Connect with us

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts

Published

9 minute read

Dr. Mark Trozzi

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Tuesday, outspoken COVID science critic Dr. Mark Trozzi will appeal a decision to take away his medical license. Due to a new legal standard, a successful outcome may positively impact Canada ‘in all domains of government regulation.’

Medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi will present his legal case on Tuesday when he appeals the stripping of his medical license in January by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The case will be heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC) and, according to attorney Michael Alexander, a successful result would have far-reaching legal implications impacting freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

Appearing in a late September interview with Canadian politician Derek Sloan, Alexander explained the history of the case leading up to the revoking of Trozzi’s license on January 25. In their view, “the college was primarily concerned … that Mark had been making statements about COVID-19 science and public policy that amounted to ‘misinformation’ and he was misleading the public and in doing so causing harm.”

It was also relevant that Trozzi was not even in practice at this time but had taken a sabbatical to study these issues more carefully and start a daily newsletter regarding his research.

The concern of CPSO “was the substance of his views,” the attorney assessed, “so they wanted to censor him in some way” and “eventually took him to a discipline hearing where he was found to be unprofessional, incompetent, and in violation of the standard of practice in the profession, primarily because he just presented an alternative point of view.”

READ: Dr. Trozzi stripped of medical license over COVID stance, plans to appeal

Ironically, Trozzi was not able to be present for the interview himself because he was traveling in Japan, with an invitation to speak before its parliament. He had already addressed the Romanian parliament on issues related to the COVID-19 response.

While the highly regarded former emergency room specialist “is a persona non grata in Ontario,” Dr. Trozzi’s attorney observed, “he’s in high demand around the world as someone who is providing important insights into the whole COVID era, COVID science, COVID public policy, and his criticisms are taken very seriously.”

Trozzi case could impact ‘the country in all domains of government regulation’

For more than three decades, the Ontario Divisional Court has been legally directed to judge such cases only according to a low-threshold standard called “reasonableness” that Alexander describes as the court basically deferring to the judgment of such regulatory tribunals as CPSO with regard to facts, the law, and “particularly on the interpretation of the law that the tribunal adopts.”

What makes this case different is that since Trozzi has a “statute-based right to appeal” and thus a 2019 Supreme Court decision now requires the ODC to adopt a higher standard, referred to as “correctness,” in examining the CPSO decision.

Therefore, according to this new standard, “you must get all findings of fact correct, you must get every interpretation of your statute correct, you must interpret all case law correctly,” Alexander explained.

“So, the CPSO has never had to face this before, and this (case) is the first major fundamental challenge to a regulatory body on this standard of correctness in Ontario,” he continued. Thus, this case is “extremely important. If we were to win, it would affect the whole regulatory framework of the province in a positive way.”

“So these same judges, who have been cutting a lot of slack to the College of Physicians in particular, are now going to be facing similar issues that they have faced before but on this new standard of correctness,” the attorney said.  “So they are going to have to adopt a completely different mindset in assessing the case.”

Therefore, “I guess you could say (this is) an existential moment for the judiciary in Ontario,” Alexander proposed.  “I mean will the Divisional Court step up to the plate and fully apply the standard of correctness and have the courage to do it?”

According to Alexander, a successful outcome in this case “would have a ripple effect not just in Ontario for the 22 health colleges here but for the health colleges all across the country,” forcing them to reconsider their policies in this regard.

And given the case regards the fundamental freedom of expression, a successful outcome on these arguments “would have an impact across the country in all domains of government regulation.”

“So this is not a case that’s just about Mark,” the attorney clarified. “We are trying to change the way this country is governed, and the college’s case has given us that opportunity.”

In 2020 during the “pandemic,” Trozzi, an ER veteran of 25 years, noticed that the mainstream narrative surrounding the public health “emergency” was deeply flawed. While media reported overflowing emergency rooms, Trozzi’s hospital remained relatively empty. This inspired him to research the science facts of COVID.

In the interest of protecting not only his own patients but people everywhere, Dr. Trozzi promoted alternative COVID-19 treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation, Dr. Trozzi was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots, masking requirements and testing in 2021. He was not alone: Ontario’s Dr. Rochagne Kilian was also similarly barred.

