Greetings,

hello,

good day wherever you are in this world.

Thank you very much for joining True Hope Cast,

the official podcast of True Hope Canada,

today I welcome lawyer Sean Buckley back to the

show.

We're going to be talking about Health Canada's

self-care framework and what Canadians can expect

when it comes to access to natural health products

in the future.

So,

morning,

Sean,

thanks for joining us.

How you doing well,

thanks for having me on,

Simon.

Of course,

how are you navigating this new world that we're

in?

Well,

it's funny you'd use that phrase; I automatically

think of Aldous Huxley and it truly is a brave

new world.

isn't it i think um i think it's fair to say

that i just and i imagine a lot of people

listening to this will agree there's just kind of

this added level of stress as we realize that the

world is not as we thought it was you know we've

had for just decades and decades at least in my

awareness a lot of people out there saying you

know our governments are not are you know take

orders from other places and things are not as it

seems and i think you know a lot of us are

finding it very stressful to live in a police

state now i think we've lived in a police state

for a long time it just wasn't as apparent but it

it's becoming a hard police state

Instead of a soft one,

so I think I'm doing quite poorly just because I'm

grieving loss of our freedoms.

Very well put,

and I think it's very interesting when we do live

in this high stress,

high anxiety,

isolated time that having the access to natural

health products and supplements to help get through

that type of thing is very important.

So,

that kind of really brings us around to what we're

going to talk about today in our last conversation,

which was episode 10 of this podcast,

where we discussed the insidious side of Health

Canada.

If you've not listened to the episode yet,

I suggest that you do; but what was really clear

To me,

was that Health Canada is simply not what they

appear to be.

On their own website,

they say this: I just want to quote,

quote,

'Health Canada.' Here's because I think this is an

interesting statement: 'Health Canada is responsible

for helping Canadians maintain and improve their

health while respecting individual choices and

circumstances.

It ensures that high-quality health services are

available and works to reduce health risks,'

Sean.

Now,

you did a better job of not smiling than I did,

because that is just so funny that it hurts,

and it's,

it's this individual choice thing because what's so

funny is I'll say we made a decision.

But we didn't make a decision because,

every Western nation around the same time at the

turn of the century when the chemical companies

pharmaceutical companies were dictating what the

policy should be to government as part of things

that have been going on for a long time that are

now becoming clear: the way to control health was

to say,

'make this philosophical decision well,

people don't have the right to decide how they're

going to treat their bodies.

Rather,

we're going to make every treatment illegal,

whether it's chemical or natural.

We pass this Food and Drug Act,

and it's illegal to use any treatment.' Unless it's

been approved of by the government,

and it's illegal to use any treatment unless it's

been approved of by the government.

Now they will approve more than one treatment.

So well,

no,

you have the freedom to choose among the options

that we allow you to have,

and the word 'allow' is very important because in

the area of health,

if you can't decide what you you can do with your

own body,

then you're a slave.

We might as well put cattle tanks in our ears,

and I think that's becoming apparent: that we're

not viewed as sovereign human beings right now,

that can make sense,

and that's why we're not allowed to do that,

we're not.

Allowed to do that meaningful choices,

but this goes back over a hundred years; these

decisions,

so we made it so that it was illegal to treat

people with anything that wasn't approved of by the

government.

Now,

what the law is and listen carefully,

you won't find found this find this written in the

Food and Drug Act or regulations,

but the law in Canada,

in the way it plays out on the ground,

is it is illegal it is illegal to treat any

serious condition with something that did not have

a patent when it went through the drug approval

process.

So really,

it's about protecting intellectual property rights;

let me explain how this works.

So let's pick any serious condition,

heart disease,

mental illness,

you know bipolar,

whatever.

You can't treat people with anything that wasn't

approved of by the government.

What as soon as you're in a serious condition,

you have to go through what's called the new drug

approval process.

Now I can't tell you today what that costs,

but I can tell you about 10 years ago there was

an expert on the stand that I'm asking questions

this expert's under oath and they said,

well,

you know the average cost is around a billion

dollars.

Let's say it's half that,

let's say it's $500 million.

Oh,

let's say it's $500 million.

Let's say it's a tenth of

That let's say,

it's a hundred million dollars.

Well,

you tell me what natural health product would ever

go through that process.

You don't have intellectual property rights if

you're a chemical with a patent.

I use Viagra as an example because when Viagra

first came out,

you know it it cost 40-50 dollars a pill,

and that's,

you know,

what 10-15-20 years ago when that was a meaningful

amount of money.

And it would be a news story; it was so expensive

well,

it was so expensive because A) it was in demand,

with their marketing,

and B) no one else could make it.

Now,

it's not expensive at all because anyone the patent

has expired,

and the you know Anyone can make sidenafil,

that's the drug name is actually sidenafil.

It's just that Pfizer marketed it under the Viagra

brand name.

But it's sidenafil so now Pfizer can get sidenafil

or Viagra through the new drug approval process

because they know if they succeed,

it doesn't matter how many billions and billions of

dollars it might have cost they're going to get

that back tenfold.

And in fact,

they know a certain number of drugs will not get

through the process and that's just the cost of

doing business because it's so lucrative.

But if you came up with a better natural health

alternative,

you could never.

Get through the process,

because you don't have intellectual property rights,

you can't get through the process.

So,

hey,

you're not going to spend your own money,

because as soon as you get it approved,

anyone can make the same thing and you'll never be

able to charge enough to get your money back; and

if you don't have the money,

you'll never raise the money from investors,

so we mean we'll go through this process and we'll

never get our money back,

because anyone can just do that.

That's the effect of our law.

Now,

what's so interesting about this self-care framework

that you had mentioned is what it's really about;

it's it's About extending this model,

where it's illegal to treat serious health

conditions with anything that didn't have

intellectual property rights,

and trying to impose that not as strictly but

trying to impose that for moderate health conditions

and minor health conditions.

Because you know right now,

even though it's a total train wreck compared to

what it was before the natural health product

regulations,

there's still a lot of products out there that are

effective,

like natural products.

Obviously,

there's no patents,

and a lot of companies have survived this

transition into this this licensing scheme where you

can Only sell a natural health product if Health

Canada has licensed you,

granted you permission.

