TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @dockaurG

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

>4yrs late—NP cover today “Covid response was largest infringement on basic Canadian civil rights/liberties in living memory” We KNEW in 2020 that unprecedented, unethical, unscientific lockdowns/mandates would cause horrific/irreparable harms Lockdowns kill—Censorship kills https://t.co/sP3dKoiH8B

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills. Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills. Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills. My >100-part🧵with multiple subthreads of published peer-reviewed scientific/medical evidence & govts’ own data refuting govts’ harmful covid propaganda & hysteria NEVER again.

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

LIE of unprecedented, unethical, unscientific lockdowns (known to cause horrific/irreparable harms) driven by state-funded propaganda/hysteria based on 3 key falsehoods refuted then/now by robust peer-reviewed evidence: 1. Lie that it was a “novel” virus to which we had/have no natural immunity 2. Hysteria of false-positive non-infectious “cases” manufactured by deliberately elevating PCR Ct (cycle thresholds) 3. Falsely elevated infection fatality rate (IFR) with deliberate conflation of IFR vs CFR (case fatality rate)

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

Is this why @PierrePoilievre is STILL silent on condemning lockdowns & calling for a public inquiry? Because @AnaPoilievre aggressively promoted unprecedented, unethical, unscientific lockdowns known to cause horrific/irreparable harms while she demonized those voices who opposed? ▶️ https://web.archive.org/web/20240801202749/https://prettyandsmartco.com/how-you-can-help-during-the-world-pandemic/

How You Can Help During The World Pandemic - Pretty & Smart Co. Now more than ever, we are dependent on each others’ actions for the well-being of the world. Here are some ways you can help during the world pandemic. web.archive.org

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

2/ Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills. Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills. Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills.

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

🆘🇨🇦Govts/politicians who imposed unprecedented, unethical, unscientific lockdowns/mandates known to cause horrific/irreparable harms while embroiled in covid contract scandals into hundreds of $BILLIONS are now scrubbing ALL public records to avoid public inquiry/accountability

@hollyanndoan - Holly Doan

Minister @AnitaAnandMP’s department scrubs dozens of gov’t webpages detailing $24 billion in payments to Covid contractors. “As of Tues, July 9 the webpages of Covid-19 contracting are not longer available.” — Jeremy Link, @PSPC_SPAC https://www.blacklocks.ca/24b-disclosure-is-temporary/ #cdnpoli @DM_PSPC

Terms Of Contracts Vanished | Blacklock's Reporter blacklocks.ca

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

We’ll never forget. The more politicians gaslight & deflect to rewrite history & deny reality on harms of lockdowns/mandates they imposed—the greater our distrust grows. Any political leader choosing a path of lies/deceit instead of truth/reconciliation isn’t a leader in any name

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

Apparently the federal conservative leader @PierrePoilievre, who lives in Ontario, wants us to believe that a provincial conservative govt in BC would oppose covid vac mandates/tyranny, while he’s turning a blind eye to the very fact that the conservative govt in Ontario has been one of the most tyrannical in the world: hosps/universities STILL impose unethical/unscientific covid vac mandates & we had one of harshest/longest lockdowns in the world. All fully supported by @PierrePoilievre @CPC_HQ: neither of whom have ever condemned the ongoing mandates in Ontario, nor have they ever condemned lockdowns & called for a public inquiry. Instead, CPC, Poilevre and Ford have heavily advocated for the replacement of unjustly fired Cdn HCWs in Ontario with new foreign HCWs. Always judge a person by their actions, not their hollow words. A leader would show humility, apologize to Canadians, and have the courage to act on the demands of Canadians: end all mandates, rehire all workers, demand resignation of Tam, withdrawal of Canada from WHO and a fully independent public inquiry into Canada’s harmful prov/fed covid response. It’s time for Canada to begin healing with ACTIONS towards transparency & accountability.

