Hello everybody and welcome to True Hope Cast,

the official podcast with True Hope Canada.

In today's very special episode, the VP of True Hope Canada,

Mr. David Stefan interviews constitutional lawyer

Sean Buckley, about the latest developments in the field

of natural health here in Canada.

Sean recently served as an expert witness

for the Standing Committee of Government Operations

and Estimates where he discussed the regulation

of natural health products.

He also gave a brilliant presentation at the CHFA Toronto

Health Show on the topic

of protecting Canada's natural health industry

risks and solutions.

This presentation shed light on two major misconceptions

of health Canada's natural health initiatives,

the first being that drug policy is designed to lead

to positive health outcomes,

and secondly, that the regulation

of natural health products prioritizes safety.

We hope you enjoy this discussion.

Please consider sharing this information if you value your

access and natural health products and practitioners.

Enjoy the show.

Welcome. I'm David Stefan,

and today I am the host for True Hope Cast.

And once again, we have a phenomenal, um,

guest coming on today who has been at the forefront

of the natural health battle here in Canada,

preserving the rights of Canadians, um, in having access

to safe, natural health products

that are absolutely needful, uh,

for the wellbeing of a nation.

And so, once again,

we're bringing Sean Buckley on to give us some updates.

It's been a little while since we've had him on,

and he's gonna provide us some updates as to

what is currently taking place, uh,

what the landscape looks like in relation

to natural health freedom in Canada,

and what we can do as individuals to take a stand to ensure

that we have access to the products that we, um,

that we love, and that sometimes we even just require

for our day-to-Day functioning in society.

So, without further ado, I'm gonna bring Sean Buckley on.

Sean, thank you for coming on again. How are you doing?

I'm doing well, and it's a pleasure to be on your show.

Awesome. Well, thank you for coming on again.

Um, you know, I'm gonna put it the way that

that one individual put it.

I was on a podcast recently, uh, in relation to my own,

you know, past situations.

And when he found out that you were, um, our lawyer

that represented us through some of that, uh, you know,

going back now eight years, um, he said,

how did you get Sean Buckley on?

He's a rockstar. Right?

And so you have been, uh, you know, not, not, not

to puff you up too much here,

but you have been an absolute rockstar in relation to

getting this message out there in helping people come

to the realization of what's going on, bringing awareness

to the situation surrounding

natural health freedom in Canada.

And, um, I just want to find out what's going on here.

Uh, as of recent,

what's happened over the last couple months.

I think it's been about a month and a half

or two since we've had you on,

and just find out what, what, what has developed.

That's new. I know that you've presented a standing

committee on government operations

and estimates, which is interesting

'cause we would anticipate that you'd be presenting

before the government or the standing committee on health,

not government, um, operations and estimates.

So, um, do you wanna briefly fill us in on, on

what took place there, what brought you

before that committee and what was discussed?

Sure. But I'll, I'll first object to your introduction

because, um, the reality is, is,

is we're all just broken people.

Mm-Hmm. And, you know,

and everyone needs to be taking part in what's going on

and doing what, doing what they can, or,

or this we're gonna,

we're gonna find ourselves in worse situations.

So now the, the Standing Committee of a Operations

and Expenditures, um, it's kind of the red tape committee,

so they're looking into overregulation.

And so the chair of the committee invited us to speak.

And so I got to speak,

and the, the videos posted at the N-H-P-P-A,

you go into the kind of what's new tab

and go down, you know, a little bit.

'cause it was a couple of weeks ago and you'll find it.

So basically what I presented to them,

'cause we're talking about overregulation and I,

and I said to them, well, you know, Canada

and the US are doing exactly opposite things,

but in response to the same thing.

So what happened, David, was,

is natural health products started becoming more

and more popular in the eighties and nineties,

and now they're competing with the pharmaceutical

companies in the moderate health condition field.

And, well, we can't have this.

So the FDA in the United States and Health Canada

and Canada started imposing the chemical drug regulations

on natural products.

And, you know, for those of us back then,

I mean, it was a bloodbath.

Like products were disappearing

and companies were going under.

And the consumer noticed, oh my gosh,

like I'm losing access to things.

So they rebelled. And the consumer rebellions in both

Canada and the us the message from the consumer

was exactly the same.

And there were two messages, clear is a bell.

Everyone heard, don't treat our foods as drugs,

so don't treat our natural supplements

as if they're chemical drugs.

And we want increased access,

which means don't regulate them.

You regulate something and you decrease it.

And, you know, there was no safety issue.

Like that's just smoke

and mirrors created by, you know, government propaganda

and message for a political purpose.

And most Canadians don't realize, I mean,

the Canadian government

and agencies like Health Canada,

they have purposes like Health Canada.

I, I mean, we, it's not the purpose of our show,

but I think we discussed the drug model on an earlier show.

Our drug regulations aren't to get good health outcomes,

but the politically political messaging from Health Canada

is, is that they are.

And, and you have to understand

whenever the government is messaging anything that, well,

that's political messaging to further an agenda,

like if you think it's true, you're,

you're in for a world of hurt.

Um, if you at all think it's true, then do your own homework

and you'll realize, oh,

wait a second, that messaging isn't true.

Like, we can switch to nicotine later on as an example

of current government government messaging.

That's completely, completely false.

So just remind me to go there.

But we're talking about this, you know,

this red tape committee, so I'm, so I'm explaining to them,

well, look at, we've got these consumer rebellions,

the consumer demanding increased access,

and don't you dare treat our,

our natural supplements as drugs.

Well, in the United States, the government listened.

So they pass in 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health

and Education Act, which classifies natural products

as a food they're deemed by law.

So, okay. So they classify them as a food.

We have our Citizen rebellion, same message,

but Health Canada maneuvered us into the opposite.

So in the United States, they're classist foods

and Canada, other classist drugs.

Mm-Hmm. In the United States, by law, they're deemed safe.

Right. And not only are they deemed safe,

there's a provision in there saying the FDA,

their regulatory body can't take a,

an individual product off the market

unless there's, you know, actual evidence

that product poses a risk

to get over the presumption of safety.

But in Canada, because we're in the drug model, all

of our natural health products are deemed

by law to be unsafe.

Right. To interject real quickly here, just to, to kind

of illustrate the magnitude of

what this issue was back in the early nineties, um,

in the States before they came out with the shea, there was,

there was quite the campaign going on.

And some of us, uh, will remember even an advertisement

or a commercial that, uh, had Mel Gibson in it Mm-Hmm.

And at, and he was facing, he was at, in his kitchen,

and all of a sudden he's faced with a gun drawn raid.

And, and, and he turns around and I think like

A SWAT team, police gun rod raid. Yeah. Yeah. And he's

Like, what for, for this? And he's

holding a bottle of vitamin C. Right.

And so that was, that was how big this issue got back then.

How much awareness was around all of this, um,

these attacks on natural health that led

to the Dee labeling in the us

and then obviously where we are,

well, not where we are today.

But anyways, I just wanted to interject just for a moment

to, to illustrate this was no small issue.

No, no. It, it wasn't.

But, you know, the, but the point is, is we've,

we've been maneuvered into doing the opposite.

So there in the us their foods in the us they're deemed

by law to be safe in Canada, their drugs,

they're deemed to be unsafe.

In the US you don't need government preapproval

to sell a natural health product.

But in Canada, we need the government preapproval in the

form of a license where we never did before.

Like this was new.

Like people now in Canada, they think, oh yeah, it's normal

to have to license these products.

No, it's only been a handful of years for most of all

of our lives they've been completely unregulated.

And there was no safety concern

and there was no efficacy concern.

And in fact, I don't know anyone who, you know, knew

how the industry was before the regulations,

who thinks it's better, right?

Who thinks the quality of the products is better?

Like we, yeah, we can all agree, you know,

there's good manufacturing practices in

that there's some really good parts.

And, and if we were deregulated, we'd all comply with, with,

um, some really good practices.

That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about government pre-approval where we have

to jump through hoops to prove safety

and efficacy in a model that is designed

to protect intellectual property rights,

not get good health outcomes.

Yeah. So why do we wanna be in a model that is,

is not designed to get good health outcomes.

