Free Speech in Medicine Conference
On October 28–30, 2022 Michelle Lindsay, our candidate of record for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, was able to attend the Free Speech in Medicine Conference in Baddeck (https://www.freespeechinmedicine.com/conference).
The conference provided a great opportunity for many top professionals in a vast array of disciplines to get together and discuss freedom and the hard facts that continue to challenge the provincial and federal governments’ false narrative.
Michelle Lindsay Interview November 1, 2022
Michael:
Perhaps you could begin, Michelle, by introducing yourself.
Michelle:
Hello — my name is Michelle Lindsay, and I am the PPC Lieutenant for Atlantic Canada. I just came back from the Free Speech In Medicine Conference, which was an amazing learning experience. I met so many different types of doctors, lawyers, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses, and there was even an actor there, Eion Bailey from Fight Club and Band of Brothers.
Michael:
Eion Bailey, ok!
Michelle:
He’s originally from Los Angeles, lives in Toronto now, but he is currently filming in Nova Scotia and he doesn’t wear masks on set. So, you know, even people like him were attending the conference; people who wanted to have more information on the covid response.
And you know some people would say ‘why isn’t there more information on why we needed the mandates’ (well that’s never going to happen) and you never going to hear the end of a pandemic being advertised either, is what they said.
Michael:
No
Michelle:
So the beginning was advertised but the end will never be advertised and we will never get rid of covid because animals get covid or coronaviruses and you can never go to 0 and the variants are just going to get weaker and weaker and more transmissible and we’re going to learn how to live with it.
Michael:
Yep which is that’s how virology works, actually.
Michelle:
So you’ve got some questions there for me.
Michael:
Yeah, I do!
The first question we have for you is, what would you say is the importance of having conferences like these?
Michelle:
Having had a career in the dental field, I had always attended conferences like this. It’s about coming together and bringing information from what we learned in our clinic and prctices. Doctors and nurses and [other] practitioners bring their observations and experiences to these conferences. This one was no different. Doctors at this conference spoke about what happened during the mandates, how people were treated, and why we should never do this again. The information provided was amazing, but it was incredible that our government didn’t heed that information, rather than just fire doctors or tell them they had to retire early. A vascular surgeon attended from Vancouver who [was told by] the authorities, “you know, you need to be vaccinated; if you’re not going to be, then you really need to leave.” So, he decided to retire one year earlier than planned, and leave his university professor job, as well.
Michael:
The funny thing about that is that, obviously, there would be a lot of doctors who were not up for this “vaccine” if they had the proper information. And, considering our absolute desperation for doctors right now, you would think that the government would actually be willing to work with these doctors.
Michelle:
Well, they want to convince the doctors that they’re right [the government is right], that there’s only one way to look at it. The first lecture was by Dr. Bruce Pardy, a doctor of Law and a professor at Queens University. He wasn’t allowed to set foot in Queens University because he wasn’t vaccinated.
I actually had spoken with him in Ottawa during the Convoy, in a hotel suite for about an hour, just talking about what certain institutions can enforce and what they can’t enforce. In Ottawa he said that private companies and institutions were allowed to enforce their rules. Like “no shirt, no service.”
At this conference, Pardy spoke about the responsibilities of doctors, and he quoted Uncle Ben from Spider-Man saying, “with great power comes great responsibility.” What was concluded from his talk was that a doctor can recommend, based on their expertise, but the patient can decide what type of treatment they’re going to receive.
Michael:
Absolutey, that’s normal.
Michelle:
Everyone agreed with that; however, in this covid fiasco the patient was offered no other option but to take the vaccination — or face the consequences of being segregated from the rest of society.
Michael:
And in a lot of cases lose their jobs.
Michelle:
Yes, and there were doctors that wanted to speak out, and a lot of them had families, and they were afraid to lose their jobs, afraid to lose their license, and also afraid to be fined. So they kept silent. And, you know, the ones that didn’t and who were actually at this conference were described as heroes, because they spoke up. And so that was one of the things [emphasised], that the government overstepped the doctors’ recommendations and the patients’ decision making about whether to take a specific treatment. And so, you know, that’s one of the things that they’re going to look at, who decides this? Is it the College of Physicians? Some doctors were told “the committee” decided it or “the board” decided, which they said they never had heard of: “the board”? These doctors didn’t know who they were talking about; they said it was like a mystery. So, they brought ideas to the table and were trying to make sense of what happened in the last two-and-a-half years.
