Hmm.

And Ian, and I can see, I mean, I,

I was just outraged at the whole

proceedings from start to finish.

And, you know, the fact that that first trial was one

of the two, one of the two dirtiest trials I've ever had

to be involved with in my life.

Which, I mean, I would, I would go back, I would go back

to the hotel immediately after court,

and I would have a shower.

I would just try and get it off of me. Mm-Hmm.

Um, just, I felt, I felt tainted

and dirty by what was happening in the courtroom.

Oh, it was dark. It was spiritually, it was dark.

We were up against some that it was, yeah.

So, yeah. And you're right, Dr.

Sharma, you know, I mean, there was one statement

that she did say that was true,

and that was, I'm sure, um,

those parents loved their toddler very much,

and then she went on to continue to spew more garbage.

And she's right. We did, we absolutely loved Ezekiel.

Uh, and that came out in the court case.

The first judge said this is, this is a, uh, not peculiar,

but he used something to affect the case

because all the evidence that's before the courts

and the jury is that the Stefans are

loving, caring, attentive parents.

Right. He's, he, he makes that statement. Mm-Hmm.

Because loving, caring,

attentive parents don't end up being charged with, failing

to provide the necessaries of life.

And so the judge is baffled at it,

and he's making that statement on transcripts.

And I, it wasn't peculiar,

but he was basically saying, this, this,

this case is out of the norm.

Right. And then you agreed to that when, right.

'cause I think you actually did

exactly what you just did there, though.

Mm-Hmm. Because I think it's on the transcript right below.

Right. Um,

and so, you know, the, the interesting thing about this as,

as they're resurrecting this false narrative of Ezekiel

and what led to his passing, which still has elements

of mystery surrounding it that we're trying to figure out

as parents, um, at the same time that they do this,

there's a docuseries that is launched, a docuseries

that you just Mm-Hmm.

Watched yourself. And you're actually in it. And I'm in it.

And there's a bunch of other people that are in it.

And it is a phenomenal docuseries.

And it is the most, you know, there's so much

to Ezekiel's story.

There's so much that we've never been able

to just encapsulate it in a very streamlined way that

that is so crystal clear and concise,

and yet this docuseries does it.

And, and I want to just show the audience here, uh,

the teaser of that

and recommend that they watch it not just for the sake of,

of getting the truth about what took place with Ezekiel,

but that it's only a part of a story of a whole story

that we've all lived over the last three years

that's extremely relevant in all of our lives.

And when I was done watching the docuseries, I just said

to my wife, I said, you know, sure.

It would've been nice to have this tool back in

2020 or 2021.

It really would've been nice

because it would've prevented a lot

of people from falling prey to this whole pharmaceutical,

um, globalist agenda

if they would've been armed with that information.

So I'm gonna show you, show that clip now

and then, uh, I'm not sure how much time we have left

after that, but I'm gonna

just, we'll, we'll see where it goes. Mm-Hmm.

Present these products.

They are generally low risk, but they're, ha we had,

That is the wrong one.

All right. Here we go. We'll try again.

In 2016, I found myself, uh, pacing back

and forth in this small little jail cell in solitary

confinement, wondering how the heck did I get here?

You start putting all the pieces of the puzzle together.

You, you see a real interesting story

that emerges an an unbelievable story. Really.

One emergency, you quiet, please fire an ambulance.

Uh, hi. Yes. Uh, I, my son's not breathing.

My son's not breathing.

You're in a dark room.

You back into the light switch

and you can never unsee what you're seeing.

We were told they destroyed the World Trade Center,

but in the years

after that, Islamic terrorism was killing fewer Americans

every year than lightning.

And it's hard to kinda mobilize an attire defense structure

against, you know, something

that really does not affect most Americans

threaten them in their homes.

Vaccines now are the spear tip of the biosecurity agendas.

When you take these vaccines,

we feel there's been over a 20 to one return.

So if you just look at the economic benefits,

that's a pretty strong number compared to anything else.