Exactly. Well, we, we don't wanna be, so anyway,

I'm having this discussion in front of the committee.

Well, everything's politicized now.

So the liberals, the government party has to attack

what I'm saying because I'm saying, you know,

and I'm also saying this has nothing to do with safety.

So Health Canada's messaging all along, I've been at this

for 30 years, and the messaging is we need to

ev ever stricter regulations on natural health products

to protect the Canadian consumer.

And I said to the committee, well, you have

to know this isn't about safety.

And it's very easy for us to know it's not about safety.

Because safety is generally measured by

how many deaths per million of the population.

I'll, I'll just say that again.

So safety is measured by how many deaths per million

of the population per year.

And most governments have,

it's like called an ultra safe line.

So if you're not causing more than one death per million

of the population per year, it's considered ultra safe.

You don't even have a safety discussion.

Like, let's take Canada for example.

Well, there's 40 million Canadians.

So if you have something that is only causing up

to 40 deaths a year, you know, so up

to one death per million per year,

and there's 40 million of us,

you don't ever discuss intervening at all

because that's such a low safety signal.

If you tried to prevent those deaths,

how would you even measure them?

Because that's just an average, right?

Um, you like, over a 10 year period, like 40 deaths,

you know, one death per million per year.

Like, it's such a small safety signal that

unless the cause of death was like a hundred percent clear,

like lightning strikes, for example, like lightning,

one outta 4 million Canadians per year on average

dies of lightning strikes.

So 10 of us, well, if we came out with regulations to,

you know, put up lightning pools in all open fields in

that we might after 10

or 20 years be able to measure,

have we saved two or three people?

'cause the cause of death's so clear.

But we would never do that

because that's below the ultra safety line where

it's not realistic, you're gonna save any lives.

So why would you bother? Right.

So, well, natural health products are safer than lightning.

Like there, there aren't 10 deaths caused

year by natural health products.

I, I've been at this for 30 years, David,

I've never seen a credible report

of a death caused by natural health product.

Mm-Hmm. And it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I mean, you, you figure you got 80,000 products out on the

market and 80% of Canadians are taking them regularly.

Maybe there is a bad adverse reaction

with a chemical drug or something.

But we are talking about things that are in our food supply.

Right. And, and Health Canada, I mean they're, it's funny

'cause they're, oh, you know, they come up

with these figures, but they won't share the data

and nobody believes them

because I, I've never run across anyone

who even thinks they know somebody

who died of a natural health product.

But, you know, peanuts cause nuts.

Cause death every year, shellfish, like, you know, shrimp

and crab and lobster, they cause death every year.

But, and so we can measure

that it's over one death per million per year.

But we're still not over that threshold

where we wanna regulate other than labeling

because it, we're not there.

So anyway, back to the committee.

So I'm explaining to the committee, well,

in the 30 years I've been at this,

health Canada will not tell us

how many death per million per year.

And it's not that they don't know the figure,

but it's gonna be, you know, less than one death per decade,

which puts us so far below the ultrasafe level that then all

of a sudden it's a fraud to be talking about safety.

But their whole reason is safety, safety, safety.

We have to protect Canadians.

Another reason, you know,

that the safety argument is a fraud.

They're deemed by law to be safe in the us

They're not regulated in the us Mm-Hmm.

They don't, there's not this pre-licensing scheme.

Well, the US isn't having a safety problem.

Just like we didn't, I mean, even 10 years ago, most

of the products were non-compliant.

Like we weren't having a problem before.

The US isn't having a problem.

And then the biggest fraud is, is every Canadian is free

to order products from the US and import and use them.

Like, I'm sorry. If they were dangerous, surely, you know,

the, the government would deem that illegal and stop it.

Exactly. Yeah. Well, they can't

because it would be a violation of section seven

of the Charter of Rights and freedoms

to deny Canadians access to products that they need.

Um, which are perfectly safe

because so, so I tried to, you know,

I explained this committee so at least they understand we're

doing the exact opposite of the states,

which makes us completely un uncompetitive,

which would be their interest.

And it's not about safety. Like that's a fraud.

Like it's a fraud. The emperor has no close.

I, I can't believe we're having these discussions.

So let me go to the latest fraud.

So, because I think I was on your show talking about Bill C

69, which is, you know, the latest budget bill

where they snuck in changes to the Food

and Drug Act, which are just horrific.

I won't go through them now.

But the, the public reason was to protect youth from,

you know, Nico flavored nicotine products

and nicotine patches.

Oh, okay. So we need to basically undermine our entire food

and drug safety laws.

We need to give Minister of Health the power to exempt,

you know, any food or drug from our fundamental safety laws.

We need to give the Minister of Health the opportunity

to make it, you know, illegal for doctors

to use off-label use.

So, oh, in interfering with the Doctor-patient relationship

that's going to make us safe, that's gonna protect youth,

like doctors must be prescribing Oh no,

it's not a prescription product.

What are we talking about? You mean doctors are recommending

the youth that they take flavored

nicotine products and patches?

Like it's outrageous. It's a, it's such an outrageous lie.

But now, like, so

before Parliament, so not the last budget bill,

but the 2023 budget bill Health Canada snuck changes into

the Food and Rug Act moving us into the products category.

Yep. I helped draft a bill, which is in committee Bill 360 8

to move us back out of the therapeutic product category

and the matters in front

of the standing Committee of health.

So now, you know, groups like I guess the Canadian Cancer

Society and, you know, physicians for this

and that are lining up to say, no, you've gotta,

you've gotta basically go against this government.

You have to go against this committee

to protect youth from nicotine products.

David, what does this have to do with nicotine products?

Like, hey, we'll all agree, pass a frigging law saying

nicotine can't be sold to youth and, and they can jail

and fine whoever they want over us.

This has nothing to do with natural health products,

exclude nicotine products from natural health.

We'll all agree with that. That's not what this is about.

Yep. So, so now all of a sudden,

this is about vulnerable youth, you know,

using flavored nicotine patches.

So that's why you have to decimate

and destroy the natural health product industry

and take products away that millions

of Canadians are relying on for quality of life

and even, you know, their very lives.

Yeah. Like, it, it's just, it's, it's maddening.

You know, it's total clown world.

And the fact that the government mps,

while their government mps will spout this nonsense.

So, you know, a whole bunch

of people are getting paid big money to come up with

how do we message this to justify what we're doing.

They never said that when they passed it into law

before in 2023.

This is now a new theme.

Now all of a sudden, a year and a half

after we've done this, it's clear to us that we need this

to protect vulnerable youth.

But give me a break. It's so outrageous, David. It's Texas.

The, the lies are so deep.

I just feel like throwing up

and I, you know, we're, we're just, none

of these people are ever held to account for this fraud.

They just get away with it

because everyone just sits on their butt

and lets them get away with it.

And we're losing our freedoms and we're losing our rights

and we're being so lied to.

You can't know what the truth is.

Yeah. Um, like I, I think everyone needs

to be committing to getting on their knees every day

and praying that God will shine light into Canada

and dispel the lies.

So at least we know what the truth is so that we can decide

what we're gonna do about the truth.

Because we can't even decide the average Canadian has no

idea that they're losing, they're gonna lose their access

to natural health products.

They have no idea that this end game is in place. Mm-Hmm.

And they, uh, they have, they would just be so angry.

They would just be angry at the government messaging Yeah.

At this time. Which Is so fraudulent.

Like, you know, if you have to lie to us

to take away our freedoms, can, like,

can you at least come up with ones

that are kind of credible? Like,

Well for some people it, it is credible

'cause they, they can't perceive the truth.

And, and you, you really hit a chord there where, you know,

at this given time in history, we need to be

really vigilant in seeking for the truth, in seeking

for discernment in, in understanding

what the truth actually is.

Lest we be deceived

And Yeah. Well, I mean,

I like, and I, and I,

and I get that, you know,

going religious angers some people.

So just, you know, for those of you that it angers fine,

but for those of you who know what I'm talking about Mm-Hmm.

Um, we really, you do need to start praying

that God will shine the light in Canada

and spare this nation Mm-Hmm.

Um, from having to walk in darkness.