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

Hi @CPHO_Canada: Canadians are calling for your immediate resignation & immediate withdrawal of Canada from WHO Followed by a full independent public inquiry of Canada’s fed/prov covid response & all of govts’ covid contracts cc @JustinTrudeau @PierrePoilievre @theJagmeetSingh https://t.co/uQO6hPnibc

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

👏🏽Bravo! US Court of Appeals leading us back to sanity. Govts are never sole arbiter of “truth” nor can there be blind deference to harmful & unethical/immoral edicts of govt esp against one’s conscience When will 🇨🇦courts show this courage for judicial independence/integrity?

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

They lied. People died. Lockdowns kill. Censorship kills.

@hollyanndoan - Holly Doan

MEMO: @ESDC_GC acknowledges it knew within months $700 million pandemic ventilator “oversupply” was a waste of money. Internal document contradicts testimony by then-Minister @AnitaAnandMP that cash was paid "prior to the information coming forward." https://www.blacklocks.ca/govt-knew-millions-wasted/

Gov’t Knew Millions Wasted | Blacklock's Reporter blacklocks.ca

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

2/ Reminder… “Was it incompetence or corruption?”

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

3/ Peer-reviewed Reminder… “Investigators found nearly half of pts with Covid develop a secondary ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia" “a relatively low mortality rate directly attributable to primary SARSCoV2 infection is offset by a greater risk of death attributable to unresolving secondary ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia"

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

1/New Peer-reviewed study: Journal of Clinical Investigation "What really killed Covid patients: It wasn't a cytokine storm, suggests study" "Investigators found nearly half of pts with Covid develop a secondary ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia" https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-05-covid-patients-wasnt-cytokine-storm.html

What really killed COVID-19 patients: It wasn't a cytokine storm, suggests study Secondary bacterial infection of the lung (pneumonia) was extremely common in patients with COVID-19, affecting almost half the patients who required support from mechanical ventilation. By applying machine learning to medical record data, scientists at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine found that secondary bacterial pneumonia that does not resolve was a key driver of death in patients with COVID-19. It may even exceed death rates from the viral infection itself. medicalxpress.com

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

“New report from Doctors Manitoba: 46% of MDs currently working in MB thinking about relocating, retiring or reducing hrs over next 3yrs” This phenomena also occurring in ON, BUT crickets. Many ON & 🇨🇦hosps STILL impose unethical/unscientific covid vac mandates. #EndALLMandates

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

It’s been heartwarming reading all of your beautiful msgs/prayers of kindness, love & support from across🇨🇦 & around the world. My heartfelt thank you💛 We're >60% of fundraising goal of $300K with only 1 day left until deadline Pls donate what you can: givesendgo.com/kulvinder

@dockaurG - Kulvinder Kaur MD

Hi @elonmusk @X—as one of the first🇨🇦MDs to oppose lockdowns on twitter in 2020, in a socialized healthcare system where govt is sole-payer, I've been persecuted for 4yrs solely d/t my tweets. Pls help a fellow Cdn! ~$300K in court-ordered costs due in 4d: givesendgo.com/kulvinder

@DrJBhattacharya - Jay Bhattacharya

New Illusion of Consensus podcast! Dr. @dockaurG is a Canadian doctor who speaks bravely vs. lockdowns. She faces a vicious smear campaign & legal action that threatens to bankrupt her. This is her first public interview. Please donate to her legal fund: https://givesendgo.com/kulvinder