He calls what he does. Philanthropy, capitalism.

You use philanthropy to make yourself richer,

you know, to give yourself control over humanity.

First, we've got population.

We could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. There

Is no doubt that we are experiencing a

depopulation. And that is a plan.

We've got to stabilize the population too.

What's wrong with the population?

I mean, we're too many people.

If you cannot achieve a balanced budget

with a retirement system,

you've got a lower life expectancy.

And that's what's happening today.

The greatest risk

of global catastrophe doesn't look like

this. It looks like this.

If your enemy is a germ, you have something

that can get into everybody's homes and kill you.

And if you're told constantly,

be frightened of this, be fearful.

This stuff is coming to get you, it's easy to, to manipulate

that kind of fear and to disable people's

capacity for critical thinking.

I think there are two parts to it.

One is the shift of money up to the 1%,

and really control people's lives.

When people come to realize that Covid

to 19 is just a cover under which these things have been

brought in, it causes a, a type of friction in their brains.

They just can't accept that

We are using the federal credit, the treasury,

and the central bank to centralized control.

Digital technology gives them the ability

to control centrally in such an invasive way that

what I described, their goal is slavery.

When ELs Broad Berger goes to work, he doesn't need Id

embedded in his hand is a microchip.

And that's the beginning of surveillance.

So it'll be like China

Or It'll be, uh, digital money.

If you don't do what you're told,

you can't put food on the table.

And if you're good, you get rewarded.

That's what the resets all about. Through this

Whole tumult of, of covid rising up

and bringing together so many activists who are aware of,

say, whether it be environmental issues,

whether it be GMO foods, whether it be medicine,

and whether it be the corruption in government,

we see it was, was through the medical industry.

But now we see that there's a bigger picture looming.

We live on a planet where we're not allowed to know

how the governance system at the top works.

One of the most important things we need

to protect our freedoms is to understand

how the control grid is being built and stop it.

And the best way to stop it is each one of us

backs out of the control grid.

They don't view us as the same species as them.

They don't think of themselves as part

of our civilization anymore.

Kind of just amazing that at the same time

that Health Canada, after two years of complete rest

resurrects this false narrative

Just as the big picture's coming out

Exactly where people now have access to the truth of

what Ezekiel, how it's relevant in their own lives.

Because the fact of the matter is, is that

had the media been reporting on what was going on in,

in those courtrooms, there would've been a massive public

outcry because everybody would've been seeing

what the agenda was,

and that it was ultimately to remove parental rights

and to remove medical choice here in Canada.

And that they were exploding the death of my son, Ezekiel,

that was caused by them to, to do that. And yet,

Well, and, and you know, like the,

the media basically were saying that, oh, these parents

were trying to treat bacterial meningitis, you know, with

Maple syrup Or strattice

and, you know, stu, like it was just, it, it was bizarre.

Well, like, first of all, um, you know,

bacterial meningitis like, it, it can present super quickly.

And, you know, Ezekiel didn't have bacterial meningitis,

but he did have the croup.

Mm-Hmm. And it would wax and wane

and like, so, I'm sorry.

Like, first thing I would do with my kids, if, you know,

a colder flu is going through the house,

like whether they had it yet or not,

'cause you know, thing we're taking vitamin C, we're taking,

we're taking vitamin D

and you're taking your multivits, right?

Like all of a sudden, I, I want you to have all

that your immune system needs to be doing well.

Like, does that make me a kook?

Like most of us, most of us do that

and we do it for ourselves, right?

Like, so, so the fact that you guys would, oh, well,

Ezekiel's sick, let's, let's bump up our, you know,

whatever we can to do

as immune system is actually responsible.

Mm-Hmm. Nobody even mentioned men the word meningitis

until the day before.

And that, that's an emergency room nurse

who's looking at Ezekiel.

'cause she's friends with Colette.

And it's like, you know, and,

and this emergency room nurse didn't see any need for him

to go to the hospital or, or go to emergency.