'cause if we, if, if we can't see what's going

on, we're lost.

We're Lost. And then for those of you

who aren't religious and for everyone, I mean, you have

to start taking personal responsibility to be making sure

that your friends and families and neighbors

and strangers are being woken up.

Mm-Hmm. And like, you know, so how do you do that?

Like, I mean, the nh ppa.org will like,

follow what we're doing.

'cause we're the group that's telling everyone in the area

of natural health what's going on.

And, you know, follow us on social media.

If you're not on social media, learn it and get on it

and start posting and linking

because all of that helps us in the algorithms

and, you know, send it out,

start doing paid ads on your reposting and stuff like that.

Like, and it's cheap. Like you could just say,

I'm spending a hundred bucks a month

because you can set a budget on these things.

Start, start pushing the word out, not just with us,

but on other groups that are like,

take personal responsibility.

Yeah. You know, print out a flyer or a postcard

or like, whatever it is.

'cause groups like the N-H-P-P-A, we've got those materials.

Pick a neighborhood and go and, and hand them out. Mm-Hmm.

Like, just go mailbox to mailbox. Like whatever it takes.

Just ask yourself, how am I going to get this out?

Because most people have no idea what's going on.

And you know, if you hand out a a thousand pamphlets,

it might only be 2% that look,

but now that's 20 people you've woken up Mm-Hmm.

And then that'll have ripples within their circles.

And that's how we, that's how we do it. Right?

Yep. Yeah. And we see, we see

how deceptive the tactics are, uh,

and how there's a theme that emerges.

I mean, Hitler used this as well.

Uh, probably every effective dictator in history

has used this.

And it always comes down to the youth, um,

or the vulnerable, right.

Or the vulnerable youth.

And you just brought that up with the bill C 47

and how all of a sudden this is about, uh,

preventing vulnerable youth from having access to, uh,

flavored nicotine products.

We saw the same thing back in 2008 with Bill C 51, when

that was like basically the Consumer Protection Act

that they were pushing through that big omni omnibus bill.

Mm-Hmm. And it was all about protecting the,

the little children from the toys.

Oh, I, I know, like I, I testified

as an expert in the Senate against that bill,

and they actually made amendments and sent it back.

Like, I think they had to try four times to get

that one passed because it was just such an outrageous bill.

But Mm-Hmm. I remember getting a call at my law office from

the CEO of a large, you know, manufacturer of baby carriages

and stuff like that, and basically saying, we can't,

we can't do anything

because how can we go against the messaging

of protecting babies?

Right. Even though we see

that it's not gonna make anyone safe at all.

And that in fact, when you move out of a model of rule

of law where you give bureaucracy, basically godlike powers

to destroy anyone without ever seeing a court,

well now you're in tyranny and nothing ends well there.

So, so the bill was actually extremely dangerous,

but the industry, it was going to, you know, hammer

and, you know, basically give the government absolute

discretion over, which again, just look in the dictionary,

tyranny is just absolute discretion.

Mm-Hmm. They couldn't do anything publicly

because the messaging was, well, this is to protect babies.

And how can you stand up,

even though if you're being truthful?

Because our media will not be honest

and actually ask the hard questions.

Well, actually, will this protect babies? Is this necessary?

Will this hurt babies?

Look at what's happening from a legal

philosophical perspective.

This is dangerous to our democracy.

If we really have a concern with babies,

isn't there some way that we can protect them

where we're involving the court in our decisions

where there's a dispute, like,

but the media has been so long ago,

abrogated protecting our democracy

and protecting the rule of law that, I mean,

I I can't remember the last time that, you know,

they've actually been engaged in asking

these honest questions.

And because they won't

and just go with the government narrative,

no one can resist them. Yep.

Yeah. And they play out people's emotions.

And as soon as we're operating in an emotional level,

there's a good chance that our logic

and reasoning is clouded.

And that's what they're doing to people.

And so, you know, I guess

They're, they're doing it. They're doing

it. 'cause it works like people

with a pay grade so much higher than us

and teams of them have for decades

and decades, you know, figured out how

to manipulate the public with the messaging.

Mm-Hmm. Yeah. So as, as soon as somebody,

And they have con they have control of the media,

which will mirror that messaging.

And it's, it's ending up being irresistible.

And the question really is, is is, um,

we're already so far down that path.

Are we going to find ourselves, like we're in,

we're we've been pushed into a cage

and the door's being closed, is the door gonna close

before enough of us wake up

and say, no, I'm putting my foot in

that door even though it's gonna hurt.

'cause it's a heavy door and it has momentum now. Mm-Hmm.

And I'm gonna start pushing against that door

'cause my kids are in here with me and my grandkids

and I, I don't want them locked in this cage.

Right. Um, like, is that gonna happen

before the cage door shuts?

I don't know that it's why I go on podcasts like this is,

you know, if we can even wake one person up per time, um,

to actually start taking action.

Yeah. It's definitely not a time

and place to be apathetic.

Uh, those days are long gone.

Um, we need to be people of conviction and action,

otherwise we will find ourselves in a place that we do not,

uh, align with ideologically, um,

or philosophically we're just not there.

And we are gonna find ourselves in a very, well,

we're already in an uncomfortable place,

but it's going to get very uncomfortable, especially

for people that are freedom loving

and have a libertarian mindset.

Um, so going back to the,

the standing committee on government operations

and estimates, the liberal MP at one point in time, uh,

challenged you, um, trying

to basically make it sound like these regulations

that they have in place, which we're well aware of.

I mean, all these products here have gone through those,

those hoops to, to become available

to the Canadian marketplace.

And we know very well the, the hoops that you need to jump

through, because we have two

different divisions in the company.

One is international, they just put products out. Right.

Uh, on a whim. We, if we want to have the same products

that they do on that side of the company,

we've gotta jump through some serious hoops.

And we have less products than they do

on that side because of that.

Um, but he basically tried to make it sound like encounter

to your message that these regulations were a good thing.

And he used the example of Jameson

and their international operations.

Uh, did you wanna discuss that at all?

Yeah. So, so it was kind of interesting is this, um,

so he, he says Jameson's in his writing,

and, you know, he is visited them and,

and, uh, made it actually sound like they

were a family firm.

And, and back in the day, they, they were a family firm

and, you know, they've got a thousand employees.

So first of all, we're getting the message.

This is a family firm, which automatically you think small,

although he is saying there's a thousand employees there,

and, you know, they're making a clear, wait a second,

we like these regulations

because it enables us to export to foreign countries.

Now the interesting thing about that is,

and you know, and as I recall how I responded, it's first,

you know, first of all, this has nothing to do with safety

and the Canadians accessing these products.

And if, if, you know, we're talking about, well,

what's gonna help large Canadian companies export,

then why don't you make these regulations

voluntary for export?

Mm-Hmm. Right.

Like, I mean, companies are free to adhere

to whatever standards they want, if that's in any way going.

I mean, you can have a voluntary

government licensing scheme.

I, I'm not opposed to a voluntary

government licensing scheme.

I'm, and, and then we talked about rent seeking,

because what's happening here

and rent seeking is just a term that economists use

to describe when government over regulates in an industry.

So the cost goes up and it drives the small

and medium players out.

And you're left with quasi monopolies of the big players.

Yes. Well, that would include Jameson.

So I actually said to the committee, listen,

if I'm on the board of Jameson,

I actually have a legal fiduciary duty

to support these regulations

because they're gonna drive my competitors outta business.

We're, we're a big player, we're going to survive. Mm-Hmm.

Now, what I didn't know

and learned subsequent to that is, you know, Jameson's zoned

by like some US $5 billion hedge fund.

Like, so to portray them

as like a little family Canadian business.

Mm-Hmm. You know? Yeah.

So, so listen, you know, mps, liberal mps,

if you wanna protect the interests of, you know, $5 billion,

you know, US hedge funds, great

Big multinational Company, but Canadian, Canadian

populace over 80% regularly use natural health products.

And many of them are only alive because of them. Mm-Hmm.

And many of them only have a standard of living.

They're not suffering

because they're successfully managing conditions on them.

Yeah. And you can't take them away.