I was there as a representative of our EDA, trying to find out what the solutions would be for healthcare and other things. I mean, they were talking about how the healthcare system did have to change. There needed to be a hybrid system, because with any social institution [like our healthcare system] we always look at lack of funding. The system isn’t working at present and needs to be overhauled.
Michael:
So was it discussed, why that decision was made, what reasoning, or information… actually… two parts. Why the decision made, and the stubborn follow-through implemented? And the second part would be, Was it discussed where they got their information from? (and by they I mean the gov’t).
Michelle:
No. They went back to thinking about dr. Henderson with smallpox, he eradicated smallpox,
and he was the hero of all these doctors who attended the conference, and so they would refer to him, and say that he did a circle of vaccination patterns where if you had the pox on your face, okay, here, you have to be isolated and we are going to vaccinate everybody in that small community. And that’s how they did it. They went from one community to the next and if there was someone with the pox on their face, they knew they were infected and the only time that you can actually spread smallpox was if you have pox on your face.
Michael:
Right.
Michelle:
Right?, And so they said visually they could see it right so that’s how they eradicated that.
And these doctors, dr. Martha Fulford, she’s an Infectious Disease Control specialist and she worked in Africa for a while. And she said that usually to eradicate these things you help the vulnerable first and so we were supposed to be vaccinating the vulnerable. But what had happened was that eventually
after the vulnerable were vaccinated, we started saying ‘let’s vaccinate everyone.’, but they knew that the people who were vulnerable were of a certain age, and the average age of death from covid was 82 years of age. And she was like, ‘this doesn’t make too much sense’ in that why are we vaccinating everyone. We know that the highest risk is in the elderly, so let’s vaccinate them and let’s let everybody else work and go about with their business, like they did with smallpox. But the government had decided they weren’t going to do that, and trickled down to the College of Physicians. So as you got to a younger age dr. Fulford said that you would see more of a risk, from the vaccination.
And so when she was talking she actually did say though, the problem was that the numbers were skewed because first of all the way the recording system was, that the people that were in the hospital with another sickness other than covid were now being administered a covid test, and if they died, it was because of covid. They wrote it down, even though that was wrong. They had no other way of recording it, it seemed.
And so it brought the numbers higher. So that was an error, and so right now we have we have information that’s being brought out, I read some information recently and I think it’s in New Brunswick or maybe Nova Scotia where it says there are 38 people hospitalized right now. That’s all it says. Well it doesn’t say covid, it says 38 people entered the hospital system. No mention of covid. And then under that it says, 12 people have covid. So, how many people without covid are in the hospital right now? And how many people, that were in the hospital not because of covid have been administered a PCR test? And the PCR test as the doctors were saying, if you’re looking for something it will bring it up. So if it’s looking for HIV there is an error of: 1 out of 1,000 people will have a false positive. So out of a million people that you administer this to, well 1000 people have something, so a million people could be tested for HIV and youve got a thousand people with false positives.
So the PCR test was not an accurate test. And also, you could be tested for covid, and you could have walked in a room where there’s dead covid virus, it’s not active, and you’ve got it in your nose, and they’re testing… “Oh, you’ve got covid. You’ve got to isolate now for 14 days.”
Michael:
Yeah that’s all stuff that, none of that was published. I never read, any of that. And it begs the question, why? What would they get out of causing this hysteria?
Michelle:
I don’t know, but the doctors were told to empty all ER’s. So, they said you have to empty all ERs so a lot of them had ERs emergency rooms. I was talking to one of my clients and she said “oh John Gillis, you know he said it was a sh*show at Dartmouth General Hospital” and I said “oh and is it because people all of a sudden had this fear and if they had a cough they might have had covid?” Right? you’re scared and you go to the ER.
Michael:
So, I think you answered this already but just what kinds of disciplines were represented at the conference this weekend? We would have expected obviously doctors, researchers, nurses, maybe legal counsel Public health officers to attend, and did any chief medical officers attend?
Michelle:
Well, I’ll tell you, there was a medical health officer of Leslie Lewis’ riding in Ontario because they actually decided not to be represented by the Ontario Health Minister and said they would have their own. So dr Matt Strauss was there representing that riding.
Michael:
Interesting.