None at all. And she loved Ezekiel. Mm-Hmm.

Like, she, like, and then the grandfather sees him

that night and he doesn't see any

need to go to the hospital.

Like, what are we talking about?

Like this, that, that's what's so, was so upsetting is

so here the media is is making it sound like, oh,

you guys knew he had bacterial meningitis.

Well, A, he didn't, and b, he's not presenting seriously.

Like, I'm sorry if I just have an emergency.

A full-time, emergency room nurse who's been in emergency

ward full-time for eight years has just looked at my child

and said, well, I don't see any major issue.

Um, I, I don't feel the need to rush to the hospital. David.

I'm sorry. I just don't.

Yeah. Hey, let, let's, let's talk about that real quick,

because obviously, you know, what was he presenting with

and, and when, when, uh, Colette's midwife, who also was

that practicing, uh, nurse

for nine years in an emergency room.

So she's well versed in, in, in dealing with triage.

And she came and

because she was doing a checkup on Colla anyways, being four

and a half months pregnant at the time,

and she listened to Ezekiel's breathing No,

Yeah. With a stethoscope.

We're talking.

She, she, and she's looking for anything

that's going to be alarming.

And there was no signs of infection.

There was no runny nose, there was no mucus in that.

There was nothing. Now, let's fast forward a few days.

We find ourselves in the Alberta Children's Hospital,

and this is something that we ended up getting in 2019

that was withheld initially.

And it was the Pats report,

it was the poison control report.

And this was an interesting little gem that at the same time

that the Alberta, uh,

children's hospitals phoning homicide on us and,

and telling the police bacterial meningitis,

you've got the same head doctor doing that.

Having her, her interim contact Patti to try

to find an alternate reason as

to why he went into cardiac arrest.

And they stated to Pattis,

and it's found right in, in the report, no infection.

There was no infection that they could find.

And they had already ruled out meningitis.

So here you have this on the Padis report.

This is what's going on behind the scenes.

And then they're covering it all up

and coming up with this fantastic narrative

of bacterial meningitis to the point that,

and you, you, you've made mention of this

before, that Adi IBO gets that report

before he even does autopsy saying he had bacteria men.

Yeah. Department of Justice contacts, the, you know,

the pathologist Adi Asbo indicating that Ezekiel has died

of er meningitis.

So now, as a lawyer, I forgot to mention, all

of the medical training we have in the years, you have

to spend in pathology, um, to be able to

actually diagnose deaths without doing an autopsy.

We lawyers are very skilled. It's just, it's ridiculous.

How, how does a Department of Justice lawyer,

I think it's okay to send a letter to the a pathologist

before an auto autopsy autopsy, um, suggesting

what might've happened medically.

Exactly when On what, on

what planet is, on what planet. Is that okay?

Yeah. Influence. It's influencing. Yep.

Criminal influencing the, uh, the, well, isn't that

what Annie Savio said,

that's the bureaucratic influencing into the causations

of death found within the medical examiner's office

that she took issue with

and blew the whistle on was exactly that.

Mm-Hmm. And so prime example, right? So, okay.

I I I know we're now at a just over an hour here.

Um, so we'll, we'll come to a close pretty quick here.

But, so in relation to the, all of this,

let's, let's just back up.

You know, you got health

candidate exploding the death of my son.

But really the issue here is not that they,

they're exploiting his death.

It's what they're doing

and that they're having to get desperate.

That they're actually using the false

narrative of my son's death.

What they're doing to the Canadian public in relation

to natural health products.

What do we do about

This? Oh yeah, yeah. Like,

so basically they're bringing in

what they call a self-care framework.

And when this is fully implemented, we will lose

basically all of our products.

Like there'll be some multi ingredient vitamins

and some single ingredient products,

but it'll be like the European model.

Like you try and find a health food store in anything

but a large city and they just don't have, you know,

things in the dosages that we have and the multi ingredient.

Like it's just, it's not there.