Like, and you can't have an honest safety discussion.

Remember how I talked out, well, first of all, tell us

where we are in the rankings, how many deaths per year?

Per million per year? And Health Canada will not tell us.

'cause as soon as they do the, the emperor no close.

And why are we having a safety discussion at all? Mm-Hmm.

But the second thing, and I voiced this committee, I said,

if this is truly about safety,

if we're having a safety discussion, well, we're in the area

of products that people are taking for their health.

You have to ask what is the health consequence

of taking the products away?

'cause regulation reduces access to products even by,

just by driving up prices.

So low income Canadians can't afford them.

Well, what is the health cost of that?

If we're actually talking about safety, then we have

to do an analysis of, well,

how are these products being used to safely

and effectively manage health conditions?

And what is the health consequence then of taking them away

and driving people to chemical pharmaceutical drugs which

have a risk profile that's profoundly dangerous.

Mm-Hmm. You know, David, if we had,

if our health policy was actually about getting good health

outcomes, then almost certainly what we would do

would be prohibit people from,

from accessing chemical pharmaceutical drugs unless

and until all natural options had been tried and failed.

Exactly. Like if,

if we actually wanted good health outcomes,

that most likely would be our health policy

is you can't access these chemical pharmaceutical drugs

unless you've demonstrated that,

that no other alternatives such as natural health products

can effectively manage your health conditions.

Yeah. And meanwhile, it'd save the healthcare

Industry, but we do the opposite is we prohibit you from

using natural health products for serious health conditions.

You can't get licensed for them. Mm-Hmm.

Listen, if anyone watching this show has a heart attack

and is rushed to the hospital,

or you know, they've been screened for cancer

and while they're watching your show, the text comes in,

it's stage four, go to the hospital immediately,

or, you know, they're suffering

with serious mental health conditions condition,

and now they're having a breakdown.

They need to go to the hospital.

Or they're, they've got serious arthritis

and they can't bear it anymore.

Like, I'll watch for another five minutes

and then I'm gonna the hospital, if anyone goes

to the hospital right now for a serious health condition,

we all know the only treatments you're gonna be offered,

because they're the only legal treatments, are

chemical drugs that had a patent when they went

through the new drug approval process.

This is by design. It's not by accident.

This has been the case since the 1930s when the drug

model was imposed on us.

Mm-Hmm. So we've structured it that it's only legal

to treat serious health conditions

with drugs Health Canada as approved.

And Health Canada's made the approval process so expensive

that only only novel chemicals with patents go through.

And this is, this is, as long

as anyone watching this has been alive,

this has been the law, and this has been the outcome.

It's not a secret. Well why,

why are the only legal

treatments for serious health conditions?

Novel chemicals? Because that's why,

how we've designed our drug policy.

Now, if I was to ask her, let's say we had a, we had a,

an assignment for everyone watching this.

Okay. Every, we're gonna pretend

that Canada has no drug policy

to manage serious health conditions.

So you, every one of you is tasked to come back to David,

here's how we are gonna get the best health outcomes

to treat serious health conditions.

Nobody's gonna come back and say, I got it. I got it.

Let's make it the law

that you can only treat here serious health conditions

with chemicals that haven't been invented yet.

That's madness. It's insane. But that's our law.

And when the patents run out, when the patents run out,

health, uh, the drug companies eventually stop making those

drugs because they've introduced new drugs with a patent

that they've approved for the same conditions.

So, you know, a child born today, a child born in October

of 2024, when that child is my age

and has a serious health condition,

that child will be treated with novel chemicals

that haven't been, they don't exist today.

Mm-Hmm. Or if they Yeah.

'cause they, they won't, they'll have to have a patent. Yep.

And so are you telling me, like if we were to say, well,

let's at least change things

and get the best health outcomes

for the children born in October 24th, 2024, none

of us would say, okay, well let's, let's structure it so

that when they're older and they have serious health

conditions, the only legal treatments are going

to be novel chemicals that don't exist.

Now when they're born, that's madness. But that's our law.

And your children are only gonna be treated

with novel chemicals for serious health conditions

that didn't exist when they were born.

And that's madness. Mm-Hmm. And we all know it.

Like, have you ever asked yourself the question, why is it

that for serious health conditions,

the only legal treatments are novel chemicals?

Do you think it's a mistake? It's not a mistake.

It's because our drug laws are there to design,

to protect intellectual property rights, not

to get good health outcomes.

And all that's happening

with these attacks on natural health products, you know,

they extinguish the natural health product industry.

Before, when they came out with the drug model, we used

to have homeopathic hospitals, for example.

Yep. They got rid of all of that.

Chiropractic And decades went, decades

and decades went by

where we only had chemical pharmaceutical drugs.

You know, I'm 59.

I didn't know what it, I'd never even heard

of a naturopathic doctor

or homeopathic doctor, traditional Chinese practitioner

until I was well into my thirties

Yep. Nineties when I'd

Never even, I'd never even heard the words.

There weren't health food stores

and malls till at least the eighties.

Mm-Hmm. So all that happened was,

is they had extinguished the natural health community

before, and then it revived itself in the seventies

and eighties, and the healing traditions came back.

And now they occupy the middle healing ground.

They, they've been kept outta the serious health conditions

as true hope knows with a vengeance.

Yep. But they've occupied this middle ground.

Now, if you understand the purpose

of our drug laws are protect intellectual property rights

and they've guarded the serious health conditions,

but that it's become too vibrant in

the moderate health conditions.

You know, if you're a drug company, why would you go

through this billion dollar process to get a,

a drug approved for a moderate health condition?

The other drug companies can't compete with you.

You have a patent, but you've got this pesky natural health

product community that's got product

after product that that's gonna compete with you.

Well, we have to get rid of that.

That's what all they're doing with this self-care framework,

where they're gonna just be making it so expensive

and so onerous that only products with patents will survive

is they're reoccupying the middle health

field. That's all they're doing.

Yeah. And when you say self-care framework,

you're talking about the government regulations

that are being imposed since, um, earlier 2023.

Yeah. Yeah. So I mean,

our move into therapeutic products category, that's part

of the self-care framework, this cost recovery

that's gonna destroy the industry is

part of the self-care framework.

And just so your audience knows the, the cost reco,

like the cost recovery part

of the self-care framework is going to extinguish

homeopathic doctors and traditional Chinese practitioners.

Yep. Everything will become true. Well,

What's gonna happen to the rest of us when we lose

those healing traditions?

Mm-Hmm. And, and the rest of us are, are next.

So this is just, you know, a continuation

of a process that's been in the works

for the 30 years I've been involved,

where they just wanna make it so onerous

and expensive that that only chemical products

with patents can afford to be on the market.

And it's called rent seeking.

And it's there to protect intellectual property rights,

not get good health outcomes.

Our drug laws have nothing to do with good health outcomes.

I mean, I challenge anyone read the Food and Drug Act

and all the regulations you want, you will not find a single

word, let alone a sentence

or a clause that's puts a legal obligation on Health Canada

to get good health outcomes.

No, well, they can't put that into the law

because that's inconsistent with their true goal

to protect intellectual property rights.

Yeah. This is interesting.

It's um, I mean really if you were to just sum it up,

it's monopolization through regulation.

Yes. And it's called rent seeking. Yes.

It creates quasi monopoly.

So you have like a handful of large companies Mm-Hmm.

Occupying the field. But

because it's quasi monopoly,

they can afford these huge fees.

And so it's great for the company

because this regulatory structure then

keeps out your competition.

Exactly. And it's great for the government agency

'cause they charge all these large fees

as part of the rent seeking.

So they're able to grow their bureaucracy

and be their fierce little paper tigers.

Oh, we did a site visit and there's this and this

and this and this wrong.

Although there was no problem before.

Right. And there'll be no problem

after, except that people now can't access natural remedies

that were safe and effective and they were free to use

before, and now they're in this chemical drug model

that is much more dangerous.

So it's just such a fraud.

Yeah. It's just such a fraud and that, and, you know,

and now that we're arguing about, oh, we need to do this

to protect youth from nicotine.

I, I just, I I just wanna move on out

of this, this world.