You've gone through this process now.

The interesting thing is: when you look at our

natural health product regulations,

it just says you have to apply for a license and

go through this licensing process.

It doesn't limit the types of claims; it doesn't

say you couldn't apply for a license for heart

disease; it doesn't say you can't apply for

bipolar.

But Health Canada is applying it as only applying

to what we would call 'structure function'

claims.

For example,

you know True Hope Empowered Plus,

which I mean I've run several trials.

Involving that product,

you can't; you could not convince me that it's not

the best treatment you can for a parent.

But I've done several trials,

including in the world,

for bipolar disorder.

You know I've had psychiatrists and experts tell me

that,

and I'm even aware of one former head of the

Natural Product Directorate telling one of the

founders of True Hope: 'We know it works.' And I

mean I've had Health Canada experts change their

mind when they looked at the evidence.

So,

but the point I'm making is: is they can't apply

under the Natural Health Product Regulations to get

approval to treat bipolar disorder even.

Though Health Canada knows it works,

they have to go through this new drug approval

process,

so I think the claim they're licensed for is is

so milquetoast it's like 'support mental health and

well-being' or something like that.

Yeah,

we're super limited with the language for sure

that's a structure function claim,

so it's only legal to sell the product to support

mental health and well-being,

not bipolar.

This is how that I was going to say censorship,

but this is how the control has been imposed.

There was this huge citizen rebellion to get the

natural products regulations,

you would have missed this,

Simon,

but they were Basically,

going to impose the chemical drug regulations onto

natural products.

I just have to stop and smile and say,

'Well,

this self-care framework that the natural product

industry is not getting excited about and the

consumer is not getting excited about' - it's yet

another attempt to impose the chemical drug

regulations on the natural products.

But this was happening years and years ago in the

mid-90s.

Health Canada started taking product after product

after product off the market,

saying,

'You,

you,

you're not complying with the chemical drug

regulations.' Well,

I mean,

you couldn't,

you couldn't comply - even if You tried to comply,

by and large,

you couldn't,

so people rebelled.

I mean,

we're talking it was a huge consumer rebellion.

A lawsuit was started.

Health Canada backed down on the the eve of this

lawsuit and said,

fine,

we've listened.

You know,

Health Minister Alan Rock at the time says,

oh,

we've listened,

and so he refers the matter to the Standing

Committee of Health that you know had a really

good hard look at this and come out with 53

recommendations.

Now when you ask a parliamentary committee to come

up with a solution,

the solution is always more law and regulation not

more freedom.

But even,

you know,

bearing in mind you're asking The wrong people to

come up with a solution,

you know it wasn't that bad.

What some of the recommendations were pretty good,

you know,

and they definitely were supporting freedom of

choice and not imposing chem I mean they made it

really clear it is just not appropriate to impose

chemical drug regulations on natural products because

it's apples and oranges,

it's a different paradigm.

So then Health Canada comes out with these natural

product regulations which I'm sorry,

they are chemical drug regulations they're just

watered down.

That's absolutely the same: you need an

establishment license; you need a product license.

blah blah you you just changed the word natural

health product to chemical drug up the penalties

and the procedures and you tell me what the

difference is so we already have this model imposed

on us where now all of a sudden it's illegal to

treat people with chemicals and natural health

products in you know without getting health canada

approval so this self-care framework is a re

-engagement of that original plan basically yes it

is can i just interrupt and say is can you hear

the water running outside my wife just turned the

water on and i could go and ask her to turn it

off no i think you're good okay okay we're good

okay

Sorry about that,

no problem!

That interjection,

so um,

now where were we going?

So we're talking about structure function claims.

It's a really good question and I think it's a

very good question.

I think we're getting to that now what's happening

with this self-care framework is that Health Canada

is saying well,

we're going to phase in a new,

new set of regulations,

a new way of doing things for natural health

products.

In their original timetable,

it would have already happened; we'd already be

fully there,

but COVID forced them to push it back,

and you can just go on their website and find the

dates - I don't recall exactly.

What they are,

off the top of my head,

but this year,

all that was supposed to happen right now,

in the spring,

that didn't,

um,

was you know again,

involving labeling and stuff,

stuff that that isn't good,

but nobody's going to get totally excited about.

But the really fun bits,

and I hope especially if there are any

practitioners or manufacturers but out there to

listen,

is one of the fun bits.

It is right now,

if you are going to license a natural health

product,

you're going to ask Health Canada for permission to

help people.

Then you can use traditional use evidence.

So let's say scurvy was a problem.

Well,

we all know limes cure scurvy,

I mean oranges.

would too but basically vitamin c and we could

rely even on the british naval records as evidence

and then traditional use evidence flowing from that

once they figured out the problem and the solution

you know we could use that evidence or you know

in traditional chinese medicine well i mean their

knowledge base we're not measured in centuries we're

over a thousand years they can use that to get

licensed under the self-care framework that's going

to be gone that's crazy okay gone for proving

efficacy in a very narrow field it can be used to

support safety but you have to prove to health

canada that you're product does

what you say it does so here you know let's use

traditional chinese medicine an example you've got

you know 1200 years of you know use and effective

use i mean the only reason it continues to be

used is because it works yeah yeah i mean if it's

not working they would stop using it right so

people do what work especially when you're getting

paid to help somebody as a practitioner you want

them to come back the next time so you're going

to do what works and you know you're not going to

be able to do that anymore so what do i do just

listen yeah sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry to interrupt

but just let me you are now going to have to use

the exact

Same type of evidence as the chemical

over-the-counter drugs,

now that's not as strict as the prescription; this

new drug approval process for serious things,

but it's way stricter than we have now for natural

health products.

It doesn't mean that you know just because you you

have to run,

have some clinical evidence it doesn't mean that's

better evidence.

In fact,

experts will argue that's worse evidence.

But we choose that type of evidence deliberately as

the government,

so that we can control what people have in this

paradigm; science in the area of health regulation

is the weapon to ensure that only chemical drugs

are Used to treat people,

so it's kind of funny because the scientific method

is meant to be freeing but it's the weapon to

keep people safe.

