Hello everybody, and welcome to True Hope Cast,

the official podcast of True Hope Canada.

This is episode four of the True Hope Family Files,

and this episode is titled The Nefarious Vaccine Agenda.

This episode is close to two hours long,

so consider breaking it down into two, three,

or even four different sessions.

But enough from me.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the True Hope Family Files part

four, enjoy the show.

Hello everybody, and welcome back to True Hope,

the official podcast with True Hope Canada.

This is part four of an eight part special series here

of the True Hope Family Files.

And last week was part three,

which was title titled Tragedy Strikes.

Again, here today in part four,

we've titled Nefarious Vaccine Agenda.

I've got Mr. David Stefan in the, uh, virtual studio

with me again today. How are you, David?

I'm doing really well, Simon. Thank you.

Awesome. Well, we finished off part three discussing

how the crown was bringing up vaccines in ver in,

in very serious, in serious tone,

and that this was gonna be a big part

of their case going forward.

And interestingly, this was a big shock for your lawyer,

Sean Buckley, but it wasn't a shock for you.

Why?

Well, when I first got in the autopsy airport,

'cause we ordered it right away after Ezekiel's passing

because there was nothing clear within the hospital,

and we wanted closure as parents, we wanted to understand

what had taken place, um, for a few reasons.

And one of those was just to be wiser as parents that we,

you know, didn't have that type

of situation rise up again within our household.

And so we got the autopsy report just over seven months

later, and right off the bat, it introduced it with,

you know, talking about Ezekiel, you know,

a previously healthy, non immunized, um, child.

So right off the bat, it introduced a topic,

but then throughout the first, um, paragraph,

really the synopsis of,

of the whole autopsy on the front page, just describing

what they did, what took place real quickly

before getting into all the fine details.

The theme of vaccines rose up a few times,

basically alluding to the condition

that Ezekiel passed away from,

or what they were claiming that he passed away from,

that it was vaccine preventable.

And so I, when I read that for the very first time,

I got this just sick feeling, they're gonna charge us

and this is gonna be a vaccine trial.

And so I was anticipating it,

I was anticipating charges to come.

And so when two, two and a half months rolled by

and there was no charges, I just chalked up as, oh,

I guess I'm just being paranoid, right?

That gut feeling that I, it was wrong. And so I let it go.

So it wasn't a surprise to me when, you know,

you fast forward a year and a half just over a year

and a half later, and we find ourselves within the courts

within the preliminary hearing to kind of find out

what the crown is going for so that we know how to,

to prepare a defense for the trial proper,

which wouldn't be until 2016.

That during that preliminary hearing, we hear all

of this information about vaccines just being parroted over

and over and over by every single, um, doctor

that they bring up on the stand.

Uh, they were clearly being coached on what to speak.

And so it wasn't a shock to me. It, it wasn't a shock.

In fact, it came with an interesting sense of,

of excitement, if you will,

because I knew it was only a matter of time

before, you know, like, like I kind of kept up with a lot

of this type of stuff, the whole

what was going on in the vaccine, um,

world, if you will, right?

Those that, that were exposing the corruption

behind vaccines, um, the flawed science

that was being touted, that, uh, people's, you know,

parents' eyes were being, you know,

the wool was being pulled over their eyes

and they're being deceived into thinking that, you know,

they're safe and effective when in reality the evidence

is quite contrary.

Uh, they're neither safe nor effective,

and the science is very clear on that.

And so, you know, I was really abreast of, of

what was going on, being kept abreast as

to what was happening there.

And so I knew it was only a matter of time

before they tried to force vaccines onto people in Canada

onto parents through, um, criminal proceedings.

It was, it was a very likely thing

to happen at some point in time.

So when I found out that that's what we had been charged

with, that, that that's where

they were going with this case.

'cause we were sitting in limbo for, you know,

over a year on this, wondering, why'd they charge us?

What did we do wrong? Like, where,

what are we not seeing here?

And then when we find out, oh, they're here

to push an agenda, interesting.

Um, okay, we're ready for battle. Right.

We're, we're, we're, we're, we're, you know, in a sense,

I'm glad it was us not somebody else, somebody who had,

I guess, a little more resources, a little more support, uh,

being in the natural health industry being, um,

freedom fighters for many, many years.

We had a lot of support within, within the industry,

across the board, um, US side and Canada.

And so I'm glad that they took the agenda

and decided to try to push it through, um,

us rather than somebody else who would've just rolled over

and allowed this agenda to take a foothold rapidly.

Yeah. And it was a surprise to Sean

because there was no precedent for them to actually use

vaccines and the lack of immunization

as a case going forward. Is that right?

Well, I'd had the conversation with Sean, you know,

he'd been our lawyer now at this point in time

for about eight months.

And I had the conversation at, at some point during

that time saying, Hey, just a heads up,

I think this is where they're going with this.

I think they're going to try to, um,

incorporate vaccines into the, this whole,

um, set of charges.

Mm-Hmm. And he said, no, they can't do that.

I said, well, why not? He says,

'cause there isn't a precedent in Canada.

Like they're, they don't have a precedent to stand on.

There's no case law. And I thought, okay, I left it at that.

I just parked it. Mm-Hmm. And I thought, well, you know,

as I'm sitting there thinking about, well,

how do you establish a precedent?

There has to be a first, right? Yeah.

So I'm thinking, oh, okay, whatever. But I parked it, right?

He had said his piece, and I,

and I, I'm like, okay, okay, well, that there is a sense

of ease that comes with that, that we don't want to go and,

and, and start hiring expert witnesses

in relation to vaccines.

So, okay. That absolves us of some responsibility. Right.

Um, okay. That, so it'll make it a little bit easier,

but, um, turns out that wouldn't be the case.

No. And during those preliminary hearings, I mean,

I wasn't there, but you, I, I assuming you have expert

after expert bringing up just immunization of vaccines,

it's obviously just like, it's a word that hits your ears

and hits your brain and it's just wakes you up.

And it's like, you know, clearly there is a path,

there is an agenda here that this is

where they're going down

and yeah, I guess you say you're excited.

It's, you know, it's a, a kind of a wild unknown path in,

in, in which, where the whole proceeding was going.

Yeah. The nice thing about it is, is

that it provides a sense of clarity, um,

and purpose as to why we were fighting this.

Because we didn't know if it was just an, a vendetta right.

Against our family. And if so,

they were just trying to smear us.

But the fact that they were actually trying

to push this agenda, it gave, it gave me a greater sense

of motivation that now I realize, wait a minute,

I'm not just standing up for myself and for my wife

and for my children, my family trying to preserve my family.

This is a much grander issue.

This is an issue that really, to say

that it would affect just every parent in Canada

would be an understatement.

Because the problem is, is that when a precedent is

established in, in any of the Commonwealth nations,

it's very easily adopted into

the other Commonwealth nations.

Yeah. So this would be, have an impact in the uk

it would be the beginning of,

of this precedent that would roll out there.

It would have an impact in New Zealand and Australia.

It would have an impact in the us There's a lot of

cross-referencing that takes place in essence, um,

with a precedent

that may have a foothold in the US eventually.

It doesn't take long for that

to become the norm in Canada as well.

So, um, really it gave me a greater sense of purpose to,

to stand up and to fight realizing

that this wasn't just about me and my family.

No, it really isn't just about you.

And I mean, I think that if the Crown has case law

and a successful case for them where they can actually prove

that, you know, a child died

because they weren't given a particular vaccine

that's on the schedule, that would obviously lead them

to potentially create legislation

and law in the act of, you know, the health of Canadians

as their, the primary objective.

And we obviously, we touched on in part three, the fact

that, you know, health Canada's budget, I think two thirds

of their budget comes from pharmaceutical companies.

They refer to them as customers, as clients.

And the more money that they make,

the more money Health Canada c can consume as well.

So it's a very interesting dynamic there.

And we see in the US especially many states in which,

you know, vaccines are mandatory for, you know, very,

very young kids if they want go to school,

if they wanna participate in society, really.

So if there was a case to be had,

and if there was a president to be kind of stood on,

I guess Health Canada's maybe, let's just say, looking

for a case like this, maybe they've been looking

for this type of case for, for decades to be able to

set things in motion that would inevitably sell a lot more

product for Health Canada's customers.

Yeah, I, I would agree with that.

I, I think if they were looking for one for decades,

they probably would've rolled out with some,

some erroneous charges on somebody else

at some point in time earlier to this.

But I think the timing was,

I think they felt it was right the time, you know,

everything is so methodical, it's such a chess game with

what they're doing in relation to the erosion of, of rights.

And we've seen that obviously over the last four years.

Um, they've had this stuff in the works four decades at this

point in time, and it's just a very patient waiting game

that for them to, to play their cards at the right time.

And so when we take a look at the timing was phenomenal that

that had, they were, had they been able to ex succeed

with our case, which they kind of did to a degree,

albeit the, we were able to walk away, wouldn't say clear.

I mean, obviously there, there's a lot of, um, residual, uh,

issues that took place, uh, or that are still there.

Yeah. And it distorted us financially

and all of that for, for quite some time.

And we never got anything back.

But, um, we'll get into that I guess later on in one of the,

you know, further episodes as to the precedent

that was eventually established,

even though it has no backing whatsoever.

So it's only a matter of time

before it gets used on a parent.

And it, when it does. And,

and if we find out about it, we'll be in touch

with those lawyers to actually challenge the basis of

that precedent that Crown will be using as a baseball bat,

because there's no substance to it.

It was a, a faulty, uh, not even faulty.

It was a, it was a very corrupt decision

that was made outta the Alberta Appeals Courts,

and that was the last decision that was ever made on,

on our trial, um, or our case, if you will.

But, um, going back to it, really, it was,

it was just a matter of time.

And I think it was, it was also, you know, for them

to charge us and to play this card, the vaccine card,

I think it was largely in preparation for the agenda that,

that we saw roll out back in 20 21, 20 22.

And I, I don't think we've seen a last of that yet,

but I think it was, I think it was to try

to set things in motion for that.

Because the problem that the, that the government has is

that, you know, I,

I remember reading this document years ago,

it came from the Public Health Agency of Canada, um,

which I believe is pretty connected with Health Canada, um,

kind of an arm, arms length, uh, organization, um,

setting things in motion as to what's acceptable for,

well, public health, if you will.

And there there was a document

that they released talking about how they were incapable of

mandating vaccines on a broad scale,

that it actually went against our constitution.

Right. So that was, that was kind of interesting that in

that regard, Canada Constitution

or the Constitution Act of Canada was stronger in

that particular area than what the US' Constitution was.

And so they couldn't mandate on a broad level,

they, they weren't allowed to.

And, and so what they did with,

with the whole Covid thing is, is kind

of a roundabout different way where, um, it, I,

it was still egregious, and I think it

was actually anti-constitutional.

I think that there, there could be some, a lot of, uh, cases

to come, come about because of that.

But, um, they could not mandate vaccines.

And they were acknowledging that.

And so the next best thing

that they could do is compel parents to, to vaccinate due

to the fear of criminal prosecution.

And so you take a case like mine

and Collette's, you put us all over the front page

of the newspapers with tabloid style headlines,

and you scare the heck out of everybody,

and you make sure that our, we're on the

front page of the newspaper.

So basically a month and a half straight in 2016, um,

you know, it has an effect.

It has a, a real significant effect to the point

that I had people reaching out to me that, um,

didn't vaccinate, but they became terrified as parents.

And so they'd actually asked me the question asked,

you know, what, what, what you do?

I said, well, I'd do the same thing that I did. Yeah.

I wouldn't vaccinate my children.

I would not, you know, I'd rather go to jail than

to put my children in harm's way with what I know, with

what I understand based on the science,

the actual science that's done on these.

I would not subject my children to that just

to try to satiate my fear.

It'd be wrong.