Yeah. It's, it's kind of like, it's unbelievable.

Well, I, I hate to, I hate to put, uh,

a little bit more salt in that wound,

but I wanna, um, kind of take us back.

Eight and a half years ago, you and I

and my wife were in a courtroom

and we've just been wrongfully convicted.

Um, based on that, uh,

what the judge had done in going against case law there.

And, and Ill instructing the jury,

but there was a phrase that started to pop up out

of the mouth of, of one of the crown prosecutors.

And it happened a couple of times.

The first time it happened, it left me a little bit baffled,

but by the second, third time, it really, I, I saw

that it wasn't without intent

that there was something going on here.

And what she was saying was, um, in reference

to choice of care,

because that, that's really what the case came down to.

The, the court case where when my wife

and I were wrongfully convicted over

for my audience over the death of my son.

Um, but,

And, and when we say wrongfully convicted, um, David, just

so your audience knows, it went up to the Supreme Court

of Canada that just said this was

so out outrageously unfair, um,

that the verdict can't stand ordered a new

trial and you were acquitted. Perfect.

Thank you. Just so we have that context. Yes, indeed.

And you're not just self servingly saying, oh,

I was wrongfully convicted.

Right. The top court and the land agreed with you.

Yep. Perfect. Thank you for that.

So, um, I don't know if you will recall the statement,

but I'm pretty sure I'm quoting it verbatim

where now when they were talking about

where we had gone wrong after we've been convicted

or wrongfully convicted, is that, uh, all

of a sudden this phrase came out, criminal code approved

standard of care, where all of a sudden now

you had the whole, you know, pharmaceutical model

of medicine was what was being deemed to be the criminal

code approved standard of care, which is interesting.

And, and, and now I'm no lawyer.

You are, is there any provisions in the criminal code

that says that allopathic medicine is the criminal code

approved standard of care, and that anything outside of that

is, um, potential, uh,

you're potentially criminal if you're, if you're outside

of operating outside of that realm?

Well, no, but our monarch was taking

that position in court that, you know, the only, the only

proper like proper medical treatment,

and they use that term all the time, was going

to your medical doctor.

Mm-Hmm. So, um, no, absolutely.

And the whole purpose of the case was to scare parents

into vaccinating their kids by trying to create

and actually creating a legal precedent.

You know, we've got that court of appeal decision, which is

atrocious Mm-Hmm.

In my opinion. Mm-Hmm.

Where they're trying to create a precedent

that if you have not vaccinated your child,

you have a higher onus to go to the doctor.

And, and what I find so funny about, um,

personally funny about that Court of Appeal decision,

although, you know, it, it truly grieves me,

is vaccination wasn't an issue at the trial at, at either

of the trials because once I served the crown, like,

'cause remember preliminary inquiry, it was vaccination,

vaccination, vaccination.

Mm-Hmm. And then, um,

if you're gonna call experts at a criminal trial,

and you're the defense 30 days

before the trial starts, you have to serve the crown

with notice of your experts.

So I serve the crown with notice of my experts,

which basically just decimate any argument at all

that vaccine has anything to do with this case.

'cause it didn't, that was just a,

it was a narrative they wanted to push.

So for the first trial, like we got together with a judge,

remember it was, you know, at a pretrial conference

before the jury was, was there.

And no, we're not going anywhere near vaccine.

And if any witness mentions it,

you're not bringing it up again.

And I, I'm gonna instruct them to ignore all of this

and we're just had nothing to do with it.

So no, the evidence wasn't called,

and same at the second trial, everyone agreed,

no vaccine has nothing to do with it.

So the Crown didn't lead evidence

to suggest vaccine had anything to do with it.

Mm-Hmm. We didn't lead evidence.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal have nothing

to do with vaccination.

And there's a longstanding rule.

You can't raise an issue in front of the Court

of appeal if you haven't led the factual foundation,

if you didn't argue it below.

So here, both parties didn't bring in evidence about

vaccination, didn't argue it

because everyone agreed it has nothing to do with the case.

And yet the Court of appeal basically says, listen,

if you haven't vaccinated your kid, that's a,

there could be, there's a legal onus on you Yep.

To, you know, to, to seek.

Now the interesting thing, David, is, is,

is those is court decisions.

The door swings both ways. Mm-Hmm.

So now we have a legal precedent that if, um, so I'm trying

to avoid, I see the sun's coming in.

Now we have a legal precedent that, you know, if,

if you believed or the system believes, like basically it,

it imposes an obligation on you to follow

what her majesty is suggesting is the proper thing.

Well, what's gonna happen, um,

if the truth comes out about these COVID-19 vaccines

with children, like, I think it was in the House of Commons.

So it's a parliamentary question that has to be answered

by the Minister of Health or Health Canada.

And it was answered, which basically my understanding is

admits the Health Canada understands that with every success

of COVID-19 vaccine shot, you're more likely to die

of, of any cause.

Mm-Hmm. Including for children. Mm-Hmm.

So basically we have the government

of Canada admitting in response to a parliamentary question

that children that have been vaccinated

with the CVID 19 vaccine are more likely to die.

Yeah. So using the court of appeal decision, you know,

once people come to understand, wait a second,

my child is much more likely to die of, of any cause now

that I've vaccinated them with these COVID-19 shots.

Do those parents have a higher onus

to seek medical treatment when their children are sick?

Mm-Hmm. I say they do because of that court decision. Right.

But then know, the better question is, is, is why are we

prosecuting parents for decisions made in good faith?

Like, you know, I'm a parent

and everyone who's had small kids will,

they'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

You know, where it's like two in the morning, okay,

the temperature's 103 Fahrenheit, do we go to the hospital?

Do we go, if it hits 1 0 4,

like you're making these decisions.

No one loves your kids more than you do.

You don't want to take them out

of bed at two in the morning,

which is gonna make things worse.

They're in the middle of a health crisis.

Or like, but you think it's just a bad flu.

You've been there before with the other two, you know,

now this is your youngest one.

Like ev this is all wor these decisions have all worked

before and they most always work,

but you're having the discussion.

Okay. The temperature's 103,

so now we're putting on the wet face claws and covers off

and, you know, jammies off

and we're keeping baby, you know, or infant.

Cool. Do we go to the hospital at 1 0 4?

Well, you know what, if you get it wrong is our answer.

It wasn't before that.

We send parents to jail for five years

and destroy the whole family.

Like Mm-Hmm. What are we doing?

Basically second guessing parents

that everyone agrees was trying

to make the best decision for their child.

Well, exactly. And, and,

and the parents are the ones that stand, um,

to lose the most and if they,

if they lose their child through all that.

Yeah. Well, and and I get, if you've got parents

that are ignoring, you know, things,

but that's not what we were talking about here.

Exactly. So, and, but that's what's now criminalized.

So, I mean Mm-Hmm.

You don't go to the hospital at, at 1 0 3

and something bad happens

and now you're at risk of going to jail

and which would totally screw up your other kids, you know,

your other kid going into foster care.

It is. It's just gonna wreck every, like what are we, what,

like I didn't get the public policy interest.

Like, so let's say

there had been an error in judgment Mm-Hmm.

And I don't think there was, I I mean I know the facts well,

but let's say there had been an error in judgment.

Do you, why were we there?

Well, I, I can provide a little bit of clarity there.

And this was, this was a little bit,

Well it was a rhetorical question.

I, I realize it was a

Well, and I get that. But it's,

this is where it gets interesting

because a CJ Rook, uh, associate Chief Justice Rook,

so second top judge in the court of Queens bench at

that time in, in Alberta.

So he is basically one of the top guys in all

of Alberta appoints himself to manage our, our, uh,

our, our case leading up to the second trial in 2019.

Well, in March of 2019, at one point in time he,

he digressed and it was interesting.

He was basically sending a message and he,

and he's, he was saying this media was all there.

We were there, it's a preliminary hearing.

And he says, um, it's not neglect that brings the Stephans

before the courts today,

but rather choice of care.

What he was doing was, was solidifying the concept that

so many people had already seen with

how CBC was running their mouth

and using that, uh, wrongful conviction in 2016 to attack

the licensing of naturopathic doctors in Canada to try

to create an uproar with the radio programs and all that.