Michelle:
Yes, and he’s doing a PhD on the history of Medicine and he provided some of the history in medicine and in certain eras a thousand years ago they were talking about social distancing and stuff like that in medicine. So he was just giving us the synopsis of that I thought that was very interesting. There were legal, there were surgeons, there were pediatric doctors, there were nurses, there were psychiatrists, there were psychologists, there were GPS, a neuro surgeon, dr Celeste, and there was a doctor from Australia, she came the furtherst, and there were doctors from all over Canada.
Michael:
Wow. So it was, multinational…
Michelle:
Yeah, well she came from Australia, and then you had from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan… yeah. All over.
Michael:
Excellent.
Michelle:
And of course political I was there as a trying to find out what the solutions would be for healthcare and other things. I mean, they were talking about how the Healthcare System did have to change. Needed to be a hybrid system. Because, anything that’s social institution we always look at funding, and so the funding and it’s not working right now. The system is not working.
Michael:
I understand the keynote speaker at this conference was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. What was it like meeting him, and what did he have to say?
Michelle:
It was amazing meeting him.
He co-authored The Great Barrington Declaration, which and I had read. Over 960,000 people have signed the declaration from all different walks of life, all professions. I just thought,
I need to meet this gentleman, because you know that declaration was something that I took door-to-door with me when I was campaigning to show people that there was another way that our government could have dealt with covid.
Michael:
What is The Great Barrington Declaration about?
Michelle:
The Great Barrington Declaration is based on a paper that was written about a hundred years ago, and these three epidemiologists, Bhattacharya from Stanford, another from Harvard, and the third from Oxford, got together in Massachusetts to discuss and write this declaration. Dr. Bhattacharya said it was easy to write because there was something already written one hundred years ago on “focused protection.” They more or less just modified for our present-day situation. Focus protection for the vulnerable is what it suggests. If you don’t do it this way, you’re going to have high incidents of abuse, of suicide, aggravated mental illness, drug abuse, opioid abuse, a breakdown in society. And that’s what we saw — we’re still seeing it. We’re still seeing the repercussions.
Dr. Bhattacharya talked about how it was more important to keep the economy going, keep lives going, and not defer people’s lives but focus protection on the older population, which is always more vulnerable.
Michael:
Absolutely.
Michelle:
And I actually spoke to him, I told him that my two businesses were shut down and I told him one of them was functional aging training for people over 65 and I said they were shut down, and he said those were the things that needed to be opened to keep these people healthy.
And he said that’s where the Great Barrington Declaration paper comes in, he said. And it’s not just a blanket statement he said you look at each individual community and province and state and city and you decide, “okay this is what we’re going to do for this population here this is what we’re going to do here but we shall not impact people who aren’t going to be affected by the illness.” And that came out in October 2020.
Michael:
Now, dr. Bhattacharya is also having a legal battle with Fauci I understand. Do you know anything about that?
Michelle:
Well, he talked a little bit about that. When they brought out the Great Barrington Declaration, (I don’t know if it was the public health officer) but someone associated with the White House, And the Medical Association or public health, he emailed Fauci and said, you know, “we have a problem. We have to shut this Great Barrington Declaration down.” and Fauci said “ah, no one’s going to listen to it, we can’t deal with that now we’re very busy, in other words.”. And Bhattacharya wanted to go to the White House, he spoke to the secretary, and they never allowed him to meet with the president. He, didn’t really talk too much about that, he just said this was what was happenning.
Michael:
So, we were all subject to mandates during the past two and a half years. At the conference did you get the sense of any consensus of opinion regarding the overstep of authority by the country’s chief medical officers and other public health officials?
Michelle:
Yes. The doctors were very frustrated. They knew doctors should have some control over what their patient treatment recommendations are. And from studies they knew that hydroxychloroquine could work, and ivermectin could work, but they were refused that option for their patients. I was speaking with one doctor who provided 1,013 medical exemptions for vaccination. Currently, she’s being subjected to investigation; her patient files are being scrutinized. She requires a lawyer, and she may have a $750,000 dollar fine.
Michael:
I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that this kind of overstepping really, not only steps on the toes of doctors who we rely heavily on already, but has the potential of costing, you know, thousands of lives.
Michelle:
So, Martha Fulford said that we shouldn’t vaccinate children, but there are instances where we should if they are in a high degree of vulnerability. So some children who may be morbidly obese, or that it’s questionable maybe because they could be pre-diabetic, someone who is on a respirator at home you know they have they have pre-existing conditions as children and the other one is neurological disorders.