At the time, CPSO said the interim orders were given in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, which allow restrictions on a member’s license if a regulator believes a certain practice “exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury.”

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that last year Dr. Robert Malone spoke out against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

READ: Dr. Robert Malone leads thousands of scientists in calling for a total end to ‘orchestrated’ COVID crisis

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVID: Mary O’ConnorKilianCeleste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Alexander also made clear that while the CPSO has the typical governmental “blank check” of “unlimited resources,” including “around 10 lawyers on staff” and “access to outside council,” he is in need to hire “clerks to do special kinds of filing” and is seeking free-will donations.

Having donated “hundreds of thousands of dollars of billable time” into this case, Alexander has no regrets, stating that “it’s too important to the country not to litigate and we are the ones who pioneered this approach, and so it’s us or nobody.”

To assist Dr. Trozzi in winning his precedent-setting case, please donate here.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Emails Show Gates Foundation Introduced NIH Official to BioNTech CEO Before Pandemic Was Even Declared

Published on

News release from the Informed Consent Action Network

As ICAN supporters will recall, Dr. Barney Graham was formerly the Deputy Director of NIH’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) and chief of the Viral Pathogenesis Laboratory. Back in 2020, ICAN sued NIH to get access to his emails during the pandemic and won. We’ve been reviewing the emails as batches come in and you can read previous reports herehere, and here.

Lead Counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., lays out the details here:

The latest batch contains a very interesting email in which a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation official introduces Graham at NIH to Ugur Sahin, CEO of BioNTech on February 2, 2020, stating, “I wanted to take a moment to introduce you to each other regarding 2019-nCoV.” In response, Graham says, “Thank you for your interest in our antigen design effort for CoV vaccines,” and the two immediately set up a phone call.

We know that the Gates Foundation bought shares in BioNTech back in September 2019 and so it is interesting to see it actively making connections for BioNTech so quickly. These emails occurred just 13 days after the first case of SARS-CoV-2 was found in the U.S. and over a month before the WHO declared a pandemic. In a follow-up email just three weeks later, BioNTech tells Graham that its “vaccine efforts are well under way” and that it is ready to discuss a “corresponding license agreement.”

In another email on March 13, 2020, a market research company reached out to Graham saying that stock markets were plunging and asking him to answer some questions to help them “understand the market sentiment of the vaccines industry towards COVID-19 vaccines.” Graham forwarded the email to the VRC Director and said, “FYI. I never answer inquiries like this, but do you think it might be appropriate for people like us to speak to the investor world and try to calm things down?

Both these incidences show how the NIH acts just like a for-profit corporation with a vested interest in forming partnerships and worrying about financial markets—perhaps because the agency and many of its employees stand to profit from the success of the vaccines they develop, just like Graham did from the Moderna vaccine.

ICAN will continue to report on the Graham emails as more batches come in.

To support future legal actions like this, click here to donate!

Continue Reading

John Campbell

Prominent COVID jab critic examines the amazing evidence for the Shroud of Turin

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

Dr. John Campbell’s analysis of the Turin Shroud highlights profound links to Gospel descriptions of Christ’s suffering while showcasing pollen and soil samples that align with the place and time of the crucifixion.

Our world is full of sensational claims, the glittering promises of which produce disappointment – or even death and despair. This was the case with the “100 percent safe and effective” so-called “vaccines,” the terrible impact of which was documented in the U.K. by Dr. John Campbell.

Campbell has now turned his analytical skills to the Turin Shroud. In a remarkable video published on October 28, “Shroud Studies” shows that the application of the latest scientific techniques prove its authenticity – but cannot explain how the image itself was formed.

Even with modern technology, no one has managed to reproduce it.

READ: Shroud of Turin experts reveal its stunning connection to the Gospels

Campbell begins his summary of many studies of the shroud with a striking observation:

There’ve been thousands of millions of shrouds through history, but this is the only one with an image on it.

He explains that the image of Our Lord on the shroud is only “nanometers thick.” Attempts to recreate the effect with modern technology have failed. “Even now in 2024 there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the image,” says Campbell, showing how claims the shroud is painted have been disproven. Pollen, soil, and mineral samples all agree with the place and time of Our Lord’s crucifixion, death, and resurrection, yet no known process can explain the image itself.

“Nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately,” says Campbell, “And that remains true today.”

He adds that “this image is a total enigma,” as he summarizes the explanation for how it came to be:

[The image of Our Lord] appears to be produced by a very short flash of high-intensity light radiation.

Though Campbell says this resembles a photographic negative, the method of making such an image is unknown. “If there were another way it was produced, it still hasn’t been elucidated and can’t be replicated today.”

How can we know the shroud is genuine? Campbell cites an abundance of evidence.

Pollen samples taken from the shroud correspond not only to the region in which Our Lord was crucified, but also to the season of His Passion. “The shroud contains pollen from Jerusalem, north and south Turkey, France and Italy. This is consistent with the known history of the shroud,” Campbell says.

READ: 2-year-old study traces Shroud of Turin to time of Jesus in first-century Middle East

Campbell offers “just one example” of the pollen “fingerprint” which places the shroud at the correct location and time of the crucifixion of Christ. He notes that “there’s a lot of pollen from Gundelia tournefort. It flowers in the Jerusalem area February to May – which of course is the time of the Jewish Passover.”

“The death of Jesus was at the time of the Jewish Passover,” he clarifies.

Samples of dirt from the shroud also support the Gospel’s account of Christ’s path along the Via Dolorosa to Calvary:

The shroud contains Jerusalem dirt found on the soles of the feet, [and] the left knee from where He fell.

Campbell relates that the 1978 team tasked with analyzing the shroud also found the same soil on the area of Christ’s nose, which “so alarmingly” revives how Christ fell with such violence, as remembered in the Stations of the Cross.

“To think that as Jesus was carrying the cross – He fell over and His nose would hit the ground,” said Campbell, who applied his medical training to an examination of the evidence of Christ’s wounds.

The evidence of scourging confirms the accounts given in the Gospels, says Campbell.

We see that the man of the shroud has a broken nose, a swollen face. Part of the beard has been plucked out ­­– tearing wounds produced by the scourging.

Wounds from the crown of thorns, bruises on the shoulder which, if we believe if this is indeed Jesus of Nazareth, from carrying the weight of a cross again is consistent.

Campbell lists further correspondences to the Gospel accounts of the death of Christ – evidenced by the shroud: “Knee injuries from repeated falls. Nail wounds from Roman crucifixion – and an oval wound between the fifth and the sixth rib on the right-hand side.”

He concludes: “Again, these are the wounds that have been known about from the sufferings of Christ Himself.”

Yet Campbell is far from alone in this discovery. In his bookA Doctor at Calvary, French military surgeon and Catholic Pierre Barbet said correspondence to the Gospel accounts is unarguable:

The markings on this image are so clear and medically accurate that the pathological facts which they reflect concerning the suffering and death of the man depicted here are in my opinion beyond dispute.

Campbell states that “many hundreds have agreed with this,” as he noted a 2024 Italian study which used novel X-Ray technology – proving the shroud came from the time of Christ.

A visibly moved Campbell said that all the evidence supports the claim that this is the cloth witnessed by Saint Peter as he entered the tomb of the risen Christ.

Again, consistent with the New Testament – Simon Peter went straight into the tomb … he saw the cloth was still lying in its place – so that could well be this cloth.

In his striking summary of the evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, Campbell has noted the miraculous production of the image and that the blood, dirt, cloth, and pollen all corroborate the accounts given of the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As science has progressed, it appears to reveal the mystery of Christ as well as the material reality of his incarnation – and His profound suffering in the cause of our salvation.

“While the shroud could be appreciated in earlier centuries – no one knew it was a photographic negative until photography was invented,” he said, describing the image of Christ produced by an inexplicable burst of light.

Curiously, the technology which has revealed the complexities of the shroud was first used to investigate the heavens.

“No one knew it had three-dimensional information until people started wanting to interpret the topography of distant planets,” Campbell explained, noting, “There are so many things that science is revealing about this quite extraordinary artefact.”

At the end of this sober yet awe inspiring analysis, Campbell indicates the significance of the mystery of Jesus Christ the Saviour, as transmitted through the shroud of Turin:

A lot of things aren’t looking very hopeful at the moment. It’s almost like that this is a message for later times.

Continue Reading

Trending

X