So I'm going to put that in the chat for now and

I've finished that thought.

I'm so sorry for interrupting; no,

of course that is an important point.

Okay,

Sean,

so in regards to now having a natural health

product,

so say I've got this pre-existing natural health

product and you know it's going out to the public

and people are using it,

you know it's popular.

But now these new frameworks come in and you can

no longer use traditional evidence to what to

warrant that product.

Do I with my pre-existing

Product do I have to now reprove it to be

effective or if I want to produce a brand new

product on the market,

I have to go through new hoops,

yes,

yes,

you do,

so I mean that's the whole point is is is what

they're saying is is you know it's it's unfair.

Let's ignore remember I told you the static

committee of health when they looked into this

issue one of the things they got right was saying

it's not appropriate to regulate a natural product

the same way as a novel chemical,

and so let's not impose that on it.

I mean let's just even take for for chemicals,

so you know white willow bark is used for pain

control,

so bear comes along and Okay,

so we know this works really well what is it?

Oh,

it's a molecule very similar to ASA,

well let's take that molecule and we're going to

take that molecule and we're going to take that

molecule and we're molecule and tweak it a little

bit.

Now it's a synthetic molecule called ASA and we

patent it and we go through this drug approval

process and we get it approved.

And now we can sell aspirin,

ASA for,

you know,

pain reduction.

Well,

it causes gastrointestinal bleeding and this and

that and all these other things.

And I'm not knocking ASA,

but White Willow Bark does the same thing as well

without those side effects.

Now,

any sane regulator would say,

well,

no,

actually you can't sell the chemical because yeah,

it works.

It reduces pain,

but look at the side effects.

But if we use the natural molecule bound up with

other things that are in the White Willow Bark,

we get the same effect,

but without the side effects.

So you can't use the chemical drug,

but no,

we actually do it opposite.

Yeah.

The chemical drug gets licensed.

You,

you,

nobody's going to run clinical trials on White

Willow Bark because there's no patent protection,

intellectual right protection.

And so now it becomes illegal to use White Willow

Bark.

And,

and then the regulatory body comes along with the

support of the chemical companies and say,

it's not fair for natural practitioners to use

things like White Willow Bark,

because there's just simply not the clinical

evidence.

Just ignoring that the only reason the isolated ASA

in the first place was it worked so well.

And so,

so the natural one doesn't,

and I,

you know,

I've picked White Willow Bark as an example.

It's kind of funny because the UK government had

done a big study on this gastro bleeding because

for people that have had heart disease,

you know,

that baby aspirin a day appears to really help.

I'm not an expert on that,

but I,

you know,

I've heard it; really helps,

but the UK government,

just a study and finds White Willow Bark has the

same beneficial effect,

but without the risks of the bleeding in your gut.

So,

you know,

why wouldn't every regulatory body just say,

you know,

go after the colleges of physicians and surgeons

and say,

no,

no,

you can tell your patients to use White Willow

Bark,

but not,

not maybe.

It sounds like they're looking for just evidence

that it works relatively well.

like it has to show some sort of effectiveness but

they don't look really or take into consideration

that there are side effects to it because yeah but

getting back to your question which actually was is

you know our manufacturer's gonna have to reapply

so let's use white willow bark as an example

whereas now under traditional use evidence you could

get white willow bark licensed for some structure

function claim that you know helps reduce pain or

something right you can and you can go in a

health food store right now and buy white willow

bark for that purpose but when the self-care

framework is in no no no you can't use traditional

use evidence so when you go to relicense you're

going to have to have some form of scientific

clinical evidence showing that white

Willow bark works now,

actually ironically,

in the case of white willow bark that evidence

likely is there,

even though it's not traditional use evidence,

so um,

I mean,

even just this UK study that I suggested.

But for a lot of products that evidence is not

going to be there and then you're hooped unless

you're going to pay for clinical trial evidence

that Health Canada wants and the levels of evidence

they want will vary depending on the type of

product and the type of use.

But it's becoming,

it will become more stricter.

And what's even more troubling,

if any practitioner or you know healthcare

practitioner,

so you know traditional Chinese medicine doctor,

naturopath,

herbalist,

nutritionist anyone that relies on natural health

products now in their practice,

pay attention to what I'm going to say.

These are in Health Canada's own documents,

so I'm part of a group called the Natural Health

Product Protection Association and if anyone wants

to find us,

our website is nhppa.org.

We have a discussion paper and we're going to talk

a little bit more about that,

and we're going to talk a little bit more about

the Health Canada framework,

if you want to get into more detail.

But one thing that's that's just incredible and

yet,

you know,

people aren't up in arms.

About it is,

they've made it clear in the Health Canada

documents that a self-care product is not a product

for which a person would seek the advice of a

healthcare practitioner licensed by a province; now,

that includes medical doctors but includes your

traditional Chinese practitioners,

your naturopathic doctors,

herbalists,

as I say,

you know,

the list goes on.

So if I'm a naturopathic doctor,

what am I going to use to treat my patients?

Because we're going to lose the natural health

product regulations; we may still call them the

natural product regulations,

we may not for political reasons.

Health Canada's trying

was trying to calm people down and succeeded when

really nhppa was the only one raising the alarm

saying wait a second this self-care framework is

going to be a train wreck for access to products

and oh by the way if you're a professional like a

naturopathic doctor they're saying well even though

we're imposing all these strict standards of

evidence a self-care product is not a product for

which someone would seek the advice of a health

care practitioner so that means you're in the more

strict area of drug approval so you see i said at

the beginning of the interview right now it is

basically illegal to treat a serious

Health condition with anything that didn't have

patent protection.

Now,

we're moving down to a moderate and you know

almost totally meaninglessly minor where we're

requiring likely patent protection because the

process is going to become so expensive to get

approval; but you're not getting approval under this

self-care framework,

so you're not getting approval under this self-care

framework,

which is still going to be dramatically worse than

what we have now for anything for which you would

seek the advice of a health care practitioner.

That's that's now just your most minor things; even

for the most minor.

Things are a train wreck,

but I mean the number of professional products that

are going to survive are going to be few and

that's the plan.