Yeah. It's interesting, the, the use of fear as a,

I say a, a marketing tactic to push people to do what you

do, what you want them to do.

It's a, you know, it's an old age political tactic.

And Yeah, I've seen some very interesting,

like vaccine committees in the US talking about,

like their primary concern is, is, is hesitancy

and the fact that people are very skeptical

of these pharmaceuticals now.

And that's one of their biggest hurdles.

And I think that I, I actually personally think

that they've, they've done themselves a huge disservice.

The, the, the CDC Health Canada, I think

that they've got a lot more, um, Canadians,

a lot more Americans, very, very skeptical

about the policies that they're putting out.

And the Yeah, the, the, the, the fear alongside of it.

I think there's been a lot of people now who are, you know,

kind of waking up a little bit more

and asking a few more questions than,

than they would've done four or five years ago.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I get people coming up to me.

Like, I had somebody approach me at Costco actually, um,

two weeks ago and hadn't seen this individual in years,

and I knew what their stance was in relation to, um,

our court proceedings.

And so obviously there was some distance there.

'cause they, they took a negative stance in relation

to adopting what the mainstream media had to say about us.

And he just reached out

and right off the bat, like, I don't know,

probably three sentences into our conversation,

he says, I got fired.

Um, you know,

after 20 some odd years I got fired from this

particular job, right?

Because I didn't receive the Covid job.

And, and, and this individual went on to say, you, you know,

if somebody would've told me that I would've been

anti-vaccine, you know, five, six years ago,

I would've just laughed at them.

But now I've been down this rabbit

hole and I've researched it all.

And he says, now I have grandkids

and I strongly advise my children not

to get my grandchildren vaccinated.

So it completely,

the the past couple years completely woke this individual up

completely, when all of a sudden it became a matter of,

I don't have any choice in this

unless I'm willing to lose my job.

That's, that's really what the choice comes down to.

It's not really a, it's not a free choice.

It's a choice that comes with significant consequences,

um, either way.

And so it put people into a real precarious situation

oftentimes where they were thinking, how am I gonna get,

you know, the next meal on my kitchen table, right?

How am I gonna feed my children? And, uh,

and that's a very egregious place for people to be, like,

for a very egregious situation for the government

to be putting people into that particular position.

It's absolutely wrong. It's evil.

And so, you know, that's just one example that I've,

I've learned of many examples where mm-hmm, a lot

of people have woken up to the corrupt nature

of the pharmaceutical industry over the past four years.

Yeah. I mean, it's, I mean, somebody, I mean,

as a nutritionist, just to, just

to not see the government recommending exercise,

vitamin D, other nutritional supplementations, you know,

spending time with friends and family, like these very,

very simple things that are, you know, very free,

not endorsing that heavily, not just over the, not just

during covid or post covid,

but like forever, like the research on, on, on vitamin D

and, and, uh, your ability

to fight off infection is just remarkable.

The effects on mood

and e the effects exercise has on mood is just like the,

the, the research is just profound.

So the fact that the, these government entities are not

endorsing these on a, let's say,

daily basis is quite remarkable.

And I, I think it's, I don't like to stereotype,

but like, there are, there are individuals in charge

of our health at a government level

who are like the looking at them look like the most

unhealthy people on the planet.

So I dunno why I would listen

to anything that they have to say.

Um, but we could go off on that one for a long time.

But we finished off part three in June, 2014 with,

with the preliminary hearings.

And we're gonna kick this off around May, 2015.

Is that where we're gonna start?

Yeah. You know, I guess just to recap real quick,

you know, looking at the preliminary hearing, so this is

what we ended off on was, you know, the, the substance, the,

the awakening, if you will, as to what was going on.

Because remember, at this point in time,

every doctor's talking about vaccines

and they're not qualified experts in, in vaccines.

They're, um, they're not vlog, right?

Um, they're not immune immunologists either.

They're, they're not experts in that,

in that field whatsoever.

I'm close. And yet here they're all speaking as experts on

as if they're experts on vaccines.

And then you have the, the forensic

pathologist who's doing the same thing.

And once again, he's not qualified for that either.

And so, you know, when we take a look at this real quick,

going up here, I don't know if you can see the cursor,

but we see in bold there, um, HIB or hib.

And so we see what they're declaring, um, uh, Ezekiel

to have had an infection from, uh,

being hemophilus influenza.

Now, they couldn't get any real evidence as to

what it was they found fragmented, uh, DNA, um,

in various scant amounts.

And so we'll get into that as well.

'cause there's some, there's an interesting backstory to, to

how they discovered that

and that it's not actually approved for diagnostic purposes.

It's, uh, it's only for research purposes that they, the,

the procedures that they used.

And so it shows that they were grasping at straws

and they finally found the straw that they were looking for,

that they could then say, oh, now you have the,

the Homophily influenza B vaccine

that would've prevented this, which is complete,

uh, a complete farce.

Um, in fact, we see all of the other forms

of homophily influenza have increased at the same rate

that the homophily influenza B has decreased since the,

um, uh, bringing out

of the HIB vaccine into the marketplace.

So anyways, it was, it was, they were,

the doctors were completely lying, like completely lying.

Like it was, it was phenomenal

what they were, what they were speaking to.

Um, and so it was only a matter

of time before they got busted on that.

But we seen the highlighted there

where Sean Buckle just basically, you know, come stands up

because the crown is, is doing direct examination

of the forensic pathologist,

and they get off on this tangent of, of vaccines.

And so Sean just stands up and says, you're honor, just

because I, I don't want to get off track, I'm not aware

that the Crown's theory of the case is, is that, you know,

immunization or non immunization leads any way

to any liability for this charge.

I could be corrected, but I'm,

I'm just wondering if we're getting on a tangent end.

And then the Crown prosecutor, Mr.

Labbrand stands up and, um, interrupts him

and says, no, that's definitely part

of my view in this case.

So he is highlighting that, yeah, it is a liability.

Um, uh, not vaccinating is a part of this case.

So then Sean just says,

okay, well that's news to the defense.

Thank you. So it's just very interesting

because then if we're going to have, just

so my friend is aware on the record, when we get to a trial,

it's going to be a very, very,

or a very long trial, basically on the merits

of vaccination will now become an issue at hand.

So just so my friend is on notice.

So that's how that ended off when, when we had that kind

of awakening, um, Colette

and I went for, for lunch, uh, just shortly

after that, Sean didn't show up for lunch.

He, he was having a, a little meeting with, uh, Mr.

Lab or the Crown prosecutor.

And so he showed up to lunch late,

and that's when he informed us, um,

after the meeting that he had had

where the Crown prosecutor was very forthcoming with him

and just said, look, this is what we're looking

to achieve from this case.

That, uh, if you as a parent in Canada choose not

to vaccinate your child,

and any harm is, remember that these charges had nothing

to do actually with the death of my son.

I was, it was never about trying to convict us

for his death or anything like that.

It was whether or not we had endangered his life

through actions

or inactions that we had either performed or not performed.

And so, um, if any harm

befall a child who was not vaccinated in Canada,

and the medical system deemed

that it was vaccine preventable, that harm,

then the parents are now liable.

They're criminally liable,

and they could be charged just like we were charged

with the exact same charge, failing

to provide the necessaries of life, which at

that point in time was a maximum of five years in jail.

But then they amended that, um, it was a charge

that was very rarely used within Canada up

until the point that we were charged.

And then as soon as we were charged

and a, um, con, uh,

a wrongful conviction took place in 2016, all

of a sudden there was parents being charged, left, right,

and center, especially in Alberta

with these particular charges of failing

to provide the necessaries of life.

And then it was amended to not be up

to five years in jails up to 10 years in jail.

So now it was being weaponized.

Um, this particular set of charges, which is, is a whole,

it's a, it's a, it's a legal anomaly, if you will,

because it doesn't fit within the regular realm of,

of legalities where you just have the Men's Reyes

and Actis reus that has to be established.

Um, there's a, there's a strange, um, arbitrary element

to it where, uh, there's a reasonable prudent parent test.

Did you act, um, as a reasonably prudent parent would've?

And so, well, how would a reasonably prudent parent act?

Well, it's a complete, uh, um, arbitrary

societal standard at

that point in time based on one's interpretation.

So whether that be the jury that that's interpreting it,

or whether it be a judge, either way, it's left open

for interpretation.

So, um, anyways, so that's what, uh, what was going on.

What we were up against there was that we were now,

um, having to incorporate

that element into there about criminal liability,

about vaccinations.

And so now we're, we're thinking, okay, so we need to prove,

or we need to establish what the validity of these

or the, the efficacy of these vaccines would've been,

that even if, even if Homophily influenza

as a whole was being somehow treated by,

or prevented by the Homophily Influenza B vaccine,

um, how effective would've it been?

What are the risks associated with it?

So these were the things that we were looking into.

So yeah, so then we fast forward to May, 2015, um,

almost a year later, right?

So this is two 11 months after we had first heard this news.

And I find myself in Chicago at the Autism One conference

where there's going to be a lot of doctors, um,

presenting a lot of doctors who have had their eyes opened

to the dangers of vaccines

and have begun to do their own studies and stuff like that.

And so I decided to go to the Autism one conference

because I thought, Hey, I need to network

with, with some people here.

I need to get in touch with some of these experts

that could potentially be, um, expert witnesses

for our trial to make sure

that this precedent doesn't get set so

that other parents now have this looming over their

head. That's,

That sounds like an interesting, smart,

I don't wanna say tactic, but getting yourself,

um, educated, connected.

Because it sounds to me like the crown could just put doctor

after doctor, after doctor,

after doctor on the stand saying how amazing, how safe

and how eff, um, efficacious vaccines are.

And then if you've got nobody on the other side, then it,

you know, it sounds pretty simple from a jury, jury point

of view where the case would lie.

So that sounds like a, you know,

really smart environment to put yourself in.

Well, that's exactly what they were planning on doing too.

And, and, you know, the courts aren't necessarily about the

truth, because if somebody makes a statement

and it's not truthful, but it's never properly rebutted,

it gets accepted as the truth.

Mm-Hmm. And so, you know, there,

there was a big responsibility, uh, laid on our shoulders at

that point in time to make sure

that the truth was established here.

And so that's where we were coming from. So, yeah.

Um, and, and,

and we saw that all their doctors were going to, you know,

sp the same staff, even though none

of them were experts in that field.

And so we would've challenged their, their credibility there

as to whether or not they could speak to the effects

of vaccines, if, if that was within their scope of practice,

um, especially if they're being

qualified as expert witnesses.

And we likely would've made some headway.

But the fact of the matter is that we had to do our,

our due diligence and match,

even though they were stacking the deck, um,

I can't remember what the terminology is called.

Um, it was something that, that was basically outlawed years

and years and years ago.

It was, it was about basically stacking the deck

with whoever had the most witnesses

would win the, the court case.

Right? Right, right. And so they, there's been elements, um,

or provisions put into play within the judiciary

to prevent that from happening.

However, in our court case,

they opened up those doors again, even though we brought

that up as a concern.

Um, they opened up the doors

and allowed the crown to have

way more expert witnesses than was typically allowed, um,

which was unprecedented, at least

for probably over a century, um, unprecedented.

But they allowed it to happen, um,

which then became presidential

because I'd find myself in a, another court case, not ours,

but someone else's court case that was very similar to ours

and, uh, the same type of agenda.

And the media was doing the same smear tactics.

And so in October of 2018, I find myself in this trial,

and then I see the crown getting up and making an argument

and citing r versus Stephan using our court case

to substantiate why they should be able to stack the deck

as well with all of these medical experts.

So they've opened up the doors.

So our, our case has served to be quite presidential

and dangerous for Canadian parents

to basically allow the medical system or,

or the crown to, um,

really exploit the medical system.

Uh, and and to do so in really strange justifiable means

to say, we need all these expert witnesses

from the hospital, all of them to say the same thing over

and over and over and over and over and over.