And that's where we're moving where basically we don't have

effective natural health products.

And so how are they doing it?

So first of all, they're gonna fully harmonize so

that we have to comply with the chemical drug regulations

that everyone who's ever looked at this says don't apply.

So we're not gonna be able to use traditional use evidence

for efficacy claims.

Well, there goes our industry right there, cost recovery.

So paying for site licensing and product licensing.

There's, there goes our industry right now, censorship

of truthful health information.

The, um, basically are not gonna license under this new

scheme products for which you would seek medical advice.

Well now there goes all the products

that are natural practitioners use homeopathic doctors,

naturopathic doctors, traditional Chinese practitioners.

So we're gonna lose access to those treat treatment models

and find ourselves in a chemical drug model.

And it's funny, you know, I, if I do a podcast

and let's say we have, you know, it's

for naturopathic doctors, like in the chat and questions.

Oh, that's okay, we'll go underground

and just have a legal products.

No, you won't. They just impose the chemical drug penalties.

So it used to be you were facing a $5,000 per

offense, maximum fine.

And now it's $5 million per day, you're in violation.

They'll squash you like bugs and make examples out of you.

And everyone will back down and, and we're done.

Like this is the end game.

So, um, but we're gonna stop it if we all

get together and stop it.

So, can I plug N-H-P-P-A?

Uh, it's absolutely appropriate to do so.

And right there. I was ready for you.

Okay. So, so David has put the website address

and N-H-P-P-A stands

for Natural Health Product Protection Association.

It's a, a federally incorporated nonprofit association

that I helped form in 2008 and have been with ever since.

And we're basically the only, which is surprising

'cause there used to be several freedom groups in

the area of natural health.

But we are the last surviving one

and the one with the most history and, and expertise.

And we're creating a citizen rebellion.

So go to the website

and there's, there's several things I need you to do.

Um, you will get almost like a cookie bar,

but a volunteer bar.

Like go to our volunteer form

and volunteer 'cause we need volunteers.

Also, there's a contact us form

where you can give us your email address.

Please do that because we launch campaigns

and this is how we let you know

and follow us on social media.

And then also support us financially

because, you know, we're having to hire more staff

and create things because this has

to be the largest citizen rebellion in our

lifetime if we're gonna win.

And it's just because the Department of Health is so

powerful that the only way we can get any government,

it doesn't matter what party,

the only way we can get any government

to back down is if the politicians can credibly say

to their masters, like, we, we can't function.

We, you, you gotta let this one go.

Like, come back in 10 years.

But like for right now, um, you gotta let this one go.

It's the only way we're gonna, we're gonna save this.

Mm-Hmm, absolutely.

And, and when you, when you mentioned, um, uh,

about two minutes ago, two

and a half minutes ago about, uh, censorship of

information of, of truthful health information.

Um, anybody who's watching this, if you,

if you want a little bit of entertainment value, go

to the trope canada.com website

that you see going along the bottom bar there.

And what you're gonna find, uh, right off the bat

is we've had to, to, to transform that website

to comply with Health Canada.

And we've done so through some kind

of tongue in cheek videos where we actually make mention

of why we've had to change things, why we've had

to remove the 35 medical journal publications off

of our website that Health Canada didn't want you

to have access to.

So what Sean's talking about in, in relation

to the censorship is absolutely real.

Mm-Hmm. Um, this, this took place back in May of this year

where we had to revamp our website

and we had to remove testimonials.

These are real life experiences from real people that have,

have had their lives radically transformed from

proper nutrition.

And we're having to remove their testimonials off the

website because Health Canada doesn't want you to see those.

We have to censor or they, they said remove the studies.

So what we did is we censored them.

So you, you can see that they're there,

but you can't see what, what the content is.

These are studies coming from, um, universities

that are independent of us.

We didn't pay a cent for these studies.

They took place organically

because people were seeing results.

Researchers wanted to, to see is this valid? Is it legit?