They don't want people like me; I'm hoping now.

As of August 6,

2021,

if I said it a year ago,

you know I hope that people might understand that

our governments really are watching for interests

that necessarily aren't the interests of the

citizens.

Well,

maybe people might some people might believe me now

because it's it's pretty clear in today's world

that individual rights and freedoms really aren't

meaningless.

Well,

they've been meaningless for a long time.

And in the drug

Approval process they've been meaningless for over a

century,

yeah that's that's wild.

And I think,

and the primary difference between the conventional

medical model and and complementary alternative

medicine is is that,

because a naturopath is going to there are

obviously some naturopaths that can prescribe

pharmaceuticals but they're primarily going to be

going to the natural world in regards to using

organic care absolutely so in let's just use

British Columbia as an example because that's where

you're you are right now,

naturopathic doctors there's actually a list of um

drugs prescription Drugs that they can write

prescriptions for in their regulations,

so they have a specific set.

But you,

and I both know that the majority of their

practice is using natural remedies to treat

conditions.

And I have the highest respect for the naturopathic

doctor tradition,

so.

And I'm worried because I'm not sure if I'm going

to be able to do that because I use naturopathic

doctors; their ability to help me when I have a

problem it is going to be so circumscribed that

it's just crazy or they're just they're breaking

the law and yeah,

so.

It's just it's it's just not helpful at all what's

coming down the pipe do you see.

This type of um government overreach,

um,

across most nations?

Or do you see,

in other countries,

where you're looking at the evidence for natural

health products in the way that we we would expect

our regulatory bodies to,

to do so?

Do you have much experience with that?

I'm actually not sure that I understood your

question and I think the problem wasn't with your

question but you know when somebody's asking a

question you start thinking 'how'

to answer it and I didn't catch that so can you

just ask it again and oh certainly of course,

yeah.

So basically do you see other governments around

the world,

maybe specifically?

In the Western world,

doing similar things in regards to creating their

own self-care frameworks and do,

yeah,

so and do we see do we see some countries who

are you know looking towards natural health products

even first and you know not not um holding them

to the same clinical standards as chemical medicine

you know like it's there's a big difference between

the two of them and and and the governments know

this and Health Canada knows this,

but you know they're trying they're trying to put

one into the same box and it's there's only got

one purpose,

it's to squeeze one of them completely out of the

game,

you know,

we've just Watched in the last year and a half,

almost the entire world.

Every government,

almost every government,

is doing the exact same things in response to

COVID.

I was going to call it 'I,

I,

I' just,

I have to bite my tongue if that doesn't tell you

that our health practices are coordinated above the

government level.

I,

I just don't know what will,

and the self-care framework is totally part of this

harmonization as we move to towards this new world

order where we have one set of laws that apply to

everyone.

In fact,

someone did a an access to information request but

how did this self-care framework come about and it

really was just a handful.

A few bureaucrats with no expertise in the

regulation of natural health products at all,

who had just come back from an international

conference and you know,

I haven't,

we haven't spoken yet about you know the changes

coming to exports of drugs,

including natural health products.

But that comes straight out of our you know,

international trade obligations.

And there's been change after change in the Food

and Drug Act and regulations all in response to us

harmonizing and Canada's at the forefront,

like you want the new world order order poster boy

company,

that's Canada.

We're we're as locked into this as any country we.

Just any drug and trade agreement,

it doesn't matter whether it's good for Canadian

citizens.

We're on board full force.

You tell me when we haven't signed and you know

we're at the forefront of so this is this is yes

this is our drug policy isn't going to deviate

from what those creating the brave new world want.

In fact,

we're not going to deviate from what those creating

the brave new world want.

In fact,

we're at the forefront at it.

I would say we're the most aggressive so and most

of the western nations are similar.

And now have you know the USA they had their big

rebellion in the early 90s too.

And and it it so scared the politicians.

They passed what was called the Dietary Supplement

Health and Education Act of 1994,

and it classifies natural health products; they call

them dietary supplements as food,

you not as drugs.

So,

we're not even talking about the drug model now.

They have to have good manufacturing practices and

stuff like that,

and they submit their claim to the FDA,

and if there's no objection after I think it is

30 days,

then you can market your natural product.

And the FDA is supposed to have actual evidence of

harm before you know they start bugging you to

take it off the market or or make changes,

but we're the opposite; it's illegal,

basically.

do anything without health canada's approval and you

know if they're unhappy at all with you know even

the most minor transgression it's it's off the

market and and with a vengeance so but i mean

even but they're now planning on moving to our

model which is really the international chemical

drug regulation model because the whole object is

listen we are not we think we're human beings that

we're not human beings that we're sovereign then we

have control over our bodies well i i'm sorry we

don't and in the area of drug regulation we don't

and it's so clear to anyone who looks and if if

you don't have the right to choose how

you treat your body then you we might as well put

cattle takes in our ears because when you are

suffering from a serious mental or mental or

physical illness and you're really suffering and

none of the approved drugs work you can't even be

told of other options and other options aren't

available because they're taken off the market like

let's use em power plus as an example when you

know what was it 15 years ago 20 years ago when

health canada charges true hope criminally i don't

even remember it was so long ago they were having

a criminal trial health canada is trying to get

true hope convicted for selling em power plus

Because Health Canada told them you can't take it

off; you can't sell it; you don't have a license,

and this is before the NHP regulations right so

you couldn't get a license.

And psychiatrists after psychiatrists and doctor

after doctor,

and patient after patient was writing and calling

the Minister of Health saying,

'Do not take this off the market.' People rely on

it for their very lives.

At the trial,

the judge found that True Hope was selling without

a license,

but acquitted them; didn't convict them,

acquitted them because it was legally necessary for

them to continue to provide e-empower plus or there

would have been more Deaths there were deaths when

people couldn't access the product.

I called Ron Lash,

and s as a witness he was a witness; he had been

the president of the Canadian Mental Health

Association,

Alberta branch,

and he held press conferences every time there was

a death or suicide because people ran out.

There were deaths.

This was life-and-death.

Now,

yeah,

let's say one of my kids has,

yes,

serious bipolar disorder,

and is in that cohort where you know your lifespan

you're lucky if you're here five years from now

because you're just going to suicide.