What we saw was this was about choice of care,

but a CJ rook actually made it, uh, a hundred percent clear

where he said, this has nothing to do with neglect, this has

to do with choice of care.

But do you know what's interesting about that, David?

Is, is it's the crown that decides whether to proceed

with the case, the prosecution service, not the courts.

And the courts are supposed to be neutral.

Yeah. So, So the fact

that any judge would be making a comment on that, um,

many lawyers might find that to be completely objectionable

because the court is supposed to be biased.

I mean, you don't know in a given decision or a case

before you, what you're supposed

to rely just on the evidence.

And, you know, let's take, you know,

when True Hope was charged criminally, um, well,

if the judge had taken the position well, as a matter

of law, I'm to presume

that the allopathic chemical system is the only system, um,

we would've been dead in the water.

But the judge concluded that actually if we had listened

to Health Canada or Tropo listened to Health Canada,

that there would've been more deaths.

That in fact it was legally necessary for True Hope

to keep providing the product.

I mean, this is a court of law decision in

a criminal prosecution.

Yep. Where true hope's acquitted

because the court accepted that restricting the product,

health Canada restricted the product and it caused deaths.

And if you guys hadn't done everything you could

to keep getting product to people,

there would've been more deaths.

Exactly. So, wow.

So that judge in the criminal proceeding listened

to the evidence and made findings of fact based on what was

before the court in the trial.

You don't pre-judge these things or take a position.

So that, and I wasn't, I didn't hear justice work say that.

I wasn't at that.

But, um, if that, you know, that that missed firework,

Do you missed, you missed the fireworks?

'cause you said that a judge is supposed

to be neutral when a CJ Rook appointed himself, ironically,

right after we blew the whistle on, on all of the corruption

and the withheld evidence,

and we were now filing that, um, that suit,

uh, I can't remember what the case law was,

but it, it was, um, anyways, we, we were looking for, uh,

retribution in a sense or remuneration

to fund the next trial based on, on the fact that they,

they messed up on the first one

and basically bankrupted us over it.

And so as soon as we went forward with that

and highlighted the corruption,

a CJ Rook put himself on the case

and he was the furthest thing from being neutral.

He was there protecting the,

the Crown protecting Alberta Health Services

and trying to suppress the narrative

that we were bringing out using factual evidence.

So it was interesting what he was up to.

He was not neutral, he was completely biased.

He was against us. And for him to make

that statement was more telling

than anything, but not surprising.

Mm-Hmm. Yeah. But anyways, I digressed. Yeah,

We, we kind of digressed there and

Okay. Um,

you probably gotta jump out pretty quick here.

Yeah. Pretty quick. So you, you wanted

to touch on the CHFA?

Yeah. You know, yeah. Real quickly, let,

let's touch on the CHFA

and then I wanna, uh, discuss real quickly what's happening

next week af um, after you touch on the CHFA,

but you presented at the CHFA as well, which is interesting.

CFA has taken traditionally a stance, um,

for the natural health industry.

Um, they've found ourselves

or we've found ourselves at odds

with them when we've taken a stance against, uh,

government regulation in the past.

They've taken different, uh, um,

approaches and, um,

That that's putting it mildly, isn't it?

Like, so yeah, it's, so the economists,

when they discuss the rent seeking model, explain that.

You have to have, you have to have a trade association

that will go along with the rent seeking

to tell all the industry, this is okay, this is okay.

Don't worry nothing to see here, move along.

You can't do it unless you have a trade association telling

everyone it's okay.

And that's exactly what we saw in 2008.

So from day one, I mean, even when they wanted

to move us into the drug model

before 2004, like we were all fighting against it.

And the C-H-F-A-A hundred percent of the time

was stepping in as the facilitator basically telling

everyone it's okay.

Yeah. And, and the most recent example

and where I'm gonna get to is no,

now they're on the right side.

Like, so that's why you're bringing it up. It's so amazing.

But this self-care framework, which is going

to take our products away,

and so it's already moved us into the

therapeutic product category.

That's one part of it. We've got ca cost recovery,

that's another part of it.

We're going to be licensed.

So there's gonna be harmonization

where natural products will be regulated the exact same way

as over the counter chemical drugs, right down

to the same standards of evidence.

So, you know, Pfizer runs, you know,

double blind clinical trials, which they would need to do

to justify some new chemical painkiller

that doesn't need to be by prescription.

So it's over the counter. Well now white willow bark

has to meet that standard.

It's gone. Yeah. Right.

Like, and it's gonna be so onerous we can't comply

because we can't afford to,

'cause we can't charge those price.

So it's the end game and it's so clearly the end game.

Well they introduced this, you know, really

to the industry in 20 17, 20 18, including, you know,

going across Canada doing presentations, which, you know,

we went and thank goodness we took pictures

of all the slides they were using.

'cause they never published them.

So we were, I think in 2018, I mean, I, I'm banned,

was banned from CHFA shows.

So I'm out there at their Vancouver show,

but I can't answer in

but I'm meeting with people there saying, trying to create

political resistance against the self-care framework

because the CHFA supported it.

And their president at the time, Helen Long, I mean,

sent a famous email

to every member basically saying we were full of crap.

There's nothing wrong.

This is all great for the industry where, you know,

I did a discussion paper where I always try to be polite,

but I, you know, I, I may have crossed the line there

'cause I think the title was something like, you know,

comparing the CHFA to Monty Python's Flying Circus,

where I basically challenged telling, I said, okay,

well you say there's not this,

the self-care framework's good for the industry.

So cost recovery, explain to me how this is good

moving us into therapeutic pro.

How is this good? And walking through all of the

how you, you show me.

But it, we didn't get any industry support.

And now we're, we're years down the road

where it's being implemented, where we should have,

we should have resisted it out of the gate.

Mm-Hmm. We should have made it clear

to every MP in Health Canada,

this is gonna be a political non-starter.

But we couldn't because the CHFA would have a budget 10

times the N-H-P-P-A budget just to oppose us.

And that was the way all along. Yep.

But now it's so clear that this is the end of the line.

And you know, they have new regulatory affairs people

that see it

and they're speaking the truth and they're just fantastic.

So now it's like this and, you know, God bless them. Right.

Like, I, I don't care what happened in the past.

We have a goal to protect access

and I'll, I'll work with, you know, anybody and you know,

unless there's some really good reason why I shouldn't.

Um, so I'm just super pleased that, that they are trying

to do now what we're trying to do.

Mm-Hmm. So it's just, it's a beautiful thing.

And they invited me to speak

and, um, so the lecture is posted on our,

um, you know, what's new.

You go to our website and there's a What's new tab?

You gotta go down a little bit.

'cause we post fairly regularly.

But, um, that lecture is posted

and it's a different lecture than I've given

because I'm speaking to industry people

and I'm trying to wake them up about what the drug model is.

So it really is on the drug model, you know, if you want

to convince somebody that our drug policy is not

for good health outcomes, that's the lecture

and saying that, you know, the safety

meme is just a complete lie.

Mm-Hmm. So, um, yeah, no.

So I was really pleased to go

and it, it's, um, I'm pleased to be working with them and,

and I'm just thankful that they, they have a,

a regulatory affairs team there that, you know,

are really competent and they understand what's going on

and, and, uh, and they're willing to work with us.

'cause now we have the same goal. So I'm really thankful.

But that's what you were kind of like prodding at is, is,

you know, historically, um, there was a,

there was a huge problem.

Huge problem. You know,

Small news to me. I didn't

realize that you had actually that they

Oh yeah. No,

no. I, I am aware.

Like, I mean, they have a board

and their regulatory affairs people have

to take direction from the board.

Mm-Hmm. And, you know,

and now I'll be praying that, you know, big pharma doesn't

maneuver things to take over the board

and direct the regulatory affairs people

to support the self-care framework.

I hope that doesn't happen. Yep.

The N-H-P-P-A, we don't, we don't have that vulnerability.

We've structured ourselves.

So we just have a few members

and, you know, you support us financially

'cause you like what we do or you don't support us

financially, but you're not getting a, you know,

a voting seat at the table.