Otherwise we should not vaccinate children because first of all she said she specifically said, the age of 39 now, and under there were too many instances of myocarditis and they were having issues with that she said that you just can’t have that because what happens with myocarditis, it’s an inflammation of the heart tissue and inflammation can actually cause necrosis of the actual tissue. Which isn’t going to come back. Necrotic tissue is dead tissue, so it could have an impact on a person’s health and longevity, right?
Michael:
What i’m puzzled on is why they were just so reckless, with so many people’s lives.
Michelle:
Martha had said, and there was some controversy there because some of the doctors I talked to said, “Well, Martha thinks that the vaccination is fine.” now, Martha she is Infectious Disease Control specialist and there were a couple of doctors are like “oh no you know that vaccine is killing people.” and Martha said you know there was some evidence that the vaccine was actually providing some less severe coverage of covid for older people, the vulnerable. But, when you go down the age, like going down younger and younger there’s more risk of the vaccine then there is of the benefit. So the benefit is high for the older people who are vulnerable but the benefit goes down as the risk goes up for the younger people.
And they also did see that, she said, that many many times (she worked in the ER for a while as well) and she said that she was having women present with heavy menses and she said at first she was ignoring image like “oh well you know that happens and that.” but she kept seeing it over and over again and she’s like “yeah I think there’s something here. I think this is doing something to womens’ menses. To their periods.”
So she said she started filling out the forms and saying this seems to be an adverse reaction, and there students there too (at the conference), medical students, from all over Canada, and there was one girl who asked the question, she said “I’m a psychiatric resident and I did see one of my patients actually suffer from myocarditis, and they had just had the vaccine the night before.” and she said “We need to report this” to her PE who was head of the residents and they said “no, don’t report it.”.
Michael:
Said no?
Michelle:
Correct.
And Martha said you can report it at any time, you can go home and report it. You have an obligation to report it. We all do.
But it does take about an hour to report each patients adverse reactions.
Michael:
I know that there were a lot of reports on this because it was a very heavily read news article that I was exposed to regarding the menstrual cycles, and the problems that were coming up.
Do you think there is there a reason why they chose to ignore those reports?
Michelle:
The doctors couldn’t come to any conclusion. They said, “well if we figure out why this happened you know it’s almost like a conspiracy. So they were just showing the facts, what happened, the research. That’s what they were showing. We did have one person from the states, a doctor, and he’s in some kind of “take action U.S.” or something, very well funded, by some elete, in secret, but they’re on our side, the freedom side. The student said “Well, what do I do when I need to say somethingand I see that it’s not right, and here I am as a student or a resident, and things are not as they should be, because we’re supposed to do no harm. That’s the first thing we learn. Do no harm. And he actually said (the doctor from the states) “You want to get through your schooling as fast as possible, and you may need to do that as quietly as possible, in some instances.”
And some people disagreed with him, but some people said we know where you’re coming from because it’s hard enough to get through that schooling without having these adverse emotions and and talk back to your professors. You know it’s a very heavy, very weighted subject. It was well waited you know people could even feel that they almost didn’t have any power in some ways. You know like dr. Frances Christian, he was (fired) let go. His dismissal is actually on Youtube.
He’s in Saskatchewan and he was general surgeon and I believe he taught at University of Saskatchewan as a surgeon, and he said that he would talk to his anesthesiologist because you’d get a chance to talk as the person (patient) is going under, looking at the stats on the person and they’d have chance to talk when they’re organising everything and he said he’d talk, and he said most of the people were like “look, i don’t want to talk about it, i just get the shot and…”.
Anyway, when he spoke about it, he had some people complaining about him and so he was dismissed. And he had been doing it for maybe 35, 37 years.
Michael:
Don’t you think, with that kind of attitude, don’t you think that… it’s dangerous for the doctor, but it’s very dangerous for the patient. Especially when the patient is completely unaware that these adverse effects are out there. And that you have to really go out of your way to even find the reports on them.
I’ve been thinking about it. In terms of cigarettes, when you buy cigarettes now, you have a warning label on it, saying, this is what could happen to you if you keep smoking. And that’s totally valid. And you would think, that our College of Physicians would have the good sense to let people know about any possible side effects.