Um, and by the time, you know, it's, it's,

it goes off that principle.

If you, if you, you say a lie,

a big enough lie enough times, it,

it somehow becomes the truth.

But that's exactly the principle that you're going off of,

that every single witness is gonna say this over and over,

and you, you hear it for four

or five days during a trial, it gets pretty solidified.

Now, try to undo it as a defense after the fact. Good luck.

Yeah. And this wouldn't be the first time that the,

the courts have really allowed kind of like extra privileges

to the crown in, in your experience with,

with, with them, right?

Yeah. Yeah. Quite remarkable.

So you are in Chicago.

Did who, who, who did you meet there, any,

any individuals that we might know?

Uh, yeah, met, met a bunch of great individuals, really,

um, met Andy Wakefield, uh, incredibly humble individual.

He's been through the ringer, lost his career, just been,

just been beaten up in the media, has done a fantastic job

of, of doing that, and yeah.

Really engaging criminal activities, um, against him. Right?

And yet here he is, he is still speaking the truth.

So Andy Wakefield, uh, who was one of the first ones

to kinda blow the whistle, even though he didn't really blew

the whistle in the fact that those

that were getting the MMR vaccine had really messed up

intestinal tracts, that there were some issues there.

He didn't say that it caused autism,

but then sure enough, he, the allegations flew,

flew out about him and that he was involved with court cases

and he stood to benefit and all this type of stuff, right.

Um, met, uh, uh, people like Chris Shaw,

um, uh, Dr.

Bradstreet, that was, uh, that was like two weeks

before he was killed.

Um, and he was the beginning of, of a, a, a long list

of holistic doctors within that short period of time.

It started in, uh, 2015,

and within just a handful of years, not even a handful

of years, like three

or four years, there was 80 holistic doctors

that were killed in, in weird ways.

And so he was the first to really,

he was the beginning of it.

Um, and he had some phenomenal information.

I sat through his presentation, and so, um, uh, met Dr.

Tony Bark, phenomenal woman.

She had just, uh, it was only a few months

before that that she came out with a documentary called Bot,

and it incorporated GMOs

and, um, vaccines into that as well.

It was a really well done documentary that was, uh,

it was either released late 2014

or early 2015,

I believe it was early 2015 if I recall properly though.

And so she came

and they did an airing of that at, at, uh, autism one.

And then, so I sat down and met with her,

and beautiful woman just cried when she heard our story.

And, and so we hired her as an expert witness. Um, Dr.

Tetano Ani wasn't there,

but I became aware of her through a contact

that I'd met there that had kind of got me

through the process and, and spent some significant time

with me during that time, uh, that weekend,

or I guess it was more like a

week, I think it was about four days.

And so, um, so then we hired Dr.

Tetano ic, uh, who's an immunologist.

And, um, between her and Dr.

Tony Barkley did a phenomenal job of preparing a defense

for us that would absolutely rock the crown's theory

and change the course of the whole proceedings, um,

from then on out.

So the did, um, expert, uh, reports

that, uh, first of all, Dr. Chen or Dr.

Tony Bark was the first one.

She looked at the autopsy report and said, wait a minute.

They used a PCR test to find scant amounts

of hemophilus influenza, Ezekiel cerebral spinal fluid.

You can't do that. That's not approved for that.

Like, so she was the first one to raise a flag to

that we weren't, we weren't really aware of that.

We weren't aware of the fact

that there was an email from the microbiologist outta the

laboratory that was working with the,

the forensic pathologist during Ezekiel's autopsy.

And that this email stated emphatically to Dr.

Adi Yabo, the, the pathologist saying, you can't use this

for diagnostic purposes.

This is only for research purposes.

It's not approved for what you're looking for it for,

so you can't do anything with it.

There was an email emphatically stating that,

and yet then what you find in the autopsy report is, um,

that they discovered scant amounts

of hemophilus influenza using nonclinical research

methodologies, which is a red flag.

The first time I read that, I thought, what is that saying?

There's something off there. And sure enough it comes clear

oh, PCR test, and,

and everybody knows it's a PCR test that, uh, everybody

that understands it, um, medically, uh,

within the medical world is that

you can find whatever you're looking for.

It just depends on how many cycles you're gonna do

and how much amplification that you apply to it.

Right? You will ultimately, eventually find

what you're looking for, whether it's actually there or not.

And so it's a very, very faulty test, um, or can be,

and that's why it's not to be used

for these particular purposes.

And yet that's what they used to try to determine

that Ezekiel had bacterial meningitis

and what form of bacteria it was.

So she's the first one to raise the flag on that one

and said, there's something wrong with this autopsy report.

I'm like, well, that's what my gut feeling said,

but thank you for kind of, you know, qualifying that.

So she started picking that apart, um,

and was really kind

of feeding us the information there as to where to look.

It wouldn't be till much later that we discovered

that there was way more wrong with that autopsy report than,

than she had had seen at surface level

with just looking at the autopsy report itself.

So she, her and Dr.

Tet, Jana IC came up

with expert reports using the vers database,

which is the government database outta the US that reports,

um, injuries.

It's, uh, I believe it's vaccine adverse events reporting,

um, maybe system bears, something like that.

Yeah, that's right. Okay.

Um, been a long time since I've actually

looked at what the acronym means.

But, um, so anyways, using the government data,

which is highly under reported,

because most doctors aren't actually reporting vaccine

injuries, what they found is

that the hemophilus Influenza B vaccine

that they were touting would've saved Ezekiel's life

supposedly, even though you can't make

that scientific connection between, you know,

hemophilus influenza in general

and then hemophilus influenza B,

but their theory that that was, uh, that

that would've saved his life.

What's interesting about it is we got, we,

we got the government reporting on this, showing

that this particular vaccine on its own, that there was, uh,

quite a few, uh,

I think it was just over a few thousand deaths Wow.

Had been reported attributed specifically to

that vaccine on its own.

So you give it to a child

and there's a possibility that that child's gonna die from

that vaccine within the next like 48 hours.

Right. There's a chance.

And the reports, remember, are highly under reported.

Um, many people are saying it's from one

to 10% type of thing.

Mm-Hmm. Is what's actually being reported.

So you can basically, you know, um, explode that number

by 10 to, um, a hundred times,

and that's gonna be more accurate than

what the actual report says.

And so there's children dying from the vaccine

itself, so not safe.

Then, um, there's a lot of reports about children who had

contracted and even died from hemophilus influenza b

um, infections, even though they had received the vaccine.

So it wasn't effective either.

And so here we had the government data on this

showing neither safe, neither effective,

and you're telling us that that would've saved his life.

It could have killed him right off the bat,

even if he actually did have bacterial meningitis,

which we're gonna get to, I guess probably not, not today,

that's in a different episode.

But he didn't have bacterial meningitis.

That's the interesting thing about all this.

And so, um, they came up with the report

and that report, those reports not in full,

but the de um, some general details of what the reports held

was supplied to the crown.

You see, we have a, a duty to supply them, uh, 30 days

previous to the actual trial

at latest 30 days previous to the trial.

We have to supply them what our experts will be talking on

so that they can then have a chance to prepare

for a rebuttal.

Of course. Yeah. And so they got those reports

and what was interesting, they came back

and said, um, we're just gonna drop the vaccine element

of this trial, which was exciting in one sense.

Okay, good. Woo. Right? Dodged a bullet.

All Canadian parents just dodged a bullet right there.

Um, but then I'm thinking, well then why,

why are they proceeding now though?

Where are they going with it now?

And that, that would be interesting to see is that,

that unraveled over the next few months, uh,

once we got into trial proper as to

where they were actually looking to go with it,

how they were then shifting their objectives as to

what they were gonna get outta this court case.

And either way, it was an attack on natural health, um,

probably the biggest attack that we've seen, uh,

in court proceedings within Canada, um,

over the last, uh, few decades.

And so it was interesting to see where it would go.

But yeah, so that, that's, that's what took place

with the whole vaccine agenda portion of it, um,

leading up to the 2016 trial proper.

And is it February, 2016 where you actually testified

for the first time in, in front of the Crown?

I think four years from the actual event?

Yeah. Yeah.

So yeah, we're, we're one month out, we're four years,

or one month shy of four years from the time

that Ezekiel passed away.

And we finally, for the first time, take the stand,

uh, February, 2016.

And what this was over, um,

remember March, 2016 is trial proper.

So here we are a few weeks beforehand,

and what we're doing is we're saying

we're just about four years out,

this case needs to be dropped.

It's been prejudiced. Um, the, you know, you can't wait

that long and hope

that everyone has their facts straight still.

Right? Right. Um,

it's had a significantly negative impact on the accused

being myself and my wife.

And so we take a look at it.

There, there's an element there that's,

it becomes a constitutional issue where you have a right to,

um, a fair and reasonable trial within a timely manner.

Um, I'm, I'm probably somewhat botching,

but that's the general principle, um,

constitutionally, and I mean,

That makes, I mean, that makes complete sense considering

that you're having, having to get people on the stand

to relive the story of what happened.

And if that's four years, five years, six is even a year,

such an emotionally volatile situation.

Like you obviously want the most accurate

information as possible.

And then you've got the, um, the,

the data collection collecting emails like

the more time goes by, you know, human beings make mistakes

and human beings deliberately make mistakes.

So like, you're just creating more

and more space for the lack of evidence, the lack of truth,

and the ability to actually come to, you know,

a reasonable conclusion.

Absolutely. Yeah. There,

there's all sorts of elements like that.

And, you know, just speaking about data collection, a point

of interest is they waited almost a year

to charge us, right?

So we, here we are, we're now 11 months out,

and they charge us.

We then asked for full disclosure.

We didn't get our disclosure.

We never did get a full disclosure ever to the whole whole

of it, which actually made all of the proceedings, all

of the trials were actually illegal,

which we'll get into more detail about that later on.

We never, ever did receive a full disclosure.

We had a lot of withheld evidence,

and we had evidence of the fact

that evidence was being withheld,

but by May of 2013,

we got our first deficient disclosure.

Now, here we are at that point in time, we are

14 months out at 12

and 13 months is when there's certain portions

of information that they're legally allowed to destroy,

uh, communication between the police officers

and whatnot, which became a very heated, um,

topic at one point in time when we discovered

that the whole police investigation was botched.

And we actually brought an application

before the courts called the fruits of the poisonous tree,

being that the investigation's botched,

it's gonna have a botched result.

And that's exactly what we saw.

We see how the, the police were colluding.

We saw how, like, initially the, the, the first RCMP officer

that came in, in, in 2012 and interviewed us, my wife

and I tell Ford in the morning in the hospital,

he came back, even though these were messed up, um, uh,

um, statements that both my wife

and I made think about this, almost 48 hours, no sleep.

And you know, we're, we're a traumatic situation

and we're now giving him a statement,

my wife at 12 till two in the morning,

and I'm giving him one from two till four in the morning.

Right? Like, I'm trying to be as honest as possible.

Of course, I've got nothing to hide.

The whole thing was skewed when I went back and reviewed it.

I'm like, that, that's not correct.

That's not correct, I'm, I'm talking about.

But anyways, there, there was events were masked up

everything, but I was in the

moment I thought that was reality.

And so he concluded there was no reason for charges,

and then all of a sudden, 11 months later we're being

charged by a different detachment,

different charge, all this type of stuff.

And so, um, yes, in relation to all of this,

they played the card, their cards well,

that they could actually legally destroy evidence

in certain areas, um, that, uh, based on

how long they delayed in charging us

and how long they delayed in giving us disclosure.

But that wasn't good enough because there was other areas

that they weren't allowed to destroy evidence.

And the evidence was clearly purged, significant amounts

of evidence, black holes in the narrative, everything.

Like you, you've literally have whole, like in the timeline,

you go along, you know, chronologically, all

of a sudden it's like, okay, well we got nothing from here

to hear nothing in, in a significant time period

during a very crucial time,

which would be extremely evidentiary as to what took place

with Ezekiel and why he died, gone, just done black hole.