Like the numbers are atrocious for people in

certain cohorts,

and all of the approved drugs that Health Canada

says we have permission to to use this drug,

none of them work and and they don't for that

cohort which is why,

you know,

five years is a long lifespan once you're in it,

they don't or these people would be living for you

know normal lifespans.

And I go to a health food store looking for

answers and there's the Empower+ sitting on the

shelf and I pick up that bottle and I read:

'Supports mental health and well-being.'

I put that bottle back; that's not what I'm

looking for.

It doesn't say anything about people bipolar

disorder.

I mean,

you'll have to tell me how many published,

peer-reviewed studies involving Clinical trials are

there with the Empower Plus 40,

like I don't even know anymore.

36,

36,

36.

It's illegal for or for true hope to share that

with me,

the parent that's looking for an answer.

I could have literally been holding in my hand the

product that would save my child's life and I

can't be told about it.

And even if I knew,

it's illegal for me to use it to treat bipolar

disorder.

Now,

if that isn't a sick world then I don't know what

is.

And I mean,

it's not long before they're not going to use the

yellow stars because they used that during the

second world war for the Jewish people and they're

not going to use it to treat people.

So,

I just hope that the symbol that we have to wear

on our arms - people who are unvaccinated have to

wear on their arms,

a is you know an attractive color and a decent

shape,

but you know,

we're in such bad shape.

It's so obvious now that that uh,

we're viewed as animals and we're,

you know,

in the area of health,

we're here to be sick under an allopathic model,

and we're here to generate a lot of money,

and money is power.

So,

but,

but,

the drug rate is going to be really bad doesn't

influence people,

and we're,

we're really trying to find a effective way of

living system that we can work with uh,

with the drug right,

and so I think it's because you have this Russia

by way of education now that you're you've got a

threat in the family is going to let people get

home to this you know normal living middle class

people with conventional housing uh receive full

state assistance but have to go they don't even

need the second world order they're just glad they

got this now we can afford to live in whatever

the for a short period of time been in such

discomfort that i've had those thoughts you know if

this was going to go on for months or months or

years like i think i'd end it you know like i

think a lot of people have been you know that odd

time where it's just pain was too much um

That if it was going to be a permanent disability,

you know,

disability type thing,

yeah,

and do you mean I can't try anything I want,

like it's my body,

I'm the one suffering?

You mean the government,

some bureaucrat,

can tell me I can't try something to alleviate my

suffering?

Really,

that's the law in Canada.

I've got a question for you,

Sean.

So,

in regards to the self-care framework,

which was clearly when they came up with that

name,

they probably spent a lot of time trying to figure

that out what was trending.

But um,

you know,

effectively this is taking away from the self-care

framework,

which is clearly when they came up with that name.

They,

the choice,

and moving money from small and medium-sized natural

health companies to the pharmaceutical industry.

Do you think that there are people working for

Health Canada,

Canada,

who actually believe this type of framework is

beneficial to Canadians?

Um,

I-I want to address this in two ways: first of

all,

I want to address the self-care framework,

you know,

term okay.

And then whether or not there are Health Canada

believers.

I don't know how they came up with the term,

but you know,

how in George Orwell's 1984,

he made it so clear how language is important and

we're actually seeing,

you know,

in our world,

language becoming important.

And being used as as a weapon to actually limit

even the concepts that we we can think of,

so what's dangerous,

I don't know whether they they saw what was

trending or not,

but it is very dangerous to now refer to natural

health products as self-care products because what

Health Canada wants is,

let's stop calling them natural health products;

we'll call them self-care products,

which really just means anything over the counter

right that you don't need the advice of a doctor

or any other healthcare practitioner,

that you could just pick up the bottle.

So,

we're really talking about minor pain control,

sore throat,

fungus,

and so on.

On your like,

minor things right,

yeah.

But if we start thinking of natural health products

as self-care products the same as the chemicals

now; now we don't have natural products as a

separate group and so grouping them together as a

deliberate language attempt to get us to stop

thinking about natural health products differently

because they are different than chemicals and that's

a means of controlling us and controlling the

dialogue.

Because now we're talking about um,

just over-the-counter products self-care products

well,

certainly they should have the same standards of

evidence,

shouldn't they?

Do you see what

I just did,

sure we have this group of products.

Why would one one product in there have a

different standard?

I mean you don't have a lower standard of evidence

for that product.

Let's go back to scurvy as an example and let's

say scurvy somehow became a problem again.

Well,

a pharmaceutical company could do that,

and they could do that,

and they could do that,

and they could do that,

and they could come out with some you know pill

that's high in vitamin C,

but it's got a couple of other things maybe some

tweaked chemical that really is meaningless,

but they've got the clinical trial evidence and now

it's licensed to treat scurvy um,

but it's safe.

Enough,

it can be over the counter.

Well,

you and I could never bottle lime juice and sell

it for scurvy,

because we're not going to get through that

process,

and we have to go to the same place.

They're both self-care products; what,

why would we be subject to a lower standard of

evidence than that?

And so,

we're not going to let that person answer that

question.

So how could that be better,

you know?

And I don't at the point in the investigation,

you know,

we don't know what the answer is.

This product can be agreed upon; you know,

we don't even know that.

That's what we need to do,

you know,

that there's no chance we're going to be able to

because you have ups of products.

what we can't do we can't unfortunately speaking ag

applause and what we're going to get back to that

point is it's it's it's hard to Porachtu want to

that's what we're doing and um we're doing a good

job of it in it's in fact i don't be my goal um

but it's going to be slightly different really

certainly it's strong boom it's was good thank

youShould have highly ? unpeare to answer those uh

comments that burning it to others and then we got

to over time people just you know they're not

going to go and get a self-care product to fix

something well by creating this umbrella term they

have now they have now created the dialogue now

We're talking about the standards of evidence for

self-care products,

we're not we're not talking about no,

you can call the chemicals this,

but natural products are are completely different

and,

and we're not having the same dialogue for things

that are completely different,

and but the the language is part of the control,

and people have to start understanding the language

is part of the control,

as we're upending all of our cultural norms and

all of our language,

you know,

to be inclusive,

and all of this well,

you know,

those thoughts might be important,

but understand the ramifications of undermining a

culture that Is the basis of our society and do

that carefully but this is part of the control

mechanism; this self-care framework term.