Michelle:
They weren’t allowed to. They were told not to. If they told or gave a recommendation to a patient who then caught covid because they said oh don’t get vaccinated, and they caught Covid or something happened, the doctor would be reprimanded, fined, and could lose his licence.
Michael:
So those orders would be coming from the College of Physicians
Michelle:
Which would be coming from government. It trickles down.
They were scared. It was fear and bullying.
A clinician said that you’d see “oh I recommended that, but that didn’t really work, I’m going to recommend something else.” He said “and then the patient can decide” well that’s how it should be, but patients weren’t even allowed to say no.
Michael:
They weren’t even allowed to know the information.
Michelle:
Right, because Pfizer said they weren’t going to release the information for 55 years.
And they (the common person) were told that it was safe and effective.
And if they didn’t have the vaccine, “think about your grandmother. You’re going to kill your grandmother, if you don’t get vaccinated.”
Michael:
And that’s what the end users were told.
Michelle:
Yes.
Michael:
How did Pfizer and Moderna get away with that.
Michelle:
Well it had to do with what do they call it corporatism so that it was like Corporation with the government and it had to do with I’m sure it had to do with money but these doctors in really talk about that.
They just talked about how they didn’t like what happened, and they felt silenced, and for babies, for pregnant women, they were told “oh yeah all the pregnant women need to be vaccinated”. And pregnant women? Are there studies?
Michael:
That’s a great question.
Michelle:
One of the doctors was talking about the medical system in general and said 5.8 million people in Canada are without a GP — out of 37 million.
Michael:
A lot of Canadians are facing that right now.
Michelle:
Also, out of 28 different Universal Healthcare systems in the world (OECD countries) ours is ranked 27th.
Michael:
Wow
Michelle:
So there are other types of healthcare systems out there, that are far better than ours, and we have to look at that.
Michael:
Now what does OECD stand for?
Michelle:
It is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is where these 137 countries come together and they try to (almost like the WEF, but countries!) coming up with “this is how we do things”, and “what do you guys do to improve that?”. So it’s an organization where the countries compare statistics.
Michael:
Are processes currently underway here in Nova Scotia, to your knowledge, or signs that they may be pending, concerning how provincial mandates were implemented, and lessons learned from their implementation? Is there any kind of reflection going on?
Michelle:
No, the doctors are still under the gun with the College of Physicians.
Michael:
Do you think the College of Physicians is looking at it, maybe self reflecting.
Michelle:
Well, we wouldn’t know that, they didn’t know that (those attending the conference)
But the former president of the Ontario Medical Association was there, dr. Shawn Whatley and he believes the health system has to change, and it should be a hybrid system. They were saying “not everyone can pay” but there should be something where people can pay.
You know, they just came to the conclusion that this should never happen again.
Michael:
Just a quick question about the dual system. Are there other countries, that have this that are doing very well with them?
Michelle:
Yeah!
Michael:
What countries?
Michelle:
The UK, France, and South Africa.
Ok, there was a doctor there, originally from South Africa, now lives in Owen Sound, she came to talk, to meet everyone, and she said, that the South African system is even better.
She said they’re going to start testing a system up in Owen Sound, where you actually pay something per month to be part of this clinic, as a patient, but you may not need it for two years. But when you do need to go to the clinic for something, it’s there for you.
Michael:
Almost like insurance
Michelle:
Yeah
So like I said there are 5.8 million without a GP so probably some of those people will say, “Well, I’ll do it. Because I just want to have access to a GP if I get sick or something.”
Michael:
You said 5.8 million? So considering we’re in a country of 36, 37 million, that’s almost an eighth. 1 in 8 people don’t have a GP.
Michelle:
Yeah
Michael:
That’s a lot.
Michelle:
In Nova Scotia, we have 110,000, in a population of 1 million, who don’t have a GP. So, the numbers without a GP are growing. And it’s worse when you factor in the new immigration numbers. When you have immigration [in Canada] that’s going to be increased to 500,000 per year, we will be putting more pressure on our medical system if it’s not overhauled. Doctors are retiring. Many medical graduates are leaving Canada for better pay and compensation opportunities. Maybe we will bring in new doctors, but that system is not perfect as immigrant doctors are told they have to re-certify, which takes a lot of extra funds and years of study time. That Canadian certification system will have to be revamped to accommodate the growing population.
Michael:
Do you think the Liberal Gov’t is thinking about this when they’re deciding that they’re going to bring in half a million people per year? Are these discussions had?