And so, um, so yeah, our case was prejudice

because here we are now basically four years out from the

time that Ezekiel passed away.

So we're in a delay hearing in February of 2016.

And so I'm now talking, uh, we're,

we're talking about the effects that it had on us,

and we're talking about the delay.

And when we basically accredited, you know,

'cause if it's our fault that the delay's there,

then we can't then come back

and say, oh, you need to drop the case

because well, it's been, you know, 47 months.

Right? Right. Can't do it.

But so during the delay hearing, there's all the evidence

that's brought out to say whose delay is what,

here's the defense's delay.

They did this, they did this.

Here's the crown's delay, here's the judiciary's delay,

which is in essence the crowns.

So anything that's not the defense's delay gets accumulated

and is taken into the equation.

And basically once you cross 30 months, it's done, boom,

you, you have to scrap the case.

Well, we got to 32 months is what was allotted

to the delay that was not attributed to us 32 months.

So we were over that threshold.

The case is to be turfed, right? No, no.

The judge comes back and says,

based on the societal interest, which is interesting

that he'd be communicating that.

'cause what would he know about the

societal interest of this particular case?

There hasn't been a whole lot of media

that's even been published on this case yet.

In fact, all, um, a lot

of the media was very localized media

and they were even somewhat supportive of us.

In fact, they were pushing people to our fundraiser

to help us fundraise for the court case.

So it, you know, the media wouldn't shift until about a week

after the statement is made.

But he makes it. But based on the societal interests, um,

he's going to allow this court case to proceed.

So once again, going against the precedent,

and at this point in time, Jordan didn't exist.

Um, Jordan is a, is a Supreme Court case.

It's a precedent that was established

that said 30 months cutoff done.

But there was already precedent established in relation to,

it was, uh, previously referred to as Ask off.

And that was also about 30 months.

It just wasn't as solid as the Supreme Court ruling

that would take place shortly

after our court case that said 30 months is done.

So we had crossed a threshold that was already established,

but it just wasn't solidified.

And so unfortunately it allowed for the, the judge

to be able to stretch things

and say, based on the societal interest,

we're gonna allow this case to go through, even though it's,

in essence he's not saying this,

but even though it's been prejudice.

Absolutely. Right. So, yeah.

So now we're proceeding, but we,

but during that time, both my wife

and I had testified that was the first time that we,

we stood up and we testified.

So now the crown got to see how we articulate, um,

how we were going to, uh, look before a jury

and that we were gonna present ourselves fairly well.

Right? We weren't gonna come across as a bunch of, um,

radical lunatics like what they were trying

to make us out to be.

And that's what they were hoping to,

to really achieve in all this.

And so, um, based on that,

right after the, the proceedings,

even though the judge said, yeah,

we're gonna let it go forward, uh,

the crown came to us with a plea bargain.

It was an interesting plea bargain.

You see, I wasn't really around

very much because of business.

Um, and so my care of Ezekiel, I'm, I'm basically ancillary.

My wife was the one caring for Ezekiel

and she was doing a pretty good job of it, right?

Like while he was actually sick.

And then, you know, he's getting better

and then started to kind of turn back.

But not really. Like it wasn't,

there was nothing alarming to a parent.

So, but I was, I was on the sidelines.

So this is where it becomes interesting,

and I'm gonna give a bit of a preface to this,

to give an understanding as to where they were going.

It had now been at this point in time, um,

within about a week of, of the time

that they came up with this plea bargain.

It would've been three years since I,

I did my first public presentation

and I'd been making my rounds

and doing a lot of public presentations at health shows

as well as at health food stores, uh, various venues, um,

educating on the power of nutrition

and helping guide people away from pharmaceutical

medications and that they could get well

on the proper nutrition

that they could get their lives back.

So now with that being prefaced, they come to me and my wife

and they said, if David pleads guilty,

not my wife, who,

who is a primary caregiver at this point in time,

David pleads guilty.

Now that's interesting. Why they want me to plead guilty

will give him 18 months probation, boom,

slap on the wrist, right?

Especially compared to the fact that we're about

to put out well over a hundred thousand dollars just

for the trial, and we're rolling the dice.

We think that we're gonna win, but we're rolling the dice.

It's a possibility we can go to jail.

So, you know, put in the balances,

18 months probation, easy way out.

And Collette doesn't need to plead guilty,

but we will pay for her grief counseling.

'cause they saw that she was emotional when she got on the

stand as she's having to relive the whole situation.

And so here they think they're,

they're providing a sweet deal, and they are, except

for the fact that it's the whole thing, the whole set

of charges is erroneous.

It, it, it, it's fraudulent, it's wrong, it's dirty.

And so, but yet now they're gonna give us a,

a sweet deal out of it,

but yet I'm still gonna be found guilty.

Well, we know what they're gonna do with that, you know,

hindsight that they're going to try to use that, um,

to destroy my ability to publicly present.

It's gonna discredit me.

And so that's where they're looking to go with it.

I wasn't weighing that in the

balances of, at that point in time.

It's only now that I really see,

or over the last few years when,

when they began attacking me with my presentations that

we saw where they were looking to go with

that all they were looking for was an element of, of,

to discredit, but also there would be a precedent

established still nonetheless,

that they'd be able to use for other parents.

So we're weighing this in the balances,

saying, it's a pretty sweet deal.

We're gonna save a lot of money. We're not going to jail.

Right. We're gonna make sure our, you,

our family stays together.

Right. Because that's one of the biggest elements here.

We now, at this point in time, we have, um, three, um,

you know, when Ezekiel passed, there was just Ezekiel

and Ezra, but now we have two other

sons at this point in time.

And so we're fearing the loss of them that, you know,

both Colette and myself may end up in jail wrongfully,

but we may end up in jail.

That's, that's just the potential reality. Yeah.

So, um, we're weighing that

and I just, I just couldn't reconcile with it.

I knew that I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing

that I had lied to take the easy way out, that I pled guilty

for something I wasn't guilty of,

and that there was something far more fraudulent going on

behind the scenes, even though we didn't really have a whole

lot of the details at that point in time.

We just knew there was something wrong

and we couldn't do that, and I couldn't be putting other

parents in harm's way in Canada

through this legal precedent that they were looking to establish.

So at that point in time, I just said, no, not gonna do it.

And so I talked to Sean about it

and said, Sean, like, I'd like to send this email

and just kinda lamb based him.

He said, well, that's not typical protocol

that you have direct contact with them.

I'm representing you. He says, but here's an idea.

Why don't we try to set something up with them

that we can educate on the dangers of,

of bacterial meningitis and do a public campaign.

Um, and so we'll, we'll propose that to them that, no,

I won't plead guilty, but I will, um, in, in conjunction

with, with you do, you know, some public kind of, you know,

awareness campaign type

of thing on the dangers of bacterial meningitis.

And so the crown, when they heard that,

they said, no, we're not doing it.

So boom, couple weeks later, we're getting ready

to walk in the, in the doors for jury selection

and then, uh, for

what would become a month and a half long trial.

All right. Wow. Yeah. That's,

we'll see a lot happening there.

The interesting, such an interesting offer.

And I, when you, when you told me about,

they've obviously seen how you guys are on the stand.

They've seen Colette on the stand get very

emotional about the story.

And for the crown, that's not a good thing for the jury,

for, for a jury to see, and a,

and a judge to see Colette, so obviously in love with her,

her son that's passed, and be so emotional about that.

They don't want that to get to a trial,

because that's not gonna, you know,

the jury's gonna be sympathetic to that, you know, as a,

as a mother emotionally.

Like it's, without, without question,

it would be very difficult to, um, to see

that this mother didn't care about her son.

Like, and I don't,

and they did not want, they did not

want that to go forward, right.

Ex Exactly. Yeah. No.

If the media didn't smear, distort the narrative,

what most Canadians would've found out is one,

they would've resonated with us and realized that

they could have easily found themselves in the same

situation as us, based on what was taking place.

Yeah, of course. And that was the last thing

that they wanted, uh, to do, was have a family out there

that, that resonated with a lot of Canadians.

The majority, maybe, um,

even though maybe not ideologically on all things,

like obviously a lot of people believe in vaccines.

Well, that's fine. Believe in it.

That's what you wanna believe in. You believe in it. Right.

Um, but that doesn't necessarily mean

that you should be distanced from somebody

who doesn't believe in it, who chose

to look into the research and all that,

and has made the conscientious choice not

to give vaccines Mm-Hmm.

To the children or to themselves.

So that doesn't necessarily mean that we're distanced.

I mean, obviously all of us communicate with people that,

that are for or against vaccines

and do so on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean we can't be friends. Right.

And so the fact of the matter is that a lot

of Canadians would've resonated with us, um, and,

and sympathize with us,

but then the media had to, um, that's when the media,

or all, I won't say the media, I'll say C, B, C,

they led the charge on it all,

all the other media took a few weeks for them to align

with the headlines that CBC was making.

'cause, uh, CBC was also getting the lion's share

of the media coverage during this, this trial

with their tabloid style headlines

and literally went international.

They're selling their stories into, into the us into, into,

uh, Australia and other countries as well.

It was, it was all over the place.

Yeah. The Crown clearly could, couldn't allow you guys

to become victims in the eyes of the Canadian public.

You had to be, become the villains

and that had to be publicized.

Exactly. And they did a good job of it. Yeah.

Using CBCA crown owned corporation.

How, how interesting. Right.

People still don't get that.

They still don't get that in 2024, that, that is owned

and operated by whoever's in charge

of the government at the time.

Yep.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. So where are we?

We're in March, 2016.

This is the trial proper,

and you actually have a GoFundMe page that's obviously

producing a lot of funds from Canadians to support very,

very expensive trial proceedings.

What happens to that?

Yeah. We've got literally hundreds

of people at any given time looking to support us.

Um, and all of our, all of our proceedings,

like throughout February, it was like, I don't know,

it was probably like $30,000

or something like that of lawyers' fees.

We, it was covered up to date.

Like we were just keeping right up

with it, with the fundraising.

So then now, now we're gonna really need it

for this upcoming trial.

It's gonna be more, you know, estimated

around a hundred thousand dollars, which is cheap.

Um, Sean is doing a phenomenal job.

He's wor and he is only charging us half rate, um, which is,

he's just, just a beautiful soul.

Yeah. Um, but even at that half rate, it adds up.

But, um, because when we got a, I'll just, just

to be straight, when we were getting a quote for 2019 trial,

which was gonna be about to say maybe, maybe a touch longer,

but not much, um, we had consulted with a couple lawyers

and they were all estimating

around $500,000 just for that trial.

Right. Okay. And so here we're looking at like,

just over a hundred thousand dollars, um, for the trial.

Now, Sean's obviously already done a lot

of the prep work, and we paid for that.

So we've got a GoFundMe page,

and it's bringing in a lot of funds,

and GoFundMe is making good money off of it.

And it did get attacked by some group.

Uh, it got attacked like a year before,

and this group got banned from even being able

to comment on the, on the page and stuff like that.

So we'd already been through a controversy

and GoFundMe sided with us.

Well, now the first day of tru

or the first day during jury selection,

so we're not available yet.

There's a concerted attack that takes place.

And we, we were already aware of these individuals

'cause there's, they were also individuals that were working

with Health Canada back in 2000, 2001,

2002, 2003, leading up

to the gun drawn rate on our, on our property.

Um, there was a, a particular group that was listed, um,

uh, a number of individuals that were listed within the, uh,

the disclosure that we received, uh,

the internal communication from Health Canada,

that they were, that they were feeding them information and,

and trying to incite this attack on us.

Now, this, this particular group, I'll say it as a whole,

the group has been responsible for, uh, putting up webpage

that are antit trope.