Mm-Hmm. And we structured ourselves just because of that.

And thanks you for putting that donate up.

'cause I can tell you, um, we are starved for cash.

We, there's so much more we wanna do. Mm-Hmm. Yeah. So,

And, and, and having been in this for,

for quite a few years, obviously I was a young man, uh,

when I was first introduced to you, um, just freshly married

and, and even without kids at that point in time.

But, uh, you were, you were working with my father,

but, you know, I grew up with this and saw this take place

and, you know, we were involved in those battles

and we, we saw the divisions

that were intentionally created within the industry

to really sideline the protecting of,

of natural health rights in Canada.

Mm-Hmm. Um, and so it's so important

to be directing our efforts and our energy

and our resources in the right direction.

And so when we're talking about this with nhpa.org, um,

that's, if you wanna make a difference in relation

to Natural Health Freedom in Canada, um,

you guys are laying out the, the appropriate action plans.

You guys are providing, the, the resources you guys are,

are highlighting the issues in a very comprehensive way.

Yeah. So, so subscribe to us. So go to nh hppa.org.

There's a subscribe button where you'll get our newsletter,

but also follow us on social media and re and repost.

But Mm-Hmm. You'll, if you're subscribing to us

or following us, you'll see campaign after campaign

after campaign where we make it easy.

Like often it's just sending an electronic letter

or, you know, writing, we let you know how

or signing this petition or that.

Like, we really try to make it easy for you to take action.

And, um, so please subscribe so

that you can at least decide.

And so, like, let's say we send out, like,

so we've got a petition right now.

We've registered with the clerk of petitions

and e petition to support 3 98.

So we've got all the powers that be marshaling doctors

and Cancer, Canadian Cancer Society,

and all of this to, Ooh, no, we need to get rid

of natural health products and overregulate them

to protect vulnerable youth from nicotine.

Well, signing the petition

to tell the mps at the standing Committee of Health that no,

you're not buying what they're selling Mm-Hmm.

It's super important. Right.

So please, you know, you gotta get involved.

But if we don't have a means to communicate and,

and the time is short where we'll be allowed

to communicate like this, like we're gonna lose the right

to do this very shortly, David.

Yeah. Yeah.

We wall, that's the, that's,

that's the end game of the police state.

So you've gotta get the, the time is short for, for us to,

you know, save our system and even be able to communicate

and wake people up.

The time is short. Mm-Hmm.

And if you don't participate in getting the word out,

I promise you, you are gonna regret it on so many levels.

Mm-Hmm. You are gonna be so ashamed of yourself

and so upset when you're, when you're going

through your dying process, your final breaths, you're,

you're gonna totally regret your entire life

for allowing this to happen.

Yeah. Like, that is for sure.

Yeah. Yeah.

It's really reminiscent of the, uh, the issues that, um,

were taking place leading up

to the Declaration of Independence.

And, you know, we see that, uh, in the,

We're in, we're in Germany and it's, you know, 1936.

Exactly right. Patrick Henry said it, you know,

before the Virginia Congress, where he just said,

you know, gentlemen, cry.

Peace. Peace. But there is no peace.

The war has actually, but already begun.

And that's the thing is that we are already in the war, um,

and we need to, to come out victorious.

And that takes feet on the ground, right.

Boots on the ground to make this happen.

And so, um, like I said before, this is not a time

or place for apathy. This,

The, the most, the most dangerous weapon

that has ever been invented

for use against the human population.

The most dangerous weapon by far

has been the mainstream media.

I cannot think of a, of a more dangerous weapon

Pacify. Those would be

taken action.

And the only way for that weapon to be resisted is,

is every citizen actively resisting it

by not participating in it, except, you know, occasionally

to see what the propaganda is.

Yep. And to be getting out truthful information,

which gives, puts a responsibility on you

to start doing your own fact checking on things

and pushing out what you find to be credible.

And, you know, and if you're wrong about pushing

something out, admit it.

But you have to start taking personal responsibility

for resisting the most dangerous weapon ever designed

against mankind.

That is has been consistently employed now

for decades and decades.

Yeah. Yep. Exactly.

And, and, and it, it and it. Yeah.

So, so I don't have a whole lot of time.

So can we talk about next week?

Yeah, yeah. Let's go into,

you're running a pro program called

NCI, am I correct in saying that? Well,

I'm not running it. A

group of volunteers is running it,

and I just happen to be one of them.

But the National Citizens Inquiry, so for those of you

who don't know about the National Citizens Inquiry, it's,

you know, national Citizens Inquiry ca

and I have to say.ca for Canada.

'cause there's impersonators, which is, you know,

tells you you're doing, doing good.

Right. So there's a group pretending to be asked,

but you won't hear about the hearings,

the ongoing hearings from them.

So the National Citizens Inquiry is an independent citizen

group that holds hearings on different topics.

So, you know, we have, you go

and you watch the hearings we had in 2023,

and then earlier this year in Regina on the Covid issue,

how well levels of government responded to Covid.

Every witness is called by lawyer sworn to tell the truth,

and then questioned under oath,

and then questioned by the independent commissioners.

It is incredible. And, um, and it's non-threatening.

So if you have people that, you know,

they won't watch Dr. McCullough, you know,

having a conversation with Joe Rogan,

but they'll watch him testify under oath at the

National Citizens Inquiry.

'cause it's a neutral forum. Mm-Hmm.

And he's under oath, and then he is questioned

by independent commissioners.

So it's, it's, it's a real icebreaker for people

who won't consider, um, podcasts and the like,

because it's so formal.

Um, it listens to every side.

It's not, it's not there to grind an ax or convince anyone.

It's there to find out what, what has happened.

Well, they're holding hearings next week in Vancouver,

October 17th, 18th and 19th.

And I see the website is down on the bottom.

You can get tickets if you're in the area

so that you have to reserve them.

They're free. And, um, so please come,

there's something about being a person.

But the issue is our children safe in Canada,

which is why David, you

and your wife, Colette, have been invited to come

as witnesses and testifying under

oath about your experience.

And, you know, like, we're gonna lead off with a,

an international expert on child trafficking.

You know, who's going to talk about Canada and just,

and you know, how they do it, how they groom,

how you resist this, what to look for it.

If you're a parent, you need to watch this.

It's gonna blow your mind. Like just some of the topics

that, that are gonna be covered are absolutely amazing.

And, and, you know,

if you're interested in protecting children, you know,

you need to watch this.

It'll be stream live if you can't attend in person.

So, um, yeah. So just go to the National Citizens Inquiry

and, you know, start following them on social media.

Put the word out and, and also support them financially.

It's all citizen funded.

And I, I know they're behind the eight

ball, but they always are.

They just step out on faith and,

and the citizen just comes through and, and makes it happen.

So it's pretty exciting.

Awesome. Well, I know we're

looking forward to being there.

Um, it was a bit of juggling to, to get to that point,

but, uh, we're officially scheduled to be there now,

and so we're looking forward to attending there in Vancouver

and, and testifying

and also getting to see, uh, everything

that transpires on the Thursday

before we testify on the Friday morning.

Mm-Hmm. So it'll be a

Oh yeah, no, be there first thing in the morning.

It, it'll blow it right down from

the opening to the closing.

It'll blow your mind. Okay.

They long days, like, we usually sit till about 8:00 PM

because it's so much work to organize.

Mm-Hmm. And we, there's just so many voices and,

and we don't just have the experts.

We have ordinary Canadians sharing their experiences Yeah.

On different, on different topics.

'cause this one is so broad. I mean, it covers medical,

it covers legal, it covers education,

it covers social issues.

Mm-Hmm. It covers child trafficking.

It's like, it's so broad that,

um, yeah.

It's just gonna be super interesting.

Awesome. Well, definitely looking forward to it.

Do we have a location for that?

Uh, we do. I, I don't know it off the top of my head,

but if you reserve, um, tickets, it'll,

it'll give you the location.

Um, we usually don't put it out too soon, just, you know,

because we, we don't want any problems with the venue.

Right. Yep. Um, which is curious

because the, the national citizens inquiry, it,

it doesn't take a, it comes out

with positive recommendations based on the e evidence,

but it's, it's not political

or on, on any, on any issue.