Video Transcript AI Summary

Dr. Kavinder Kargil, a practicing physician in Ontario, faced backlash and persecution for advocating against lockdowns and sharing scientific information about immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite being a respected doctor and leader in the medical community, she was labeled as an anti-vaxxer and faced numerous complaints to her professional regulator. The Canadian press published hit pieces on her, further damaging her reputation. Dr. Kargil filed a defamation lawsuit to clear her name but was ordered to pay $1.2 million in legal costs. She is now facing a deadline to pay nearly $300,000 and may have to declare bankruptcy. A public campaign has been started to help offset her legal costs.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Welcome, everybody. This is professor Jay Bhattacharya, and this is the illusion of consensus podcast. I'm here with my, good friend, doctor Kavinder Kargil. Thank you, Kavinder, for joining me for this podcast. Speaker 1: Thank you so much for having me, Jay. Speaker 0: So I'm absolutely delighted to have you because I've been watching you, advocate for years now for same policy in Canada, a a place where, it's just been heartbreaking to watch how schools closed, the the the the lockdowns happened, businesses closed, the the the the the the focus of so much of of Canadian, medical attention was on COVID prevention, and and you were advocating that health should be taken more broadly. And I I I invited you on the show because I I know that what, as a result of the advocacy that you had, you you faith have faced tremendous, backlash from Canadian medical authorities, from the Canadian press, and I I am delighted that you agreed to to tell that story with here today. Speaker 1: Thank you, Jay. Speaker 0: Okay. So I wanna start by telling the audience a little bit about your background as a doctor, as a scientist. How long have you been in practice? What, what what what's your practice like? What what are your patients like? And and what's your what's your academic and research background? Speaker 1: So I've been a practicing frontline physician, for over a decade now. I'm a specialist physician here in Ontario practicing in the Greater Toronto Area. I have significant postgraduate training in both pediatrics and allergy clinical immunology, and my practice predominantly right now is with both pediatric and adult patients at allergy immunology clinics. And I practice in communities that are predominantly, marginalized populations. So in both of the communities that I practice, a large portion of the population is actually working class or immigrants. In one of the communities I practice in in Brampton, it's actually known as one of the most ethnically diverse in the country where 73% of the individuals actually identify as as people of color, mostly being South Asian and and black. So when, COVID hit and and and the harms of the lockdowns were coming forward, it, it was impacting the people, that are within the communities that I practice. It was impacting my patients. And and I bring, I was also viewing, COVID through the lens of a scientist because prior to practicing as a physician, I had, done significant, a microbiology, a virology, a vaccinology, a research at various, university and and federal government laboratories, including the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Lab. And, and and there, my focus of of research was actually on HIV 1 vaccine development, based on a T cell, a natural immunity that was found amongst Kenyan sex workers. And in my practice on a day to day basis, I I originally, actually administer childhood vaccines, and I've been a strong advocate of that. So when instead of engaging with my, points of concern and and my, and my advocacy and and the research that I was bringing forward in summer of 2020 when I first started to speak out against the lockdowns, when, I was being targeted and and, smeared as being an anti vaxxer. I found that absolutely shocking. Speaker 0: I mean, that's that we're gonna talk get into that story, but it is app it is absolutely immunologist. You are a doctor. You see pediatric patients. You give routine vaccinations to pediatric patients all the time. And, somehow because of your advocacy against lockdowns, because of your sharing peer reviewed information about immunity on about COVID, you are attacked as an anti vaxxer by the Canadian press and by by and and indeed, that's, by the the Canadian medical authorities, an entire entirely a non sequitur. Okay. And, during, that so during the, your decade, plus long practice, have you, you've you've been as I mean, you've been a fantastic upstanding doctor, you know, that you've never had any any issues. The reason I ask is because we're gonna talk about some of the some of the persecution that you faced during the pandemic, and I just wanna set, the the, the record about this. You are a doctor in good standing. You're a leader of the community. You you led a group called Concerned Ontario Doctors. So, I mean, you were you were seen as a leader among doctors in your community. Speaker 1: Yes. I've actually even to date have never had a patient complaint to my professional regulator. So, all of