So if you go do a, a search for trope

and you find negative stuff, go look at it.

What you're gonna find is that

there's just a few particular individuals

that are drumming up all this information.

But then you look at what they're doing, they're attacking

chiropractic, they're attacking anything holistic.

Um, and I'll just, I'll put it for what it is.

They're pharma rats. Yeah.

They, they're, they're, they're doing the bidding of pharma

and just trying to stir up garbage.

And still to this day, it's still happening to this day.

Had it just happen this past week.

Um, uh, we just had, um, uh, anyways,

it's some controversy surrounding, uh, public presentation

that was to, to happen.

And it, and once again, they're still attacking it, trying

to, trying to prevent me from having a voice publicly.

So this particular group got involved

and they know they're, they're experts at what they do.

So what they did is from five,

six different aliases within one hour, now I get like,

comments on the GoFundMe page.

I get like a comment a day at this point in time, all

of a sudden, within one hour, there's five

or six comments all sounding the same, same, same type of,

uh, writing style, but all different aliases.

So that happens, boom, looks controversial.

Then what happened is individual reaches out

to the legal department of GoFundMe

and says, Hey, you've got an issue here.

You need to cancel this. Now remember, the media hadn't

yet even really reported it wouldn't be for another day

before CBC started to really do their,

their smear campaign on us.

So it's not like, uh, you know, media happened

and all of a sudden all these people are angry.

They go to our GoFundMe page and they attack it.

There was nothing extraordinary that would've led people to

that GoFundMe page, except for the fact

that I was pushing it on my social media page.

And it was getting a lot of support, a lot

of support, a lot of money flowing through it.

And then, and like I said, naturally organically,

but one comment per day, all of a sudden, six,

within one hour, um, there's a complaint lodge

to legal department, and they shut it down without even

bringing it forward to my attention.

They just shut it right down.

And so we tried to get it brought back up, couldn't, um,

at this point in time, we've got a lot of people saying,

Hey, where's your, your funding page?

I want to, you know, fund you now

that you're getting a trial and saying, well, it's down.

So we set up another one under a different, um,

not under GoFundMe, but under,

I think it was like you Caring or something like that.

And it got up and it lasted for a whole, about two hours

before the same thing happened where, uh,

a complaint was lodged to the, um, uh,

to the legal department in that time.

I think we got about a thousand

dollars or something like that.

Right. And then it just, it was shut down

and now we're into trial and we're inundated,

and we don't have the ability to try to figure this out

and to get another, uh, funding page up.

So we went the whole of it, uh, receiving donations

by Etransfer, um, and stuff like that.

But we received significantly less.

And so now we're going into the trial

and we're doing so financially burdened significantly, not

that we were, you know, anticipating

that the whole thing would be funded by the, the public,

but there was a lot of people, a lot of people

that were willing to fund it

because they saw that this impacted their rights.

Yeah, Absolutely. Yeah.

And yeah, we've seen examples of GoFundMe,

quite controversial cases with the, with the,

with the trucker convoy

and shutting people's bank accounts down.

So quite clearly there are phone calls

that can be made from, from individuals from the,

within the government to these private organizations

and can have significant impact on, on, on Canadians who,

you know, they've made their money, they've got the ability

to, you know, put it, donate it, spend it wherever they want

to, but not in, not, not in Canada.

This is 2016 as well.

Like this is, you know, this is, uh,

yeah, this is eight years ago.

This is, this isn't, this is, I mean,

it's relatively recent still, but it's, yeah.

It's quite, it's quite remarkable that, you know, a

a charitable page like this can be, be taken down

and not, not have the administration of those pages

recognize like these trolls that come in that, you know,

could be from absolutely.

Anywhere that don't have the similar pattern

of previous comments or previous donations.

It's quite remarkable that they were to just crumble down

to these, these, these nonsense complaints and,

and, you know, stop people getting money that they

so desperately need for situations just like this.

Mm-Hmm.

Yeah. And then we'd end up with another issue, not,

not too terribly long

after, with the media doing a massive smear campaign on us.

And, and I was really forthcoming.

I brought out a lot of stuff

that was not legally advisable to bring out.

Um, and when Sean, uh, Buckley heard about it, um,

he took some issues with it

that I'd already launched some evidentiary stuff out there,

um, that the crown could use against us.

Right. But ultimately, when you're sharing the truth,

you don't, well, when you're living in the truth,

you don't really have anything to hide.

And that, that was the way that I was going about this.

That I wasn't gonna try to hide any elements.

I didn't have anything to hide.

And it was very liberating to make sure

that I was living in that way.

That anything that came up in court that I could answer to

and answer to with a sense of confidence.

And so I was bringing stuff out

that was not legally advisable to do so.

And so that people

that were funding me had a really good understanding of

what the details were.

Right. Right. So that they could judge it for themselves

before they, they began to support us.

So I wasn't gonna be pulling the wool over

the eyes of anybody.

Right. Um,

but then what happened is with the, the really, uh, skewed,

fabricated narratives that the media was coming up with

coming, uh, you know, now we're, here we're five,

six weeks into the trial.

Um, I had some people coming back that had supported us

that, and this only happened a handful of,

not even a handful times, like three or four times probably,

but they want their money back.

And I'm like, okay, I'll get you your money back.

You want your money back? I'll give it back.

Like, um, I'm sorry that you believed the, the narratives.

Like, if you wanna talk about

this, I'm willing to talk about it.

I'm, you know, I'm sorry that you, you believed

what CBC was reporting

and you took that as the gospel truth.

But if that's where you're, you're at, you know,

I guess I'll, I'll refund you.

Absolutely. Yeah. And so there was, I, I think,

I think I was able to, to talk a few people out

of it in a sense where I said,

look, no, this is actually what happened.

I'll rebut whatever, but I'm willing to pay you.

And, and so I always wanted to leave that on the table,

that this is what happened,

but I will pay you back that money like I and I, um,

but I think I did end up, end up paying one

or two back, um, their, their, their money.

And so it was really, really, really unfortunate to see.

Uh, but that what the media had done,

but now remember that was after hundreds of people had,

um, had funded us.

And so there was, you know, it was still a sad thing to see

that a number of people were swayed by the media,

especially CBC.

That was one of the things that got really interesting is,

um, it shook a lot of Canadians paradigms.

'cause they all thought CBC's like the most

credible, you, you kidding me?

CBC, no. And like, no CBC led the charge on it.

Everybody else was like, fair. They were reporting fair.

Even the first day

or two into trial, they were all reporting fair.

And then they realized, well, I'll get into

that in a minute as to what happened there.

But, um, actually, yeah, I might as well jump right into

that first day of trial.

What happens is, right off the bat, the Crown plays, uh,

the audio of our, our recorded statements to the police

that took place, um, two days

or day, 24 hours

after being in the Alberta Children's Hospital.

And almost 48 hours

after having really no sleep at all, both myself

and Colette, and being informed that, um,

Ezekiel's on his death bed

and that he can go into cardiac arrest at any moment,

and that they likely won't be able to resuscitate 'em.

That's what we're living with at the moment.

Then, you know, coming into the, into the hospital,

you know, now we're at 10 o'clock, we're,

we're in an interview with Child

and Family Services 10 o'clock at night,

and wondering why is that, you know, are they

looking at taking Ezra away?

And then there's police stacking up in the, the,

the emergency room there in the, um, not emergency room.

The the pediatric intensive care unit, uh, to the point

that there's six armed police officers.

I'm thinking they're gonna take me out in cuffs. Why?

Like, what is going on? Can't figure it out.

Didn't know that there was one particular doctor

who was really pushing this agenda,

who phoned homicide on us, um, homicide.

Right? Like, you kidding me, homicide.

Meanwhile, they're, they're still trying to figure out

what he even passed from at that point in time.

At the same time, she's got a doctor reaching out

to poison control, looking for an alternative, uh, reason

for him to go into arrest

because he'd already, um, eliminated, um,

bacterial meningitis using multiple tests

that he didn't have bacterial

meningitis or even an infection.

They couldn't find any infection or, um, or meningitis.

So he wasn't sick the way that, that the media, uh, and

or that the Crown even tried to make people think

that he was, um, and they'd ruled that, ruled that out.

There was something else that took place.

And we'll get into that later on.

Um, as more evidence came out that what evidence

that they initially withheld from us,

that told a different story,

and we were able to figure it out as to what happened.

But, um, they, they play those statements

that were taken in the middle of night,

basically almost 48 hours after no sleep.

And CBC does, um,

an incredible smear using 'em like they were already,

they were already bad enough,

but not bad enough for the, the, the, the investigator

to even recommend charges.

And he testified to

that both in the 2014 pre preliminary hearing.

And in 2016 trial, he report, he, he, um, he stated

that they didn't see any need for charges and, and,

and he still didn't see, like we, yeah.

Anyways, so, um,

what happens is they come up with this, this just,

they took the, the statements

and they just, you know, stretched them, distorted them,

made 'em even worse to make us sound like we were trying

to cure bacterial meningitis with maple syrup

and having to feed Ezekiel through an eyedropper.

Now that sounds crazy.

And the reason why I think is 'cause it is crazy.

I've never tried it still to this date.

And I, and I should at some point just to see, could,

can you actually feed somebody through an eyedropper?

Like, I, I don't think so.

I use an eyedropper on a daily basis with,

with our iodine supplement stuff.

You know, you can only get like fine liquids through that.

Like, how do you, how do you feed somebody

through an eyedropper unless it's just sugar water.

Right? Right. Like, I, I don't get it.

But that's what they were,

they were just throwing the stuff out there, feeding him

with an eyedropper,

and it's like, no, no, that wasn't the truth.

That, that's not the evidence.

Collette was saying how, just to ensure

that he was constantly hydrated.

Like, you know, he,

he's either drinking his bottle on his own in a sippy cup

or, you know, she'll just come up

with an eye dropper sometimes and give him fluids

through the eye, dropper some water, right?

Just to make sure that he is hydrated,

um, as a dotting parent.

And so, um, anyways, they come up

with this scathing art, art article,

and just so the public kind of understands how this,

this goes, we know two of the reports

not from CBC, but we know two of the other reporters,

and they both came up to us the next day.

'cause this is when the death threats start to, to come in.

And it is just, it explodes.

Like the online is just explosive.

The US there's multiple, multiple places that have boughten

or multiple media outlets that have boughten this story off

of CBC, and they're publishing it.

Uh, just on the one alone,

there was like half a million reads within one night, um,

just for one of the, one of the outlets

that had purchased it and was using it in the states.

Like it's all over the place.

We're now, we've gone overnight from, you know, just a,

a couple defending ourselves to the most hated couple

in America, like overnight

and death threats are just flowing in.

And so two of the reporters came up separately,

and the the first one says, Hey, um,

what CBC did, whatever like, was wrong type of thing,

whatever, that was just, just just wrong.

Like, that was bad. Like,

and this is a reporter sitting in the

courtroom knowing that it's wrong.

The next one comes up and, and,

and tells the story how her superior said,

why didn't you get me that story?

And her response was because it wasn't true.

So these are, this is coming from two different reporters.

You've got at this point in time,

about half a dozen reporters sitting within the courtroom,

and you've got CBC running this.

Now, the, the, the reporter

for CBC actually isn't the one even doing the articles.

They're being published by somebody out of Ontario.

Somebody in Ontario is writing them

and supposedly getting

their facts from this person sitting in the courtroom.

But yet what's interesting is that CBC's only going

to over the next month and a half show up on the days

where they're going to have the most

damning evidence from the Crown.

So they're clearly working with the Crown

as a crown owner organization to show up only on the days

that's gonna be damning for us.

And on the days that it's not damning

for us, they're not present.

They're not there. Right.

And that way they're absolving themselves

of any responsibility to have to report fairly on anything.

They're only showing up on the days that there's gonna be

real smear tactics supplied by the crown.