It's just their, their mandate is listen, learn, recommend.

Awesome. So, yeah.

But, um, but we're actually, I,

I know the administration is feeling a little antsy.

It's like, you know, is this gonna upset people

that having witnesses testify under oath

on these types of topics?

So, you know, even though anyone watching is free to agree

or disagree with whatever witness is testifying.

I mean, that's the wonderful thing about, um,

critical thinking is, is you don't have to accept something

that's being told.

But we learned with the Covid experience, just listening

to people because the covid conversation, I mean,

it was polarized right there, there were, but,

but listening to ordinary Canadians, regardless of

where they were on the spectrum, uh, like Provax or anti-VAX

or whatever pro like what their thoughts were on lockdowns

or what was happening economically

or socially, there was really power, David,

in hearing each other's voices

and actually having permission just

to listen to the other side.

And, and it, it really brought us together

where we were divided, you know, um,

the commissioners of the NCI had a, had a, you know, a kind

of Trish Wood was the host,

and it's like, here are the commissioners.

It was supposed to be released today.

I guess it was a technical problem.

And again, they're just volunteers.

But one of the new commissioners, Miriam, um, who's a lawyer

that, that does a lot of, of human rights

and charter rights cases, said, you know, the right

to be heard is like the right to speak.

The right to be heard is more than a legal Right.

It's a human need.

Mm-Hmm. Absolutely.

And it's a human need.

And so one of the powerful things about the NCI is, is

we give people a voice regardless of whether, you know,

you might agree or disagree with what they're saying.

We don't care about what side of the conversation.

We put a, a theme out there.

So the theme was our children's safe in Canada

and witnesses apply and we select from the witnesses,

but we don't screen witnesses from what side they're on.

Mm-Hmm. And, you know,

and I can tell you honestly, I was a little disappointed,

like in some of the areas, like some

of these trans things in education, um, I was expecting

to get a whole bunch of witnesses, you know,

supporting the government agenda and that,

and I don't think that happened.

So, but they're likely gonna carry on further

hearings on that topic.

So, you know, like the whole idea is, is for everyone

to be heard

and listened to so people can make up their own minds.

Mm-Hmm. Yeah.

And my understanding is that, uh, that you've had, um,

or with the NCI, it's been quite successful, um,

moving across Canada

and generating a lot of interesting, um, discussion

around these covid issues and whatnot.

The, the entire thing's been absolutely

fantastically successful.

Um, now, you know, they're having to rebuild

because they were attacked from within.

And, and, you know, which really was an eye-opener

for me is, is like, so here we think,

one thing the NCI learned was, is every institution,

the colleges of physicians

and surgeons, nurses, education,

like everyone fell into line.

This was so well thought out, right? Mm-Hmm.

So why would we think that, you know, the powers

that be don't have people infiltrating freedom groups

or groups like the National Citizens

Inquiry? Of course they do.

Exactly. Of course they do.

So that, you know, we had kind of this internal rebellion

where some people had positioned themselves

where they could breach our trust.

And in my opinion, they stole our social media accounts.

Mm-Hmm. So there, there were like,

and the, the really sad part about that David, was, is,

I don't know if you were watching the hearings,

but you know, I, I, you know,

basically became the moderator from Toronto one.

So seven of the, the eight days of three, you know, 20, one

of the 24 days of hearings.

And I would be in front of the camera every day, you know,

basically begging, people watching,

like promote us on social media.

Entire teams of volunteers got together, clipping,

they were all self organizing.

Like it was fantastic. Thousands of people got together

to basically get the word out

because the mainstream media wasn't,

and we were being shadow banned on all of the platforms.

Mm-Hmm. By the end of those hearings, shortly

after the hearings, I think we had had 28 million

social media impressions.

Now that was all by citizen engagement.

So we created all these momentum for social media channels,

and then they're stolen.

And those social media channels aren't telling people about

the ongoing hearings.

Wow. They're, they're, you know,

we've called other witnesses.

We've had other events,

and like, it's all one of the, you know,

but I don't even follow them anymore.

Like, because I just don't care. It turns my stomach.

Um, but, you know, I was on a podcast the other day

and some people that, you know, well,

why haven't I heard about this?

Well, you haven't heard about this

because you're, you've gotta go to the.ca site

and follow the new social media channels that, like,

I don't even know who's doing all of that anymore.

But it's, you know, it really hurt.

And you can't convince me that we haven't lost lives

because we were having a hundred thousand social media hits

per day and 2000 new visitors to our website a day.

And that momentum's been trashed by these people.

And, you know, I was personally involved

because I believe we're, we're killing

and harming children with these C 19 jabs.

Mm-Hmm. And when you're getting that much reach out there

to at least getting parents

to understand there's a different

narrative, educate yourself.

I, I think that the NCI, if it hadn't lost that momentum,

would've reached many more parents who then would've,

would've dove deeper.

And, and in some cases not.

And it was also creating political momentum and,

and, uh, pressure on the politicians

and that momentum was taken away.

So you can't convince me

that their lives have not been lost over this.

And many of them precious child lives.

You, you can't convince me otherwise.

And, and I, I can't even think about it most of the time

because I'm just deeply grieved to my soul.

No. That these, that these people would do this

and I'm being kind by not naming them right now.

Right. Well, we definitely appreciate it

and we appreciate what you're doing there.

And that even though that, you know, you, you highlight the,

I guess the, the opening of the cracks, if you will, that,

that people are falling through the cracks

because of this agenda at hand.

Um,

You, but, but the flip side is, the flip side is,

is the NCI now is run by a group of people,

and I'm not part of the admin.

I had to, which I'm their lead counsel.

So I, I participate in, in prepping witnesses

and making sure there are counsel and, and that,

but you know, the group running them, you know,

I'm pretty confident there's,

there are no infiltrators in there.

And, and you know, so they will rebuild.

If your base is solid, God can bless what's going on.

And you know, he, God revealed that we had some, you know,

some corrupt people in there and they're no longer there.

They stole assets. I mean, they stole a quarter

of a million dollars that people had

donated to run hearings.

Like, why do you think we're begging for funds

to run hearings still?

Um, we had stopped fundraising when we didn't need money

anymore, but now they're fundraising and for what?

Hmm. So they stole a quarter million dollars.

I know they're funding other,

I believe they're funding other things

that people didn't donate for.

Um, and, but they did that to try and destroy us.

And they're, they're trying to pretend to be us

and long term it won't work.

But what a shame that that, that they destroyed

that momentum that, that all

of the citizens together had created.

Um, it's truly, truly shame,

But, well, thank you. You

Know, long, long term, the NCI is gonna be way stronger.

Mm-Hmm. Because they have a solid base

and you know, what they're building now won't be taken away.

Yeah. And sometimes when we go through the fire,

we become a little more refined

and a little stronger, a little more galvanized,

A little stronger. You would know, you

and your wife Colette would know

that it's, it, um, it's just amazing the depth

of character that the two of you have.

And this just been an honor, honor to walk beside you so

Well, um, it goes both ways.

So thank you, Sean, and,

and thank you for persevering through all of this, all

of the adversity, uh, as well as your team there, or,

or the team at, uh, NCI to continue to,

to make this available to people, uh, even with, uh,

the incredibly disheartening issues that,

that occurred internally.

Um, and sadly, that's the way that this world goes is that,

uh, the, the force of evil will always infiltrate the,

uh, the movements of the, of, of the upright, those

who are seeking to make a difference and to save lives

and to, to, to help guide humanity into a better place.

And so thank you for persevering.

'cause it would've been easy to throw in the towel

after situations like that.

Yeah. Well, thank you for what you're doing.

And now we just need your audience

to be taking personal responsibility

and doing what they can do.

Absolutely. Awesome.

Well, thank you again for, for coming on.

We'll, we'll come to a close at this point in time.

I know that, uh, you're probably late for another, uh,

I, I am so, I, I've got ahead. Thank you.

Alright, well I, God bless you.

Thank you for coming on again and, um, until next time.

Um, well, until next week,

God bless you and your audience.

Thanks David.