Now let me get back to the second your real

question or your second question was basically,

'Do are the Health Canada people believers?' And a

thought just jumped into my head that you know

some will be and some won't be,

and it'll depend on the context.

I can tell you that in my life I've been in the

health care framework for a long time; I've been

in the health care framework for a long time; I've

been in the health care framework for a long time;

and I've been practicing.

I run a lot of interference for companies.

That Health Canada is attacking primarily natural

health product companies,

and the inspectors that I deal with are true

believers.

It's scary; it is scary,

like I mean.

I think Canadians would be better off if every

employee of Health Canada was in jail,

and you know we're just arguing about for how

long.

Well,

it's a criminal organization right that is based

upon us being farm animals,

and we're just arguing about for how long.

Well,

it's a criminal organization right that is based

upon us being farm animals with no sovereignty over

our own bodies,

and it's enforced religiously.

I mean,

I had it was actually in the True Hope trial.

I won't name her,

but there's a Health Canada inspector on the stand

and I'm cross-examining her and I'm trying to set

her up to get to a specific point,

and so I'm asking her questions,

I'm just expecting yeses from all these questions,

and now I've circled around and I can I can get

her into this you know this box that she wouldn't

be able to get into,

and so I'm asking her questions,

I'm just expecting yeses from all these questions

and so I'm asking her questions,

I'm just expecting yeses from all these questions,

wanting to go to even though she'll be answering

truthfully when she agrees with me,

and one of want to go to even though.

She'll be answering truthfully when she agrees with

me,

and one of the questions was something like,

'Well,

you know,

your Health Canada inspector,

and Health Canada is there to protect our health.'

I didn't get a yes,

and the explanation that I eventually got was,

'Well,

no,

we're there to enforce the law,

the Food and Drug Act,

and regulations.

Well,

when you think about that,

and you look at the Food and Drug Act and

regulations,

Health Canada is not the Food and Drug Act.

You show me in there where it says Health Canada

is to promote health or protect health; they're

there to enforce the Food and Drug Act and

regulations,

and the food and drug Act and regulations are

there to protect intellectual property rights,

and ensure that nobody; no serious health conditions

are treated with anything that didn't have patent

protection when it went through the drug approval

process,

that's the effect.

And so the effect isn't an accident; they can't

write that into the law.

But you know,

when you're challenging the laws for being

unconstitutional,

the courts were smart enough to figure out: like a

law can violate charter rights without expressly

saying so.

So let's say,

you know,

like right now I think it's Ontario is about to

pass a law saying you have to be vaccinated to

vote.

Can I'm not making this up right,

I think it's Ontario,

wow,

so yeah,

so but let's say the law said well,

you have to uh your skin hue has to have a

certain radiance,

i.e.,

you're white or you can't vote,

or you have to be mailed a vote.

I mean we've had laws like this in the past.

Well,

a court can look at that and go yeah,

on the face of the law,

that's discriminatory and therefore violates you know

our equality rights.

But sometimes laws don't come out and say that,

and yet the effect is that.

So let's say we're living in a milieu where really

only white people are wealthy,

well if you pass the law saying well you have to

have a certain amount of property To be able to

vote,

oh that's interesting.

You have to have real property to be a senator.

Interesting,

but let's say we had a law you had to have a

certain amount of property to vote and it was

written that way and it was written that way so

that primarily only white people could vote.

Well,

the law when the court looks at it it doesn't say

that,

but the effect is that and so,

the court will strike it down because you'll show

what the the effect is that right?

So,

the effect of a law is usually not by accident;

when we've been regulating this way for over 100

years,

in the area of food and drug,

and the effect is,

it is illegal to treat a Sears'

health condition with something that didn't have a

patent when it went through the process that's

intended,

that's our law; the law is how it works out on

the ground and that's how it works out on the

ground.

The law in Canada is it's illegal to use natural

treatments to treat serious health conditions,

full stop.

And that's a policy decision imposed on the

government by those who are revealing themselves

now,

but Health Canada - the inspectors I deal with

almost to a T - are true believers and they go

after these companies with a vengeance; they believe

they're helping people,

it's scary.

They believe they're.

Helping people,

but when you say our health Canada true believers

I don't know,

but I would be so surprised,

I would be so surprised if the drug approval

scientists in Health Canada are vaccinated for

COVID.

Sure,

oh my gosh!

If anyone wants to bet on that one,

I'm in,

yeah wow...

Um,

do you see any correlation between this proposed

self-care framework and how it's clearly going to

shift a lot of money towards pharmaceutical

companies just by getting rid of natural health

products and the businesses that produce them,

and how obsessed Canada is with pushing vaccines

and not promoting alternative well-researched safer

preventative Treatments that money shifts,

yeah those are those are different questions,

so let me,

I'm not sure I can act answer the second

meaningfully but the first,

I'm sure I can.

So,

and I think this is about more than money,

but it's certainly about money,

like if you want to talk about money,

you talk about drugs for serious health conditions

that don't treat cure the condition but just treat

the symptoms for life.

I mean the money involved is just so scary,

it's it is crazy and so it's so it's so much and

so so crazy that it would make people do and say

crazy things.

Well,

money can money can influence a lot of things and

a lot of money can influence a lot of things and

and we we all know that yeah but what's

interesting about the area of natural health

products is so you know when we have our consumer

rebellion in the early 90s and and the government's

forced to you know to to to to to to to to to

to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

to to to to to regulate natural health products

with a soft version of the chemical drug

regulations which we call the nhp regs but they

they truly are just a mirror of the drug regs and

an imposition of that model when we had that

consumer rebellion we had a lot of small companies

we had a lot of small natural product companies

because the regulatory

Burden wasn't so onerous,

and,

you know,

I can back up and say I've never heard anyone say

that I've never heard anyone say that I've never

heard anyone in the natural health product industry

say there shouldn't be,

you know,

appropriate good manufacturing practices and and

stuff like that,

but,

like,

not overkill for the small guys,

right?