this just suddenly happened when I started to speak out against, about the lockdowns on social media back in 2020. Speaker 0: It was interesting because, like, I okay. I was a lurker on Twitter back then. I didn't have a Twitter account. And I immediately noticed your advocacy, against lockdowns, but it wasn't but but also, I don't know if the right advocacy is the right word. You're instructing the public and others about the science of immunity. But you would have consistent posts about how lockdowns were harming the communities you serve, the lockdowns were harming the broader poor the the broader community of the poor all around the world. That was a consistent theme in your in your, posting. But, also, you'd post information about what the scientific data were showing regarding immunity after you recover from COVID, immunity even before you recover from COVID if you'd had exposure to other coronaviruses providing cross protection. Mhmm. What led you to the point where you were taking to Twitter to make the the case against lockdowns, the case in favor of immunity? Speaker 1: Prior to practicing medicine, I had actually done significant scientific research at various federal government, or university labs, including the, high level 4 biosecurity lab in Canada known as the National Microbiology Lab. And there, my, supervisor was actually the chief of scientific director of the NML and the chief scientific adviser to the government of Canada, doctor Plummer. And my research had specifically focused on harnessing the powers of natural t cell immunity that were found amongst Kenyan sex workers, and trying to develop an HIV one candidate vaccine based upon that. So in the summer of 2020, I became extremely intrigued, by the amount of peer reviewed literature that was published, speaking about both the preexisting or cross reactive T cell immunity and the strong post infectious T cell immunity that was being observed. And this was completely being ignored, not only by the media, but a large segment of my colleagues as well. Speaker 0: But there was more than that in your advocacy, Colton. Do I have to say? Because, like, one of the things that that struck me as I was reading your post in those very stressful days in in summer of 2020 was a concern for the global poor. Like, I I saw in your, in your post, especially in your criticism of lockdowns, a clear minded approach to the what what the lockdowns would mean for the global poor. This is something that was lacking in so many of my, the the my colleagues who were advocating for lock downs. It's it's as if they had had blinded themselves to what the economic, dislocation caused by lock downs would have on the global poor. Right. How did you come to that? Speaker 1: My path to medicine wasn't a traditional path. So I was, initially born in a very small farming village in in, overall India. And when I was a baby, I had immigrated with my family, to a very small town in a remote, Northern Manitoba. And when I was a young, just in elementary school, my mom unfortunately was diagnosed with breast cancer. And so as a young teen, I would often accompany her on the nearly 6, 100 kilometre round trip down to Winnipeg just to access essential cancer care. And it was then that I decided that I wanted to be a doctor, and my mom was extremely encouraging of that. And, she unfortunately passed, when I was in medical school, of a metastatic breast cancer, but she had been fortunate to receive palliative care during her last few months. And when the lockdowns hit, what I found extremely heart wrenching was the patients that were at the end of life palliative care patients, terminally ill patients that were being forced to die alone in in our hospitals and and medical institutions without their, loved ones at their bedside. I was alarmed by the numbers that were being projected by the amount of people that were projected to go into poverty and death in the developing world because of our developed world's lockdowns, because of supply chain shortages. And there were numbers coming out of excess of 10,000 pediatric deaths a month, just in the developing world because of lockdowns. And this was all alarming to me. And I, there were cancer surveillance programs were shut down here in Ontario. And the most important part of a cancer diagnosis is to be able to diagnose early so that you can intervene. And so as much of the medical profession became singularly focused on on the virus, I started to become alarmed by the COVID response. And I started to read more and more in the peer reviewed literature, about how the infection fatality rate was actually extremely exaggerated and and and the strong age, or stratified risk of, where the elderly were at more than a 1000 times greater risk compared to the young. I was starting to read about the devastating catastrophic harms of the actual lockdowns. And so all of this compelled me to speak out in the summer of 2020 and and speak out about everything that was being ignored, both in the media's coverage and sort of in the in the daily conversations or that Canadians were having, and and I didn't anticipate the response that I received. Speaker 0: Yeah. So what was that response? I mean, I think early on, you would you would