They're gonna build off of that,

and then they won't use our defense when we rebut it.

You're not gonna find that in the article.

So what eventually happens though, CBC's leading the charge,

like I said, their tabloid sales stuff

is going international.

The other stuff is staying incredibly local.

So everybody eventually adopts the same narrative.

Canadian press gets involved, they adopt the same narrative.

Um, it just becomes this just mess, just absolute mess

that CBC's created where they initially,

it's like they're in a different world

and they're reporting this way and everyone else is

reporting over here, but then CBC's the ones that,

that's actually making money off of it.

Whereas everyone else is just like, oh, okay,

so parents are charged for this.

Oh, okay, they were loving parents, blah, blah. What?

Oh, that's a, oh, nice. Interesting.

Well, poor parents, right? Yeah.

Whereas the other one is like, let's re let,

let's get out the death penalty again.

Let's, you know, hang 'em from the gallows,

let's put 'em in the guillotine, whatever.

Like all of this type of stuff. And then Yeah. So the,

The sensationalism that's, you know, is gonna gonna

sell papers and get as many eyes on it as possible

and create, create that harsh judgment. Right?

Exactly. And that's, and that's what it did.

And they, they achieved their purposes

because ultimately it would actually affect the outcome

of the, the, the trial with, with creating that much, uh,

peer pressure, if you will.

So we've got a jury of 12 peers,

whatever that means, right?

That's preselected

by the sheriff's department in the first place.

And then they're brought in as a jury

pool for us to select from.

Um, so it's not even you, you can't trust you, you know, you

the Canadian public in, in as a whole, um,

believe that there's a fairness when you have a jury

selection and there's nothing further from the truth.

Um, in fact, there's been appeals

that have taken place based on it being uncovered, uh,

within different Canadian jurisdictions where, um,

there was already pre-selection that took place

with the jury so that by the time that the defense gets

to choose from, they're already choosing from a pool

that's largely skewed.

And we saw that actually in the Jeremy Jennifer Clark case,

the one that I reported on in October of 2018,

where it was in Calgary.

And yet there was no ethnic diversity.

It was a very honed in, um, tight jury selection

that they had to, to choose from.

Um, which doesn't make sense based on

what you would anticipate within Calgary with the large, um,

uh, ethnic diversity that's there.

So we've, we've seen that, um, where there's al already, uh,

you think that you're, you're selecting a jury of peers,

but you're already, you're selecting from people

that have already been weeded out

and selected for a particular purpose. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. That certainly makes sense.

And that happens all of the time. Yeah.

Something that probably not most people are,

are actually aware of.

So that's quite, yeah, it's quite a,

quite a tricky thing to get your head around.

Yeah. So it got to the point that, uh, you know, we'd,

we had parked two blocks away from the courthouse to,

so we didn't have to pay for parking

throughout every single day.

That alone is gonna add up.

So we we're walking two blocks from our free parking.

It got to the point that my wife was like,

you're not walking, you're not walking back there, uh,

because of the amount of death threats that were coming in.

And there was a lot coming in.

And so I remember the one time I'm just like, no,

I'm not gonna govern myself out of fear.

I'm not, you know, I'm not going to like,

I'm not gonna have somebody drive me from the courthouse

over two blocks away to drop us off directly at our vehicle.

I'm not doing it. I, I, I refuse to do it.

I'm not going to to govern myself by that.

And this was after we had already taken these death threats.

And at this point in time, there was about two dozen clear

cut death, uh, clear cut cases of, of being a death threat.

And then, you know, hundreds of other, like alluding to,

but there was about 24 that were like straight up,

full out death threat, right?

We bring it to the police,

Police, They refused to do anything about it.

We took it to the same police department that,

that botched the investigation,

and they, they refused to do anything about it.

And then they would, uh, uh, I would eventually, um, on a,

on a recording, get this from them, uh,

from a different detachment.

I phoned a different detachment when

I'm living in a different jurisdiction.

I said, pull my file, please. And he did.

I said, Hey, do you see anything

around this time about death threats?

He said, oh, yeah, there's a something in the file.

He said, what'd it say? Oh, it was dismissed.

Um, unfounded claims. I'm like, unfounded claims.

I'm like, what? What are you talking about?

Unfounded claims, you know, like we had, uh,

this envelope here, um, I, with,

and it's, I dunno, probably about 30 pages

of evidence in there supplied to them.

Like we gave them the actual printouts and everything.

Unfounded claims. Wow. Well, that's interesting.

Well, we would discover that there

was more going on later on.

Um, and, and we'll get into that in a later episode,

but that, that detachment was refusing

to look at any evidence including, um, criminality, uh,

in relation to, um, the, uh, chief, um,

uh, medical examiner's office

of Alberta when we discovered some significant stuff

that had taken place there that was criminal.

And we, we brought to them.

And, um, we've got a recording

of the same sergeant just saying, you bring me any

of this evidence, I'm just throwing it in the garbage.

That's Awesome. You wanna talk about obstructing

justice like so,

but that's, that's how criminal these guys were.

They were in on it. The, the police were obstructing justice

and they were part of the selection of material

that went to the crown.

They knew what to select, how to select it to omit

all the other evidence that would tell a different story.

So anyways, but yeah, I just refused.

I refused to cater to it. I refused to.

And so I remember walking the two blocks

with my wife in a vehicle, somebody else,

and they're driving alongside me

and I'm just like, this is ridiculous.

Crazy. Hey, absolutely ridiculous.

I mean, here I am in Canada, you know, um,

my son passes away, um, ends up in an ambulance

that didn't have the proper equipment.

It was criminal negligence on Alberta Health Services part

that they actually removed that equipment

caused the death of my son.

They're not on trial.

And now I've got the media spending this in such a way that

I'm supposed to be fearing for my life.

Like this is crazy.

Yeah. Wild stuff.

And we have a couple of interesting characters back into

the, back into the story here with Dr.

Abo and Annie Savon.

So can you kind of introduce their, their involvement

before, um, we kind of get towards April, 2016 where the

trial comes to an end?

Yeah, absolutely. Okay.

So, you know, rewind to 2012,

when Ezekiel ends up in the chief medical examiner's office,

the Chief medical examiner over Alberta is

Annie Salvager at this point in time.

Okay. So she's running the show. You've got Dr.

Babo. Okay. Nigerian born doctor, um,

got his degree supposedly.

And I'm, I'm, I'm gonna say that, uh,

because we're gonna go over this,

this whole in further episodes, you're gonna see

how I can make that statement

and do so with, with, um, with some confidence.

Supposedly got his degree when in Nigeria,

and he ends up in, in the us

He takes him a long time to get his license.

He keeps on failing time and time and time and time again.

He fail, he fi he actually fails his exams too many times

to, to be able to operate as a doctor on his own,

finally gets a license somehow.

Um, which is questionable how he did it.

Um, still to this day, uh, transcripts don't line up.

And, um, he then ends up in Alberta.

He gets hired and he's doing autopsies on his own,

not under supervision.

Um, even though in the US he was operating, um,

under supervision because he's just, well, he,

he just doesn't have the credibility,

he doesn't have the knowledge base, obviously.

And so he performs the autopsy, um,

in 2012 at that time.

So this is Sunday, uh,

March 18th, about three,

I think it was about 3:00 PM is when Ezekiel was taken off

life support within about an hour, hour and a half.

He's being taken to the medical examiner's

office that evening.

Um, the medical examiner receives a elabo,

receives an 18 page letter

from the Alberta solicitor General's office talking about

who we are or what our character is, uh,

with like a black box warning.

Like there's sovereign citizens, beware of them, blah, blah,

blah, blah, blah, all this type of stuff.

Right? So just prejudicial information

like we are bad people.

Mm-hmm. Right at, at that point in time, I think anybody

that was considered a sovereign citizen, um,

was being classified as a domestic terrorist at

that point in time in Alberta.

And, and there was a lot

of presentations going on within police departments

and whatnot, training them on how to interface with people

that were classified like myself, even though at

that point in time, I nothing to do with anything like, um,

so, um, he gets this letter

and, but it also states that Ezekiel,

it looks like he died from bacterial meningitis.

And so it's like, wait a minute, hold on.

He gets this letter that is already like

biasing him saying, this is the direction it's going, right,

saying bacterial meningitis.

Now why would somebody out, out

of the Alberta solicitor general's office

who has no medical training

be involved in themselves in that?

And, and, and stating what he likely passed away from.

Right. So now

before we, we go further on that, Annie Sgio,

the chief medical examiner at that, around that same time,

is starting to have a crisis on her hands

where she's saying, we're not independent,

but we're supposed to be independent.

And they're supposed to be completely independent.

In fact, she can't even go in

and influence the outcome of, uh, the causation

of death, the determined causation of death with any of her,

her medical examiners.

They're all independent of her.

She can't go and look over their shoulder

and say, well, it, it's probably this.

But yet she's declaring at this point in time

that there's political

and bureaucratic influencing taking place

in relation to the causations of death.

Meaning that there's bureaucrats.

So example, let's say somebody died

in the foster care system.

Well, there's a bias to protect the foster care system

because it's part of the system.

And so oftentimes,

and this this is the whistle's been blown on this a lot, is

that if there was elements of criminality,

it would be shoot under the rug

that the medical examiners would find a different causation

of death that would absolve the foster care, um,

parent or the foster parent or whatnot.

Uh, the foster care worker absolve 'em

of any criminal responsibility.

Criminal liability just gone. Right? Right.

And there's been numerous situations like that, um,

in Alberta and a lot of, of, a lot

of children have died within the foster care system at an ab

abnormal rate comparatively to

outside of the foster care system.

And yet, huh, just bad luck, I guess,

that you're just more likely to die in the foster care

system from non-criminal related issues.

Right. Doesn't make sense.

So there's bureaucratic influencing

and political influencing taking place to protect those

that shouldn't be protected,

and then also to criminalize those

who shouldn't be criminalized.

And that's exactly where our case ended up.

And so she's blowing the whistle on this

and they don't renew her contract.

So here she is, chief Medical Examiner of Alberta,

she helped to establish forensic pathology, um,

schooling within Canada.

She's one of the founders of, of the school that you'd go

to, uh, if you wanna become a forensic

pathologist in Canada.

Um, and so she's one of like,

she's pioneered different things

and she's a world expert on hypoxic injury

and anoxic injury, which will, will become more relevant,

um, in a, in a few minutes here.

And so, Elli idea about this point in time,

we're gonna park Annie Sal, she's,

this is what she's claiming.

She's having issues with the government over

babo testifies in 2014 that Ezekiel

went eight and a half minutes without oxygen

and that that could have caused his death.

But he is also saying, but bacterial meningitis, right.

Vaccine preventable bacterial meningitis. But yeah, okay.

That could have played a role, right?

Eight and a half minutes. So Sean's like, okay,

we got good evidence from him.

We're gonna work off of that 2016 trial proper roll around.

Now we're in front of a jury. Do you think Dr.

Adi IBO would give that same evidence? No, no, no.

That eight and a half minutes that had nothing to no,

that had nothing to do with his death.

Well, interesting. Eight

and a half minutes of low oxygen has nothing to do

with a child's death right

now we're being conservative here.

'cause it's actually eight and a half to 12 minutes

depending on what evidence you go by.

So anyways, that range eight and a half to 12 minutes.

So he's stating it has nothing to do with his death.

He was already dead by the time that he got there

because of the bacterial meningitis being so severe.

So now he's, now he's laying claim to this saying, you know,

he is starting to really, um, elaborate on this,

that in order for Ezekiel to

die from bacterial meningitis, the way like

to stop breathing is

that the intercranial pressure builds up

so much from the inflammation that it actually

compresses the brainstem.

And now the pons area of the brain is being compressed,

which is controlling all the motor

functions and everything else going on.

Right. You know, pulse, everything,

and it shuts down and it die.

Okay. So that happens. Major intracranial pressure.