Michelle:
I don’t know, it’s a possibility.
So, we need to fix certain things. This gentleman I was talking to tonight, he said, “The healthcare system in India, he felt was better than here.” and I said “Here we’ve promised you great institutions in Canada, and we’ve let you down.”.
Health and well being of our people, is one out of three things that the government is responsible for in terms of making sure of, right? It’s national security, economy, and well being.
Well, you’ve decided to take on a socialized medical system, so everyone is treated the same, but it’s not working right now.
Michael:
So if you’re going to add more people to that…
Michelle:
There has to be modification.
Michael:
Yeah, there has to be something done.
Michelle:
Yeah, so they’re seeing that now. These doctors mentioned that.
Also, one thing I found very interesting, you know how we all thought that maybe covid started in December 2019?
Michael:
Sure.
Michelle:
Well, dr Bhattacharya (at the conference )had said that, in the blood bank, in Italy, blood that was taken in 2019 showed antibodies to covid-19.
Michael:
Really?
Michelle:
Yes. I wrote that down because I found that intreguing. He said it was around longer than we thought.
Michael:
Which means our natural immunity was working towards it too.
Michelle:
They did talk about natural immunity and the infectious deseases control specialist said that you’d get herd immunity (from natural immunity). She didn’t recommend anything, she was just saying we have natural immunity. And a lot of people eat well, exercise and take care of themselves. And dr Millbourne’s brother, Michael Millbourne, he’s a PHD in nutrition and he said “there’sthe obesity crisis, and obesity was one of the comorbidities.”. He wasn’t one of the speakers but I was speaking to him about that because when we atually look at what was the top killer, in Canada, it had nothing to do with covid. Covid was at the eighth killer. There was opioid, cardiovascular, there were other issues out there that we should be looking at. This is what the doctor said, there are other, more important issues that are killing people, accross the board.
Michael:
The death rate, remained the same, and this was all over the world, it was three percent. And it was being treated as though it was more like fifty percent, like Ebola. Ebola was fifty percent, and you should be worried about Ebola.
Michelle:
And yes, this was the problem was people thought if you have covid you stand a 50% chance of going to the hospital, well actually, we could have treated it. But we didn’t. And so people just thought “oh, I’m going to get sick, I don’t have a vaccine.” So, they (at the conference) were saying there were treatments but we weren’t allowed to use them.
Michael:
I guess this comes to my next question: In your opinion, what should the government of Nova Scotia and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia take from this conference in order to make a positive change in their adherance to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Michelle:
Well, it’s funny about that because Bruce Pardy the lawyer was talking about how you’ve got the doctors, Medical Act that can kind of over-ride the constitution in some ways because they do have a responsibility to do no harm. So they kind of collide in some ways, when you’re a doctor, the constitution because, you have the freedom to do certain things. Because you do have a responsibility as well. So you can’t say as a doctor, crystals and an herb is going to cure you. But another person could say that and it wouldn’t have the same kind of weight.
Michael:
Do you think also that it might also apply to having the right information at their disposal and analyzing that information for themselves?
Michelle:
Yeah, the oath they take is about doing no harm and doing the best they can with the knowledge that they have. So is the knowledge coming and being forced down your throat or is it something that you’ve experienced in your practice, with your patients. You know, what works, what doesn’t work.
Michael:
Exactly.
Michelle:
But I’ll tell you, masks don’t really work. If you want to wear a mask it’s your choice but don’t force that on anyone. Vax passes. That was a falacy, because of the transmission, it doesn’t stop secondary transmission. A vaxxed person, who is masked would get covid in a room where there are other people (who have covid) because it’s aresol. It’s going into your mask and you’re breathing it in. It’s not really going to help unless you’ve got an N95 mask, and that’s what they were saying “customized, fitted” but basically you would have needed a respirator like the painters need .
Michael:
Of course. We’re not going in for that.
Michelle:
They talked about that it really needs to be that we have the true data, know what it is, and have a system that works. Rather than, if it’s covid, it over-rides every other code. Well no it doesn’t! Because they may be tested positive, but we don’t know if it’s a proper positive or a false positive. Or there are no symptoms so maybe they don’t even have it. And then if they die, why did you say they died of covid when they didn’t really die from covid, they had something else.