have been advocating for your patients in Brampton through this concerned Ontario doctors for more resources. But then when you went to Twitter and started arguing against the lockdowns, how did how did the response to your advocacy changed as your as the tone the tone of your advocacy changed, the content of your advocacy changed? Speaker 1: It was so alarming. So in at the end of January, so just weeks before the WHO had actually declared the pandemic, I had led and organized a 3 hour delegation to the Brampton City Council, which led in, a motion being, passed, actually declaring a health care emergency and and calling upon all levels of government for immediate frontline funding because it is the epicenter of, hallway medicine, and patients were dying in hallways because of lack of of resources. And at that time, I was considered to be a leader in in in my profession, and and that was positive media coverage. Suddenly, when I went against the narrative, I was seen as, as the black sheep and and someone who should be shunned and and not spoken to. And and rather than engaging in what in any sort of debate or or having any conversation about what I was trying to convey. Instead, I was being attacked with just labels, and and and and the media didn't seem interested in actually hearing why I was concerned. Speaker 0: So can can I ask about that? Because it, I mean, I I found you on Twitter. You obviously reached me. So there there must have been some positive responses too in addition to the negative ones. But Right. With it's and but the but the negative ones, of course, there was always on Twitter. There's there's people who don't like what you say. That's just the nature of Twitter. But it went beyond just that, didn't it? Speaker 1: Yes. In the 1st week of August, I became, the target of a very a malicious 2020. Yes, campaign where, people on Twitter were encouraging the public to launch complaints to my professional regulator. And, that led to multiple comp Speaker 0: Can can I just as a clarification question, how does that work? So you're you're you're a physician in Ontario. There's a body called the the the the the CPSO, which which is the Canadian Speaker 1: A physician in Ontario. Speaker 0: And and so the then they they what when you say you're a professional regulator, they can take your license away. They can put, you know, sort of black marks on your on your on your records that everyone sees. They can make your life miserable. They can ruin your career. Speaker 1: Right. They have the power to actually take your license away. And and so, having never dealt with the CPSO before, I suddenly found myself, the subject of multiple complaints just through this online campaign that that that these individuals had actually launched strictly because of my tweets. Speaker 0: So what do they what do they so they see your tweet against the lockdown. They see your tweet linking to peer reviewed information about immunity, and they get so upset that they go to your professional regulator and say, look. You have to take your license away. Speaker 1: Yes. They were labeling me as dangerous to society, for advocating the positions that I was advocating. Speaker 0: Now were these just regular people that were going after you? I mean, if it's just some some, random person on Twitter complaining, I mean, I imagine the professional regulator would just ignore it. Were there more powerful entities that were trying to get your to go after you because you were advocating against lockdowns? Speaker 1: It was more powerful entities that were, well established within the Canadian media. Some are within the medical communities, or some within the scientific communities. But it wasn't these individuals that were actually launching the complaints. They were having the public launch the complaints. And then I because there were so many complaints launched and they, I I then became the subject of the high level, CPSO investigation simply because of my tweets. And, and, and and that ultimately led to the CPSO throwing out and actually dismissing all the complaints that had to do with, T cell immunity or or HCQ. HCQ. However, they did in February of 2021, based on my August 2020 tweets opposing lockdowns, issue simultaneous cautions on the exact same tweets, of me opposing lockdowns. So those are now going to be the subject of a appeal, or this upcoming spring. Speaker 0: So so the the the CPSO instigated by these powerful entities, some of them we might mention in a few minutes when we get to the later in the story. The CPSO launched this investigation saying, look, you're sharing factually incorrect information about, about immunity and and various other things. Finally, they they dropped that, that sounds like, that after, like, putting you through absolute hell. And but then they still have investigation going over your advocacy against lockdowns from August 2020. Now I wrote the Great American Declaration with Sunita Gupta and Martin Kuhl Dorff in 2020 October of 2020. I I can tell you with certainty that there was a tremendous number of scientists who opposed the lockdowns as as as harmful, especially to the well-being the health and well-being of the of the of the poor of the world. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: And so, what you and I I I remember your advocacy. I remember you you you signed the Great Branch Declaration, and you, I mean, you were a fierce advocate for it online, again, at a time when I wasn't on Twitter. And CPSO is using that advocacy, well supported in the scientific literature to still consider whether you should be licensed to practice medicine in in Canada? Speaker 1: Yeah. So so the cautions are still there. I haven't appeared for the cautions yet because it's subject to up to appeal. Ironically, I became subject of another high level CPSO investigation in 2021, which continued until 2023, because I kept tweeting opposing lockdowns and and then mandates, which CPSO had then referred to a disciplinary tribunal. But, miraculously, everything was withdrawn by the CPSO in September of 2023. So so that suddenly disappeared. But over the COVID area, having never been the subject even to date of any patient complaint, I during the COVID area, simply because of my tweets opposing government's COVID policies. I've had over 2 dozen CTSO investigators assigned to me. Speaker 0: Now what reasoning did they have for, for for cautioning you? Like, what did they provide any reasoning why they thought that that any advocacy against lockdowns were were a danger to the public? Speaker 1: It's it seems to be going against the government narrative. Right? So the government narrative is that lockdowns work. And so, physicians, are deemed to be spreading, quote, unquote, misinformation if we're going against the government narrative of the actual lockdowns. Speaker 0: But but the CPSO is a is a professional organization. It's supposed to be looking at scientific evidence. Do they cite scientific evidence? What evidence did they cite other than saying that the government says it doesn't automatically make it true? Speaker 1: I was in the decision, it had stated we know lockdowns can and do work because of China and South Korea. Speaker 0: So the Chinese example was the the CPSO side of the Chinese example of 0 COVID in in January 2020 as the reason why they think lockdowns worked in August 2020, October 2020, and into 2021, 2022, and 2023. Yes. Remarkable. Okay. And, you know, it it strikes me that this is this is, may maybe this is is is no normal in Canada, but I don't think so. I mean, I I do I do remember seeing Jordan Peterson facing similar kinds of, it looks to me, like a persecution. Like, it's it's if you're saying politically inconvenient things, and and it sounds like they explicitly said that, that you're saying things that are politically inconvenient against the government narrative. That's enough to launch an investigation. That seems to me like an abuse of power by the CPSO, the by the by this professional, licensing organization. They should be considering whether you're a good doctor, not whether you're advocating for or against government policy. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Especially when science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth. Right? So the scientific method demands that physicians and scientists challenge the dogma, demands that physicians challenge whatever is perceived to be the prevailing view, and that's how advancements in in our profession happen. Right? Someone challenges the existing prevailing view or what's, perceived to be the prevailing view, which then leads to more hypotheses, experimentation, conclusions that then are only subject to even more criticism, evaluation, more hypotheses. So it's an ongoing cycle. So if we have dogma that can't be challenged, well, that's not science. Right? And and and then we end up, being in, in in in a time where we won't have advancements of science. Right? And, my faith as a seek teaches me, to seek truth. Right? So seek means seeker of truth. And and and our scripture teaches us that the a realization of truth is above all else, but higher still is is some truthful living. Right? So the pursuit of truth is is what my faith teaches me, but yet I'm being punished for pursuing that truth. Speaker 0: Because it's inconvenient to the government narrative. Okay. So, so now we have to unfortunately get to the the the the sat the probably the saddest part of the story. And, so so to set this up, you have all these people, very, very powerful people, going after your license. There are also hit pieces done on you in in, in in in the Canadian press, making you essentially out to be enemy number 1 because you oppose the lockdowns. And they they're not just saying that you oppose the lockdowns and you're wrong. What they're what they're saying is that you're a bad doctor, that you oppose vaccination, that you that you, in fact, are an anti vaxxer, which in medicine, that's the death knell of your reputation, right? And some of this stuff is published in mainstream Canadian press Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: By, you know, by opinion columnists who don't have any scientific background or medical background. And so how did you decide to respond to this slander? Speaker 1: So in an effort to, clear my name, I had launched, defamation action against the individuals that had been responsible for that malicious campaign in the summer of 2020. And, what