And it took place. And Health Canada is now saying,

you can't see the results of those studies

because we didn't approve it.

And so it's, it's a real issue.

So feel free to go to the website, um, where you get

to see a prime example of what censorship looks like

under Health Canada's, um, authority.

So take a look at that as well.

But yes, definitely go to nhpa.org, um,

because Sean has a, a fantastic plan of moving forward.

Otherwise, literally we can just, uh, sit back

and watch this, um, completely erode in front

of our eyes if we do nothing, that

that's exactly where it's going.

There's been numerous other countries that,

that have set the tone for us where we know

what takes place when we don't take a stand.

And so take a stand and, and, and,

and get unified with a group

that's moving forward in a very positive way,

being an h hppa.org.

So thank you Sean, for what you're doing there.

Thank you, David, for what you're doing.

And lastly, if you wanna see Sean on, on, on, on, uh, on,

on the big screen, on on a screen that with, with

with Beautiful, uh, you know, overlays and, and,

and great, you know, soundtrack music behind the scenes,

whatever, um, as well as myself go to, uh,

big picture movie.com.

It does cost $25, but I'm gonna tell

You, oh, it's, it's worth it.

It's worth it. Exactly. It's, it's worth it.

There's six episodes and it grabs you.

I don't know if you end up binge watching it, Sean.

Um, but the feedback I've been getting, uh,

may maybe you're responsible enough

that you didn't binge watch it,

but most people when they start, they don't,

It's hard not to keep watching uhhuh.

It's hard not to keep watching even though it's too long to,

you know, unless you've set aside

to watch six episodes. Yeah,

It's five and a half hours.

It's hard not to,

And half hours of potent information.

And like I said before,

I wish we would've had something like this back in 20

or 2021 or 20 20, 20 21 because it is so empowering.

It would've been such a blessing to have it then

to help those that were fenced sitting

or that didn't have a very strong conviction,

that we're willing to cave under a little bit of pressure.

It would've helped bolster them up

and, um, likely have, have allowed for them

to make the right decisions, uh, for their wellbeing.

But it's not too late now because this isn't over.

Um, so maybe Covid has kind

of been on the back burner right now, but it's not over.

And it's, and it's time that we understand what's going on

in the world so that we can see their agenda rollout

before us and we can make an informed choices to whether

or not we want to participate in that or not.

So big picture movie.com, go and watch it at minimum.

Um, you're gonna just absolutely love it,

but you're probably gonna end up sharing it.

You're probably gonna end up in watch parties

and it's gonna end up being a blessing for a lot of people

that you come in contact with, that you're sharing it with.

So, Mm-Hmm. All right.

Well, until next time, Sean, thank you so much.

Really appreciate you coming on again.

Um, and especially to discuss this matter.

It's just interesting

how our paths just keep on intersecting. Um,

Indeed, indeed,

The government has a way of just bringing us together.

So, um, it's a, a beautiful thing.

I appreciate the fact that you were able to, uh, to come on

and speak authoritatively, being

that you spent a significant amount

of hours in the courtroom representing myself

and my wife in relation to the death of my son,

and that now that Health Canada is exploiting that

for an agenda that you are combating.

It's just really interesting how, you know,

the pieces are coming together, um,

and how we just keep on finding ourselves,

uh, playing this role.

And so thank you for coming on.

Well, thanks for everything you do, David, and,

and your team behind you.

Um, you know, people have to learn the truth

and it's people like you that are getting it out there,

so really appreciate what you're doing.

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you, Sean. God bless you guys.

God bless all of you that are watching this.

Share this, share the big picture movie.com, share nhpa.org.

Get people there so that we can, uh, be agents of change

and actually act rather than just watch, uh,

everything fall apart around us, that we can actually, uh,

tell our children, our grandchildren someday,

that we actually took a stand and,

and made the world a better place.

And until then, until next time, um, we'll be on again.

I'm, I'm sure sometime soon.

Um, until then, God bless y'all.