Michael:
There’s another good point is that doing no harm, you know, not telling the truth and not being truthful about circumstances of a person’s death can have a negative impact on the rest of your patients.
Michelle:
One of the doctors showed pictures demonstrating what we did to our children, which was very upsetting to most of the people in that room. This was at the end of her talk. She said, “I just want to show you what we did to our children, in terms of masking our children at school, not allowing them to sit with their friends, thinking that they needed to walk by their friends and hold their breath, with a mask on.” Eating lunch, each one had a 20-foot table to themselves, or they were standing in circles (6 feet apart, circles taped out on the floor), or sitting in their own circles to listen to a book.
Michael:
It sounds silly, but we did the same things to our kids here in Nova Scotia.
Michelle:
Yes this was all over.
So one of the final ones (pictures) was of two kids who came back to school after the year, and they both had masks, and they went to hug each other, and the picture was of the teachers trying to pull them apart.
Michael:
Wow
Michelle:
Another horrific picture was — I think it was from Ontario — kids were in their snowsuits outside, masked, and they had a sign hung around their necks, going down their backs, stating if they were vaccinated or not. So children were labeled “vaxed” or “unvaxed.” That’s crazy.
Then the final picture was of what all the leaders did, having dinner around a table all coming from another country and clinking their glasses. There was no social distancing there. All the adults were fine but they didn’t let their kids do it (socialize).
What does that say to the next generation. What a sleight to the next generation, and impact.
Michael:
Yeah it kind of says a lot about what their attitude is toward our next generation. Which, for me it doesn’t sound like too much of a regard at all. As a parent, personally I felt like I really had to take matters into my own hands, and keep my kids home.
Michelle:
And I did meet some people that were there who voted for me. One lady came up with her baby and said “I’m from the Fraser institute. I voted for you because I saw on one of your biographies that you home schooled your kids. “
One of the doctors just said that “This could never happen again.” that this is very important to get together, to show the details of what’s happenned and even there were mask studies done. One in Denmark, and another one in India. And with large amounts of people . 140,000 in one control group. 138,000 in the other control group and they could see that it really didn’t make a difference.
Michael:
I think there was one even from the John Hopkins.
Michelle:
So, Chris Millbourne was talking about that, about the masks. And you know today, going through Tim Hortons I saw the server masked, a father behind the counter, a mother behind the counter, and their eight or nine year old child, all masked.
Michael:
I was going to move on, but do you think that our College of Physicians now, have a responsibility to release that information now, and make that information available to those who are scared of getting corona virus and therefore wear a mask because they think it’s going to work, and it’s false.
Michelle:
They’re probably not going to. They probably won’t because it will make the populace even more untrusting of the intitution. “Oh you told me to do this for 2 years?”
Michael:
But they did. And again, the Hypocratic oath we come down to “do no harm” so if it turns out that these masks don’t do anything, and you’re inhaling microfibres for “reasons” that are false.
Michelle:
It was carbon monoxide actually that one of them came out with, they said that you were breathing in more oxygen monoxide than you actually need to, and that can have an effect on you.
There were just so many stories that these doctors were talking about and they even had questions about MAIDS (medical assistance in dying), and one of the doctors said “That is against the Do no harm, and that is something that is offered and shouldn’t be offered because the system is broken.”
Michael:
It was on a hotline.
Michelle:
Yeah, 811 in Saskatchewan.
And so they said, “This exists because our system is broken.”
Because there should be another way to deal with health for these people.
Michael:
So the last question I have for you: What kinds of political action could or should be taken as the next step towards protecting free speech in medicine and science here in Canada, and perhaps in Nova Scotia in particular?
Michelle:
The system needs to change to better serve Canadians. And as someone who wants to be elected, I want to have that insight, to know what the doctors are saying, because it has to come from the doctors, because they see how effective they are being.
Things will change. I don’t know what [the result is] going to be, but they have to think, they have to come together, and they have to re-create the system. And it’s going to take some time, but it has to be done. You know, MAIDS is just a symptom of how bad the healthcare system is.
Michael:
Agreed.
Well, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to chat with me today. I am absolutely ecstatic that you were able to take the opportunity to go up to Baddeck, and I hope that the information that was shared at that conference will be made available to the public at some point.
And I hope they keep meeting.
Michelle:
Thank you, and yes, the organizers and attendees would like another, similar conference next year, so they can talk about how to improve the system for citizens and doctors.