ended up happening was quite alarming. And before, any evidence was even heard, before it even went to any sort of trial, something called an anti slap motion was actually brought forward. And what an anti slap motion is supposed to be for is to prevent powerful entities from actually silencing the, or the small guy. And, here it was actually used in the opposite manner where there were defendants that were well funded with insurance, with their institutions, had, big teams of lawyers. And, and so this was brought forward. And in October of 2022, a judge here in Ontario ruled, a one point $2,000,000 cost order against me, which is unprecedented, claiming that I was a powerful entity trying to silence these individuals. And, and Speaker 0: Let me let me just I mean, that is just an absolutely shocking story, so I just wanna make sure I understand it. You bring a lawsuit trying to clear your name because a whole bunch of people were accusing you of being an anti vaxxer, a danger to the Canadian public and others, with no evidence behind it, except for the fact that you were tweeting against lockdowns, tweeting scientific studies, peer reviewed scientific studies. The the the the court, even before he can, hear your case, has to consider a motion by the other side. The other side, which includes very powerful entities, including powerful entities in the in the Canadian press. Mhmm. That that that that they they make a claim saying that you, because you're you're suing them for defaming you, that you're silencing them. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: But the the very act of suing them silences them. As best I can tell, none of those entities have have really stayed quiet. So I don't if you if you were silencing them, it didn't it didn't work, I call it, I have to say. The, but the court agrees with them agrees with them that you, a a doctor, not a political actor, not, not not not, you know, not not not a media entity, a doctor posting your scientific opinion online is somehow, somehow you you have, silenced them by calling them out for falsely accusing you of being an anti vaxxer and and so on. Speaker 1: So something alarming happened and, the court actually never looked at any of the evidence that was before any of the evidence that I had submitted, because it essentially took what is known as a judicial notice where, that's often taken where something is so well known and, like, established, as as, I'll say, example, the sky is blue, that the court doesn't need evidence for it. So the government's COVID response was taken as being the sky is blue. And so these unprecedented actions by the government, which have been extremely harmful and detrimental to the most marginalized within our society, were taken as being the sky is blue. That these are so well known and and and and, apparently, are well supported by evidence that, oh, that doesn't need to be presented. And so the court never actually looked at any of the evidence that I presented and and and just took a judicial notice, essentially. And then, everything ended there. Now Speaker 0: Judicial notice. I mean, so for instance, the fact that Canada has worse all cause excess death outcomes than Sweden, for instance, which didn't lock down. That fact, you you're not allowed to tell the court or the court you could tell the court, but the court will just ignore it. The court did just ignore it. They just said they took the government at their word and said, well, the lockdowns were the right scientific thing to do even though Right. You know, there's tremendous scientific controversy over them. Speaker 1: And in 2020, we already knew that, about the harms surrounding all school closures. Right? And and already the Sweden Public Health Agency had already published studies showing that despite their schools being open, there was no increase in, all cause mortality, amongst children, nor was there any increase of transmission amongst teachers compared to any any other profession. This was known in 2020, but that didn't seem to matter. The fact that Canada's COVID response went against Canada's existing pandemic of response plans and the WHO's own preexisting pandemic, plans didn't seem to matter. So, all of these facts and the harms of lockdowns just didn't seem to matter. Speaker 0: Okay. So they rule using this anti SLAPP statute that that that you're you're essentially filed a frivolous case without actually looking through evidence. And then they order you to pay $1,200,000 to cover the cost of of defending against this defamation case. Is that where things stand? Speaker 1: So, I had then appealed both the cost decision and the actual decision, on on the merits. And, that appeal was heard, by the appeals court here in Ontario in December of 2023. And, there was a ruling that came out at the end of February of 2024. And, the initial, $1,200,000 cost order was appealed, But, to appeal cost order, you need something called leave, which is seeking permission of the court. So it's not an automatic. And the court denied me that leave, because, by the time of the hearing, we had reached confidential settlements with, with some of the defendants. And so the court, said that the landscape had changed. So they denied me the