Like,

you know,

you're a national brand that ships to every

province,

and you know,

you're dealing with 1,500 or 2,500 stores,

and you know,

you had an adulterated product; yeah,

your safety recall procedure better be complicated

because you've got to somehow,

you've got to already know you've got to already

know you've got to already know you've got to

already know who you're dealing with and what your

shipments are and so we're doing this this this

but you know you're the little herb shop and oh i

might have a problem with this product your recall

your recall policy is is to get a cardboard box

from the back go to the shelf and take the

product off and and put it in the back you you

don't need a five page you know standard operating

procedure for that and you don't need to kill

companies by you know bringing in consultants and

charging 100 grand to write you know a book and

you know you're not going to be able to do that

you're not going to be able to do that,

you're not going to be able to write these like

that's overkill.

So but nobody,

nobody is worried about reasonable regulations.

But what's happened so we've had these regulations

imposed and you know we had said this is even

before the NHPPA formed um but definitely once we

formed we've been saying it and I've been saying

it before the NHPPA formed and I even I remember

uh it was the Fraser Institute,

I think her name was Cynthia Ramsey,

did a um a piece called 'A Cure'.

We're going to talk about that in a little bit,

but we're going to talk about that in a little.

bit but we're going to talk about that in a

little bit just on the economic impacts of these

new regulations just saying you're going to drive

the small and and the smaller medium companies out

of business and do you know what's happened we

drove the small and medium-sized companies out of

business and then as we got you know a

consolidation then a bigger companies do you know

what's happened to many of them they were purchased

do you want to guess by who you tell me

pharmaceutical companies and so now we had this

industry with a whole lot of little companies and

mid-sized companies that you know when changes were

coming

down the pipe my gosh they um they would be up

in arms and get their customers up in arms and

and things would happen but the bigger companies

supported these changes in fact um i think it was

the university of calgary i'll have it somewhere in

my documents and like likely a copy of my computer

where before the nhp regulations came into force

they were surveying different manufacturers and they

grouped them into small medium and large and well

what are your thoughts on these new regs and the

small and medium we hate them and the big the big

ones were and they even quoted one it was

something like well stop taking so long to

implement this it's going to drive our competition

out of business just do it now well think about

your big company and especially if you're

incorporated you now actually have an ethical

obligation to increase the value and ethical and

ethical you have a fiduciary duty to your

shareholders to do what's good for their pocketbook

and if that means supporting regulations that

they're going to lead to deaths they're going to

do it every day of the week and they have but

our our company is going to survive this and then

grow and be worth more you're actually obligated to

support it well that's now the norm in our

industry

Yeah,

so the big players they hate people like me who

actually are concerned about people's health and

people's rights to treat themselves having

sovereignty over their bodies.

I'm their enemy,

and you know it.

So take the Natural Health Product Association for

example nobody funds us anymore.

The big companies aren't going to fund us because

we want people to have health rights.

Yeah,

and the average person,

I mean,

we have you know the average person sends us you

know twenty dollars,

fifty dollars,

and stuff like that,

but really not many.

And you know how do you function and get the

message out?

We can keep finding ourselves.

Because I'm sorry,

you have to have staff doing stuff,

yeah,

or nothing gets done,

you know.

And so I'm sorry,

you have to have staff doing stuff; it's done.

We have periods of time where we just have to go

into almost pure hibernation because we're starved

of resources,

and that's because the culture has changed as these

regulations came in,

and the industry's now consolidated into larger

ones.

So,

the irony is,

is that a large part of the natural health product

community,

the companies will support this; these changes,

yeah,

they're awful for the consumer,

they're awful for your personal sovereignty,

and they're awful for your health.

So it's um yeah it's it's it's really shocking

it's one of the things that just grieves me to no

end is is how the natural health community has

transitioned from small to large and the loss of

culture there and and I'll just say you know when

I first started um practicing in the area of

natural health and I never planned to get into it

just ironically I acted for Health Canada against a

herbalist named Jim Strauss I think it was back in

1994 he was a little herbalist in Kamloops he's

deceased now but Strauss Herb Company still makes

these heart drops he um he was an electrical

engineer working for BC Hydro and he had a heart

attack

and he's rushed to the hospital and he's told he

needs a double or triple bypass and he's he showed

me a couple of times and i'm like oh my god i'm

going to copy of his angiogram i mean he had one

totally blocked and others almost totally blocked

and and he just he that idea just frightened him

and his family had been traditional herbalists in

europe for 400 years and his grandparents had

taught him like so he'd be dragged out in the

forest tasting the herbs and and so he knew he

knew right so um so he developed the heart drops

just for himself he didn't and he never did have

the bypass and he i he probably lived that would

have been

I don't even remember when,

but I mean he probably lived 30 years after that

and very healthy.

And then he decided,

'Well,

I better,

I better start selling these.' So he quit his job

with BC Hydro,

he starts You Know A Small Little Herb Shop,

Natural Way Herbs,

in Kamloops,

I remember still on Tranquille Street.

You'd go in there and you couldn't get out of

there with him giving you a cup of tea and,

uh,

and you would smell of herbs because he'd just

have all these bulk raw herbs around.

But back to my story: He's basically importing

herbs from the United States that are perfectly

legal; not a single one of them is illegal to

import,

but health canada so hates this guy because he's

saying i treat heart disease right that they seize

the herbs at the border and he's suing them to

get his herbs back and i end up being the guy

acting for health canada against him have his thing

thrown out of court because he was in the wrong

court i and and he just was he wasn't gonna go

anywhere anyway but i'm ashamed today um truly

ashamed because i i basically was the front person

to allow the government to get away with theft and

i'm now of the opinion that you know and i deal

primarily with health canada's bureaucracies but um

they do not respect the law at all they they will

repeatedly

Violate the law,

as they're telling you that you have to comply

with the law to the letter or or they'll destroy

you.

Now I'm just getting back to where I want to go

because I'm talking about how it was the natural

health community was little people,

so here at the Star Surf Company,

health problem solution.