That's what he's saying. So now gets into an

ambulance, oh, they don't have the right equipment.

Doesn't matter. He's dead. Nothing you can do about it.

Giving him air, getting oxygen isn't gonna relieve the

intracranial pressure from the bacterial meningitis.

That was so overwhelming. Right?

So that's what he is saying. So

then it's like, well, wait a minute though.

He's a year and a half old.

He hasn't fully grown in, in his skull,

hasn't fully grown in, he still has, you know,

open fontanels that would bulge with that type of pressure.

Did you observe any bulging,

did any doctors observe any bulging Oh, interesting.

No, no intercranial pressure that would, that it's evident

through the fentanyls,

which you would fully anticipate if it was

that bad to compress a brainstem.

So, okay, that's interesting, huh?

No evidence there of intracranial pressure.

And given the fact that he is not screaming out in pain

from, you know, the worst headache

that you'll ever have, yeah.

That signifies that, oh,

he didn't have intercranial pressure going on.

That was to the point of compressing the brainstem,

let alone even just to cause a headache.

Enough worth complaining over. So this is coming out.

Sean's extremely agitated over this because,

and he's literally fighting with him

and just getting mad to the point that one point he started

to like you, you just tell he is trying

to restrain himself from fully yelling, but he, he's there.

Now remember Ari Yabo at this point in time is,

is involved in his strange tactics in 2014.

He booked right after the preliminary hearing

a vacation, he's gone.

And so, because we didn't get all the evidence from him

the first week of June of 2014,

encapsulated the vast majority of the preliminary hearing,

but we wouldn't finish it off till July

of 2014 when we finally had the opportunity to bring,

had IPO back for one day.

Alright? Okay.

Um, by chance, yeah, he just, he's scheduled

a vacation interesting outta country.

Same thing happens in 2016. So now we have him for one day.

'cause the very next day he's outta country.

So we were literally in the courtroom till nine

o'clock at night

and Sean's fighting with him

trying to get this evidence from him.

And he refuses, refuses.

And so we're all ticked. We're all ticked. Yeah. I wonder, I

Wonder who paid for that vacation.

That could be interesting

Out of country mind you as well.

Why is he dodgy like that? Right?

2019, we'll get there as well. You see a repeat again.

So there's something about this particular trial

that he's like, he's in and out, jumps in, jumps right out.

Really, really interesting.

So what happens is, um,

let's see here comes around

like we're really, we're really distraught over this, right?

And we're thinking we didn't get the evidence

that we were hoping to from him.

And so what happens is that mid trial,

the trial goes longer than we thought it would,

and it goes into Easter.

And so, um, there's a full week booked off

for Easter or a week and a half.

So the trial's actually stopped,

and then we're gonna start again, um,

into April, later April.

And so this happens. And, um,

we end up, uh, during

that time somebody shared a news article with me

and it was, it was quite a nice headline.

In fact, you have something similar to it,

but it's not quite, it's um, no,

no, no, no, no.

That the first one, the national Post one is, is different.

Okay. Anyways, we'll get into that a minute.

So anyways, what happens is that, um,

we, we see this news article about Annie Stro blowing the

whistle on the government corruption.

And I thought, hey, this is a lady of integrity.

Um, let's hire her and get a second opinion on this.

And so we did, we hired her.

Fortunately we had that, that break,

that Easter break there.

And so we hired her, she comes in, she's able

to look at the slides and everything, um, on, uh, that were,

that were preserved for Ezekiel.

She's able to look at everything

that's still available within the medical examiner's office.

And she comes back and has some interest and stuff to say.

She says, first of all, are you aware that there's this,

this letter, this 18 page letter from, um,

I believe it's Jonathan Nichols out

of the Alberta Solicitor General's office?

And we're like, no. And she says, yeah, it basically alludes

to what the causation of death was,

and that's highly inappropriate.

So that's the first thing that she's highlighting.

And then she highlights further.

She says, are you aware that there is a, um,

uh, an x-ray on their file

that disproves one of the causations of death?

Because at this point in time, Dr.

Adi Yabo found there was two causes.

It was bacterial meningitis

and a right pleural empyema, which is that

that infection on the outer wall of the lung,

so it's in the pleural cavity

and that it will constrict breathing

and it takes a long time to develop.

And so he's using that.

He, and he's in 2016 during the trial,

he is just really emphasizing how hard it would've been

for Ezekiel to breathe.

Now the, the jury's hearing this,

and so they're, they have to conclude like, how cruel

of parents for their son to be developing this infection

that takes a long time, like weeks, right?

And it's just constricting his breathing

and they're just ignoring this, right?

Like, that's, that's basically what they have to infer.

And so, and that's written into the autopsy report

that there's this right pleural paa.

And so she says, are you aware

that there's an x-ray on their file that shows

that he had completely clear lungs upon arrival?

Like, no, no, we didn't receive that in the disclosure.

Are you serious? So here they're withholding this

because it goes against one of the listed causes of death,

which if you can completely dispel one, you have

to bring into question the second, right?

So if he's willing to say, oh yeah, this outer wall,

you know, basically a pancake thick, uh,

infectious agent on his outer wall of his lung,

that took like five, six weeks to develop to get to

that point, you know,

and you know, you, you guys were negligent type of thing.

And yet interesting, couldn't have possibly had

that if you had clear lungs upon arrival.

How, how does that work? And so anyways, um,

that takes place and she comes in and testifies

and what she finds based on what evidence she had.

'cause now remember, we're still working

with deficient evidence.

So what we supplied to her was still deficient,

didn't tell the full story.

She says, well, he had viral meningitis at time of autopsy,

but virtually nobody dies from viral meningitis.

And it wasn't, it wasn't established enough

to actually cause those issues to cause any of those issues.

So she hypothesized that based on listening to, um,

Ezekiel breathing in the nine one one call

that he likely had the croup again.

But that means that would've had

to pop up like within minutes,

like literally gone from no croup to, right?

But that's what she's basing from the evidence that she has.

She's thinking that he went into basically

respiratory arrest from croup.

Um, and that had they been able to intubate him that, um,

it would've changed the outcome.

Which I think you have a news article that, uh,

that discusses that out.

I have, yeah. One second.

Yeah, that's just remarkable.

So I just wanna just make a quick comment on regards

to just wanna reemphasize this, that, that, that Dr.

ABOs first of all received this 18 page document

prior, before he's even done his,

before he's even concluded his results.

That basically gives

No, before he's even started the autopsy,

Before he's even even started the autopsy, he's,

he's highly inappropriate to guide

that pathologist to where they want to go.

Like that. That's just makes absolute for,

for not being involved in the, in the, in the situation

or in the industry that makes,

it just makes absolutely no sense that you wanna do that.

'cause you wanna have that, you know, that you want

that individual to be doing his inspections

and then having a clear slate and then,

and then coming to a conclusion that only makes sense

to be able to do it that, that way.

And the fact that this, there was an X-ray,

which completely, you know,

ruled out this potential lung infection.

And also we, we, there was also the PCR test was used

to diagnose, which absolutely

should not have been done as well.

So Annie seven year has come in

with some incredible information there.

So let me just bring this up for you, for us here,

if you not, what you might be able to see this one.

Okay. That that's the second one. Yeah.

So the first one was the national post,

but yeah, so let's talk about this one real quick.

Yeah. So this, this is kind of post,

we couldn't find anything that was at that time, like

what the news article was that was shared with me where the,

the, it lays out her allegations about political

and bureaucratic influencing.

So then obviously, and this is exactly what you'd anticipate

to find when the government

investigates the government, right?

Right. Of course they're gonna dismiss.

That's just, that's almost a given.

How, like how often do you see internal invest

investigations take place on, on, um, on police officers

and they're actually found guilty for something, right?

Right. It's so incredibly rare. Yeah.

So incredibly rare that justice actually takes place within,

um, the government itself.

But this is, this is a follow up article to the fact

that she was blowing the whistle on

the corruption, the internal corruption.

And now this, remember this is a lady

that, that had a lot to lose.

Like she's one of the highest paid, um, government employees

in Canada at this point in time

because of the line of work, right?

Like I think Ari IBO working under her was making

$360,000 a year something, or $320,000 a year, right?

So these are high paid individuals now she's heading it up.

So she's probably making more

around like the $400,000 a year mark.

She's got a lot to lose for her

to come out and blow the whistle.

Yeah. So the question has

to be asked why would she blow the whistle if

she didn't stand to gain, right?

Unless it was true. And so she blows the whistle

and they decide that they're not,

they don't protect her under,

there's different whistleblower acts that they're supposed

to protect, uh, government agents from, um, receiving harm

for blowing the whistle, right?

It's to help encourage transparency.

She wasn't protected under it.

And so they, they dismissed her,

they didn't renew her contract, uh, in the following year.

And so then she ended up in, in a lawsuit with them

for wrongful dismissal.

And when she got up on stand for us, it was really kind

of like a Hollywood type moment where, um,

at one point in time the Crown was trying to discredit her

to try to prevent her from, they were doing everything

that they could to prevent her from speaking, right?

And they spent, you know, a better part

of a day just like grilling her,

grilling her, trying to break her.

And finally, at one point in time, she just said,

this is what it came down to.

I wasn't willing to compromise.

And I, I told the, you know, some particular politician

who was phoning her to get some favors in relation to

what was going on in the chief medical examiner's office.

And she just said, my soul is not for sale.

And so she actually stated that like in the way

that she stated it was just beautifully, like, it was like,

almost like it was scripted, but it wasn't.

But they pushed her to that point.

They pushed her 'cause they were trying to break her

and discredit her and prevent her from

being able to testify for us.

And finally she just opened up the can

of worms and just set it for what it was.

And it was just like this traumatic moment

where the crown just like, like just

scurred back into their holes type of thing.

Like there was no more questions after that. It's okay.

Right? Wow. Because it just looked horrific

for the whole medical examiner's office

in relation to what was taking place.

Like it brought everything into question.

So, um, anyway, so that, that was a beautiful thing.

But there was an article before that in relation to,

um, there we go.

Yeah, there, okay, so this comes out

after she starts to testify, right?

And basically the, the statement was that, you know,

with viral meningitis, now remember this is that time

of autopsy, um, and we'll get into that later on

because what happens at time

of autopsy is different than at time

of ambulance even getting him.

And, and the question had to arise,

did he actually have any meningitis by the time that he,

or that when we took him,

because they didn't find anything within the first 24 hours

of getting into the hospital, in fact,

they ruled out infection and meningitis within the CT scan

and within all their other tests

there was no sign of infection.

So here he has a right pleural empyema that on his lung,

but he has clear lungs upon arrival,

but yet during autopsy he does have a right

pleural empyema developing.

That's interesting. We'll get into that a little bit deeper

as to what we found later on, but also the viral meningitis.

But yeah, they couldn't find it initially

and he didn't have the, the symptoms of it initially.

Um, so, you know, there it is just,

it's just really interesting, right?

Be and the thing is with viral meningitis

that the beginning stages

of it just looked like the flu as well.

And so there can be alar large crossover.

And I revert back to my statement that I had made

where I said, it looks like he's getting the flu,

but yet there was still, there was no runny nose,

there was no diarrhea, there's no vomiting,

there's nothing like that to say infection.

And we eventually, later on kind of discovered

what was taking place that had the same overlapping

symptoms, but it wasn't, uh,

it wasn't an infectious, um, disease.

But so she testified,

had they had the equipment, it's almost a hundred percent

that he would've lived and almost a hundred percent

that he would've lived with no residual issues based on

what she found in, in the autopsy.

So it's not even like he

would've been significantly damaged.

The o the main damage

that would've potentially taken place was the fact

that he was getting CPR from my wife for 11 minutes

before we ended up at the ambulance, right?

Right. That he was getting mouth to mal CPR.