lead to actually appeal the cost decision. However, the the appeal on the merits continued. And in their decision at the end of February, they made we had appealed on 3 main grounds, and they refused to take a position on whether they they thought that I was defamed or not. So the the basic premise of the test, they actually are deferred. So they did not make any sort of a ruling on that. What I found shocking is that there is something known as fair comment defense, which, allows a defendant, to use that as a defense against a defamation if what they're saying is actually factual. And the court, did not the appeals court did not actually, engage with any of the evidence that was presented, to it and and instead, claimed that the defendants were using, quote, unquote, approved facts. Speaker 0: Approved facts. Speaker 1: Approved facts. So not truthful facts or evidence based facts, but Speaker 0: What the government says is is true by definition because it's those are the approved facts. Mhmm. Okay. So, and and so is that what how much do you after all those settlements and all this process, how much what what where do you stand now? Speaker 1: I was, I've now been ordered to pay nearly $300,000, in the cost order. And I have near weeks to pay. So my deadline is at the end of March. And, it's $300,000 that I don't have after nearly 4 years of being entangled in multiple legal battles, trying to advocate for my patients, trying to advocate for Canadians, and, and to try to advocate for myself. And and so, it's now looking quite quite grim. Speaker 0: So what, what what what happens then? I mean, I you you if you can't pay the order, you probably have to declare bankruptcy, I would think. What will that do to your ability to practice medicine? What will that do to your ability to care for your patients? Speaker 1: It's it's it's all very daunting right now. And and, I never thought that that this would be the cost of speaking truth to power, of, being compelled to speak my conscience, being compelled to speak against the harms that I knew were going to happen against, against the people within the very communities that I practice within the developing world where, where I initially was born and still have very deep roots too. And and everything that I warned about in 2020, which was at that time, which which I cited was based on peer reviewed evidence, has now come to pass. And it's been absolutely heart wrenching and devastating watching the carnage unfold, and and being helpless. Right? Because it was all completely preventable. And and and and it was known in 2020. Right? But so now the the harms are actually being realized, and and they're being tallied. And slowly, they're now being acknowledged. But it seems like advocating for the truth and advocating for that, scientific evidence to come forward, has come at a huge cost. Speaker 0: So so this give, send, go campaign that you're starting, it's to offset the costs of the the legal bills you face, essentially, these these punitive legal bills because of your advocacy against the lockdowns? Speaker 1: Yeah. So, there is a give send go, public campaign that's been started, to help to fund, on my legal fund to help to offset all these costs. Speaker 0: Well, I'll be donating, because I think, I I view you as a hero. I mean, this what you've done has been, come at tremendous personal cost, I know, from our conversations during the pandemic. But you have made an enormous difference in the lives of so many people by advocating for sane policy, for advocating for policy that, takes account of the well-being of the the the poorest members of society. And I'm I'm grateful to you for that. So Speaker 1: also here in Canada. And, I remember way back in early 2021, when through concerned Ontario doctors, I had hosted, yourself, doctor Bhattacharya, or doctor Gupta from Oxford and, Harvard at the time, with doctor Chavis, the former chief medical officer of health for our province, just to talk about the Great Barrington Declaration. And and that was Canadian's first exposure, to, or to having that scientific evidence of being brought to the forefront. Speaker 0: I mean, it was it, has been heartbreaking to watch, so many of my colleagues in Canada face the kind of persecution you faced. And, so many, people with with credentials, people like doctor Chavis, a whole a whole host of doctors who oppose the lockdown essentially be silenced and intimidated. People were watching you and seeing what was happening to you, and many stayed silent because they were, they they they didn't wanna face what you faced, but you stood up anyways. And, to say, I'm I'm quite proud of, of, of what you've accomplished. And I hope that that this give, send, go campaign can offset the costs, that the court have imposed has imposed on you, I think, quite unjustly. Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Jay. Speaker 0: Well, this has been the illusion of consensus podcast with doctor Kovinder Kargil, and I'm professor Jay Bhattacharya. Until next time, thank you for listening.

GiveSendGo | The Leader in Online Fundraising This campaign is currently unpublished. While you're here, why not discover other amazing campaigns that are making a difference? givesendgo.com