I have to sell this to people after after the Jim

Strauss thing,

I start my own firm; he gets charged criminally

with practicing medicine without a license as

another attempt to try and shut him down,

and he hires me,

and and he he's not convicted.

And then my phone starts ringing,

and back then,

I don't think I had a single client that Their

business wasn't started because either them or a

close family member had a serious health condition

that could not be solved by the approved

treatments,

so they just suffered for years.

You know,

facing death,

they came across a natural solution that so

revolutionized their life or their family's life,

that well,

we have to provide this to others like they're

literally there to help people.

And then,

with Health Canada was shutting them down because

they weren't in compliance and couldn't be in

compliance.

I would have people crying on the phone and I

actually couldn't get them to understand Health

Canada's

Position because they'd be crying and saying,

'like',

but we're helping people to them the letter of the

law didn't matter; we're helping people.

You mean people have to die and suffer,

and it was heartbreaking,

yeah.

And like,

take true hope in power plus that was started

because one of the founders' child was needing to

be institutionalized for a mental health condition,

yeah,

and they wanted an answer.

It's just phenomenal that that uh these institutions

go after such such small businesses,

usually just like one or two individuals; it's like

you know,

it's like it's like it's such a crazy big threat

that they have.

To spend this money,

these resources,

and taxpayers' monies to uh,

to do all these things,

but but what's even worse is before the NHP

regulations,

we had products like Empower Plus developed,

like Strauss Heart Drops developed,

like Recovery developed.

None of those products are being developed now

under our new regulations.

You know,

what big blockbuster has come out to save lives

and change the world since the NHP regulations?

Yeah,

that's a very good point,

and so how many lives are being lost because

people are no longer free to try things?

You know what you're trying,

a bunch a combination of vitamins or minerals or

some...

you know?

Plants that are in our food supply because there's

suggestions from traditional use that might be good

for this,

but let's say we we combine and experiment well,

you know what used to be the TOC,

der das ist der Troende als die ich hole David.

But if you had lots of requests to do interviews

on the news or on other channels or anything to

talk about this really,

really important topic that's going to affect

everybody.

You mean the self-care framework?

Yeah,

the self-care framework and the darker side of

Health Canada.

You know,

like I think that 99% of people would assume that

Health Canada is just protecting us and wants to

make us as healthy as possible.

Well,

you know,

arguably we're sicker than we've ever been.

But,

you know,

it's wild that you're not on the news every day,

buddy.

Yeah,

I wonder if there's any cross ownership between the

major news and the pharmaceutical companies.

You'd almost think so by the absence of calls,

wouldn't you?

Yes,

I would.

Good answer.

But no,

my phone is not ringing.

That's for sure.

Okay.

What are you hopeful?

What can what can we do?

Like,

how can I get involved?

I mean,

I get I get your guys' newsletter on the NHPPA.

So I'm certainly signed up for that whenever you

post anything.

But as you said before,

like you need you need a team of people to be

able to do that on a on a consistent basis.

And there's not always news to put out there.

So how can I how can I get involved and stay

informed?

Good,

good question,

because we are in an informational war and

truthfully,

information is being censored big time and things

are heating up in a way that I've never

experienced in my life.

And I think everyone listening will will have the

same experience.

I have been terrible for supporting groups,

and that's changed over the past two years.

So even just independent news outlets,

and that I will.

Now donate to where I wouldn't before,

but I realize I need them now.

And I think the NHPPA is is the only kind of NHP

watchdog left standing,

and we may not be left standing for long because

we're not being funded.

So if you actually just want the world to continue

going the direction it is without anyone to help

educate you and equip you,

great.

We'll see how that works out for you.

I think you already know what's working.

Now,

great.

Probably our money is going to be worthless in

what,

two months,

six months,

a year.

Like,

so why don't you help groups now?

So we need your support.

We're actually going to just be starting some video

calls where it might be next.

By the time this is out,

that one will be passed,

but we're going to be starting weekly calls and

bringing in where I'll be.

Interviewing basically doing what you're doing,

but with with different guests around the natural

product and kind of what's going on in the world

in connection to that.

And so if you want to get on our mailing list so

that you can participate in that,

our website is www.nhppa.org.

And you can please help support us financially and

and join this and become part of the organization.

What what we're very good at is when changes are

coming down the pipe,

we'll let you know what's happening and and equip

you to take action.

And,

you know,

in today's times,

that's more important than anything else.

And,

you know,

it might be that we need as a community to start

supporting different groups that are being segregated

from other groups and need support that might

become really important really fast.

And.

And so it's,

it's something that we'll be wanting to dialogue

with those that are connecting with us on because

I don't think any of us can afford to be sitting

still any longer.

And we actually need to start helping people.

Yeah,

I totally agree with you,

Sean.

That's fantastic.

And I'll make sure that your website is available

for people to to get on; I put it in the show

notes,

and you know I'm signed up for that newsletter -

it's more like once every few months you get some

information.

It's not; that's because of our resources.

Yeah,

if we had more resources,

we'd be doing this weekly.

Yeah,

absolutely.

Well,

I'm hoping that that this inspires some people to

get involved and to donate,

and to get involved.

But I want to say thank you so much for taking

the time with me today,

Sean; I really appreciate it's always a pleasure to

chat with you.

Final question actually though I think,

do you have any other lawyers within Canada that

you're collaborating with in regards to

communicating?

How.

You know,

obviously so many things in regards to mandates and

laws and,

you know,

and regulations.

Are you a part of any type of group that's that's

communicating about what you guys can do in the

area of natural health products.

There's a,

there's one other lawyer that I,

I collaborate with; there really aren't many of us

that truly understand the Food and Drug Act and

regulations as it interacts,

they interact with natural health products.

Right.

And also understand the natural health community and

what the real issues are.

So,

yeah,

so there's one other lawyer I know who is quite a

niche area within law.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay,

well I'm glad there's two of you.

It's better than zero.

Yes,

agreed,

but we need more.

You do need more that's for sure.

Well Sean,

thank you very much for joining us today; I really

appreciate your time and thanks so much for joining

us.

Thank you very much,

everybody,

for listening this is True Hope Cast,

the official podcast of True Hope Canada.

We'll see you next week.

Thanks,

Simon.