So not the best way of getting oxygen in,

but he is still getting it and he's he's getting it

appropriately and she's being instructed over, over 9 1 1.

So she's doing it, um, according

to the recommendations, right?

Absolutely. Yeah. Crazy, crazy stuff.

So here's an interesting thing that, that we, we discover,

okay, so she's testifying about the fact

that he didn't have, um,

any oxygen for that eight and a half minutes.

Now she's a world renowned expert in like,

and I'm, I'm serious, a world renowned expert.

She published many of the leading papers on,

on this in relation to hypoxia, hypoxic injury

or injury or hypoxic

or deaths occurring from hypoxia and anoxia.

And she's made it a, a real kind of like her specialty.

And so she's testifying

and she's the most qualified person in Canada to be able

to testify, um, to the effects of what would happen

to Ezekiel given the CPR that he was receiving.

And then given the fact that he went for eight

and a half to 12 minutes without any

oxygen in that ambulance.

And so she was able to testify to that.

And so now at this point in time, you know,

we're thinking it's basically like a slam dunk.

Um, but before we get there, going back

to right pleural ama right, an infection there

that's developed by the time that he is at autopsy,

I remember he is in the hospital for five days

and viral meningitis.

Now remember he's had significant brain damage,

significant brain damage.

And so just like a, just like an outer wound, you need

to be careful 'cause you generally won't get just

a skin infection, right?

It doesn't normally happen. But if you have a large open

wound infection is risky at that point in time.

Oh, sorry, that, okay.

So infection is risky at that point in time.

Well, he's just had his brain just,

just significantly damaged from the amount of hypoxic injury

that he had and they couldn't get his blood pressure

regulated and stuff like that.

And then they put him into cardiac arrest

as previously mentioned.

When, um, he started to reanimate

after they treated him for, um, the elevated potassium, uh,

I believe we covered that in a previous episode.

And so he started reanimate

and then they gave him, uh, a paralytic medication.

So clearly he wasn't dead upon arrival. Like, uh, Dr.

AIA Bo says, where, got to the ambulance, he's dead.

Nothing can do about it. No, no.

An hour and a half or two hours later in transport,

he's reanimating he's clearly not dead,

clearly doesn't have a, a compressed brainstem, right?

Um, that's stopping him from operating.

They treated him for elevated potassium

and all of a sudden he reanimate.

But then they gave him this paralytic medication

that was contraindicated if you had an electrolyte imbalance

and could cause cardiac issues.

And sure enough, um, within moments

of them giving him the paralytic medication,

the last thing we see is a 30 over 20 blood pressure,

which means you're not getting blood to, uh,

proper profusion to the brain.

Oxygen isn't getting there, damage is occurring,

and then it black hole for an hour, right?

Where there's no evidence after that point

for a full hour just gone.

So by the time

that he gets into the Albert Children's Hospital, he's gone

for hours without proper blood pressure to get, um,

oxygen delivery to the brain.

So he is literally been suffering from hypoxic injury

for a period of a total of three hours, eight

and a half minutes of that being

complete oxygen deprivation.

So he's got significant brain damage.

Now he gets into the hospital with the, all the,

all this damage material as dead material

prone to infection.

Interesting. What happens is they give him

17 treatments of steroids, which completely, um,

annihilates the immune system, right?

So now he's prone to infection 17 treatments of,

of steroids over the period of five days.

They end up giving him, um, antibiotics to try

to prevent infection so that he's constantly on antibiotics

and he is on an antiviral.

Now what's of interest is that this one particular antiviral

that he's on, it's a, it's supposed to cover off a, a,

a variety of viral infections.

It doesn't cover enterovirus.

Enterovirus is the leading cause of viral meningitis.

Um, viral meningitis is the leading, leading cause

of meningitis as a whole.

So statistically speaking, if you ended up with meningitis

and you were a betting person, um,

and you were looking to just take a stab in the dark as to

what variety of meningitis it is, you,

if you were a betting man, the odds would be more

with you if you said enterovirus is the cause of that.

It's the leading cause. But this,

this antiviral they had him on didn't cover enterovirus.

So now he comes in brain damage,

compromised immune system from the 17 steroid treatments.

He's in hospital for five days.

By the time he gets to autopsy,

he does in fact have meningitis.

But it's highly underdeveloped.

It's not developed enough to cause any

issues according to Dr.

Annie Salvager. So it could,

could have compressed a brainstem because it was barely even

like, it, it wasn't, it wasn't overwhelming

bacterial meningitis or overwhelming meningitis.

It was developing. It was there.

And so the question would be posed

could have been developed in hospital.

Nobody could say contrary

and say, well actually no, it wasn't because of this.

No, it, it wasn't developed enough for them

to say no, it had to be there before.

Um, and what she came to the conclusion of,

based on all the evidence,

and there's a lot of different evidence in relation

to blood work and everything that will highlight it

while he is in a hospital, that all the evidence supported

that it was enterovirus, that was the form of meningitis

that he had, uh, the form of viral meningitis by

that time he got to autopsy.

But there's a real good chance based on the fact

that they already concluded that he didn't have meningitis

in the hospital in the first 24 hours of being there,

that they had to rule it out, that it wasn't there,

that it developed due to the fact

that they gave him steroid treatments 17 times,

gave him antibiotics and antivirals,

but the antiviral did not cover

or protect from enterovirus,

which is the leading cause of viral meningitis.

So that's how we get to that point.

Wow. Yeah, it just sounds, it sounds like considering all

of those medications that he was put on under the,

the severe pressure of his brain with the low blood pressure

and everything that, all the, all the kind

of ingredients Right.

That were there for a, for, for a viral infection.

So yeah, it's a very interesting conclusion.

Yeah. Yeah.

And we, we still don't have all of the, we, well,

we did get enough evidence, which we'll go into deeper in,

in during the 2019 trial in a later episode.

Um, 'cause that's when things really shifted for us

and we had a lot more evidence

and we were able to just, we were able

to have just decimate, uh, a lot

of these doctors in their lives and catch 'em.

Um, not, and,

and they didn't think that we'd have the evidence.

And yet we had, we did. So we were able to,

to catch a lot 'em off guard.

And that was a beautiful thing. But we'll save, we'll save

that for another episode for sure.

So, you know, when we take a look at the, the whole of it,

the, the two month trial, uh, it was over two months.

It was, it was within a, it was a month and a half trial,

but it was over the period of two months.

This evidence comes out right in front of the jury.

The jury largely is sympathizing with us.

I wouldn't say all 12 are sympathizing with us,

but the majority of 'em are.

Um, there's a few that you can see are off, but that's okay.

Right? All you need is one, one person just

to object and say not guilty.

That's it. Right?

And so we think that this is a slam dunk

because this evidence comes out challenges the narrative

media's not reporting on it.

Unfortunately. In fact, the media disappears on the day

that Annie Savage was there to testify.

They all disappeared. None of them, uh, not sure

where they got their marching orders from, they showed up.

But as soon as she got to the point

that she's now gonna testify

and give evidence that they can report on one

by one over the period of about half an hour,

they all disappeared.

All of 'em. And, and I'm looking at this

and saying, wait a minute, CBC, yeah, you're hit and miss.

You're here on only the most damning days against us,

but all the others have been there the entirety of the time.

Now that you've got this extremely controversial evidence

coming forward that she's gonna say,

no bacterial meningitis,

no right pleural empyema at arrival couldn't have died from

that, just completely from a scientific basis.

I'm basing the whole causation of death.

And now with this most newsworthy part coming out,

all the media disappears.

Uh, I, and at that point in time, my, my, my, you know,

I'm just getting this, this sick stomach feeling.

Think, what are we living in? Like what are they doing?

Like this whole thing is rigged the whole thing from the

media to the judge to like,

'cause the crown at that point in time is getting their way

with everything in the trial.

And we are, we're getting just stonewalled.

We, we, we barely skimmed

through even getting any sageo to be able to testify.

And even at that, she was hamstrung.

She wasn't able to provide diagnosis.

She's like, how can cau the causation

of death is a diagnosis.

And the judge is saying, no, you can't provide a diagnosis.

Hmm. That that's what I do. That's what, right.

Like he provided the diagnosis

by saying Homophily influenza is what he died from.

That's a diagnosis. And

so she wasn't even able to fully speak.

So they, he had basically stonewalled her in,

but yet the crown got their full way with everything, with,

with setting new precedent in relation to

how many medical experts they could

stack the deck with and all that.

And so it was at that point,

I'm just realized the whole thing is absolutely rigged.

And Sean's saying this is, this is just a show trial.

This is what you'd expect out of communist Russia. Right.

It's a show trial. They're putting it on for show,

but there's no justice in it.

Like there's none of that. And so that's

what Sean is terming it as at that point in time.

So we're all getting pretty disheartened at this,

but we still think it's a slam dunk with the amount

of evidence that we still were able to get out.

And then the, it comes to the time in, in late April

that the jury is going to be instructed.

Um, and the final arguments were being made is actually,

I think April 23rd was like the last part of it.

And then Monday, uh, because that was a Saturday

and then Monday, so April 25th would be the,

the, the jury's instruction after the final arguments.

And the judge instructs them outside of the bounds of,

of case law and Sean raises concerns over big concerns.

But the judge says, no, we're doing this right.

And he conflates the whole of it.

He doesn't provide them all of the things for consideration,

all the elements of the law that they have

to determine first before they can determine guilty.

They have to put all this into, into,

into the scales, into the balances.

He doesn't, he, he eliminates one of those key elements

and then says, you know,

and then if you found guilty, then you can consider this.

Right? So you cart before the horse type of thing, right?

And Sean says, no, that's no case. Law supports that.

Well, he's gonna send new precedent, right?

Um, ensuring that we're gonna be found guilty

'cause that's really what, what it was doing.

And so anyways, um, we still thought, you know what?

They're weighing this out. A log are for us.

They see the evidence, they see the writing on the wall.

They see that this whole thing was corrupt.

And uh, comes around.

I think it was probably, um, may, uh,

it was probably April 26th, I believe it was a Tuesday.

About 24 hours later they'd come to a conclusion.

It took 'em a full day, full evening.

So they're, they're, they're sequestered, right?

They're away from the family and everything.

And um, and they come out

and we were in for a bit of a surprise not knowing exactly

what we'd get, other than the fact that half of the jury,

um, is, has been or is visibly crying.

And all I could think is

of is understand a little bit about human psychology

and human nature a little bit, uh,

in order to be crying.

You're sympathizing and you're, you're not happy

with the decision that you're making.

And that was how it ended off basically.

Um, I guess we'll talk about the rest of it.

I don't know, I think we're ending off on that kind of a bit

of a cliffhanger, but, um,

Yeah, we are, that's gonna be the

end of part four right there.

And we're gonna come back with part five

and we're gonna finish off that story and, and,

and figure out why half of that jury was crying.

And yeah, it's, the, the remarkable story continues.

I don't think we'll ever fully figure out why half

of 'em were crying, but it's, it's very unusual.

Very, very unusual. I think we'll get some, some,

some understanding as to, to why it took place and,

and why maybe something didn't align with their conscience

that they were kind of pushed into a situation.

Absolutely. Well, that is it for part four

of the True Hope Family Files.

And, um, I wanna thank you so much for, for joining me

and David, I'm really looking forward to part five,

which will be out next week.

And that's titled Media Witch Hunt, solitary Confinement

and House Arrest.

But thank you very much, David.

That was, uh, quite the story and yeah, it continues.

Awesome. Well, thank you once again

and next time I'll have to make sure

that I put my phone on Do Not Disturb. Sorry.

No problem. You're a busy guy. I understand that.

But that is it for this episode of True Hope Cast,

the official podcast of True Hope Canada.

We'll be back with you for part five

of the True Hope Family Files.

Be sure to leave us a review on iTunes

and a star review on Spotify.

Share this episode with Family and Friends,

but we'll be with you again next week.

Thank you.