Medical Censorship & Harms of Lockdowns
WhoHearted Media Studio 30 January 2021Toronto
posted 22 February 2021
Drs Ashvinder Lamba, Patrick Phillips, Kulvinder Kaur Gill ―
Interview with 3 Canadian Frontline Doctors | Hosted by, Amina Sherazee Co-director of CRC.
(For more interviews with Canadian doctors about censorship and the vaccine roll-out, see
Canadian Doctors Speak Out: Dangers Of The Vax, The Hijacking Of Science & CPSO Gag order on Doctors (bitchute.com).
Transcript at https://randomphilipics.ca/transcripts/cdndocs-vaccine-censorship/
It seems like the more draconian policies you advocate for, the more mainstream media coverage that you get.
I had bought into it. Many medical colleagues I talked to— the same—thing we got a lot of our information from the media. …we kind of absorb a lot of our medical knowledge from colleagues. Now I’d say it has been tainted and influenced by media.
Physicians are being scared into self-censorship… into not sharing their opinions, into not sharing published data that goes against the political narrative.
…nurses are very aware that the College will go after them if they make social media posts that in any way call into question the public health measures.
Chief Public Health officer Dr. Tam had indicated during a press conference that we will likely have these lockdowns, the social distancing, masking measures in place while after we even have a vaccine perhaps for another one to three years. I tweeted out we don’t need to wait for a vaccine. An entire cancel culture mob ran a de-humanizing campaign against me to make me seem like I was some sort of monster that was dangerous to Society for my opposition to these harmful lockdowns, for my call for public debates about early outpatient treatment, for my advocacy against the actual lockdowns, for my call to actually talk about the published data.
[The campaign] was orchestrated. It was organized through certain actors online. And it involved members of the academic profession, and also some members of the media, who are very pro lockdown.
They ran a campaign to get people to launch a complaints against me. In all my years of practice. I have never had a patient complaint ever. These were not patients. They were mostly hyper-partisan people who had no idea of the research of what I was actually talking about, and they were just going along with the mob mentality of me being “dangerous”, a “conspiracy theorist”. I got abusive messages to my clinic, my staff, were harassed, I was harassed, and I was vilified.
Ontario is using very high cycle threshold PCR tests so a positive test is very unlikely to indicate viable infectious virus. People who are immune, showing antibodies, are counted as cases. Those who repeatedly tested positive are counted as several cases. (paraphrased)
In a Moral Panic something is seen as Unthinkable. A CoViD death or a case of CoViD in our psychology, is an Unthinkable Thing that could never be justified. Everything is justified to bring down CoViD numbers. We throw under the bus everybody who’s being harmed, because it is considered immoral to even think of the harms that could come from trying to save lives from CoViD.
CoViD is not going to go anywhere. It will come back every year. It’s endemic. H1N1 didn’t go anywhere. Swine flu didn’t go anywhere.
We need to assess the published peer-reviewed literature, the actual data that we now have as opposed to these modeling figures. The models just need to be thrown out the window.
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Note: This is an unofficial transcript with probable errors and a some minor edits.
For rebuttles and for citing, please refer to the original source at the CRC site as above.
Amina Sherazee : Section 7 of our Charter protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and to not be deprived of those rights, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
With respect to the first part of section 7, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized in a number of cases that healthcare has a profound impact on an individual’s right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 7 protects the right of Canadians to refuse unwanted medical treatment, and the right to make informed decisions regarding medical care for themselves, and for their children. In order to actualize these rights and exercise informed consent.
For the second part of section 7, Canadians need access to high-quality, unbiased evidence-based medical information . Both the government and public health are required to adhere to the principles of fundamental justice, at the individual level to provide an opportunity for patients to participate in discussions about their own care, and at the policy and regulatory level, by ensuring that decisions are publicly debated before they are implemented. In the CoViD context, we see doctors who are speaking about the state of public health care with respect to our treatment options, as well as with respect to the impact of health care policies, and of the CoViD measures taken, and what these doctors are facing as a result is silencing by their colleagues, repercussions from their college, and stigmatisation from the public.
This is a serious threat to their right to section 2b under the Charter, which is the right of freedom of expression and speech. The Constitutional Rights Centre is concerned about the fact that in a healthcare crisis, the very voices that need to be heard —the doctors, the nurses, the frontline workers— are precisely the voices that are under threat and being silenced.
Here to join me on this panel are three esteemed doctors who have bravely spoken about the reality on the ground of their experience and what they’re seeing in their patient populations, those in the most vulnerable sectors —the same groups of people that CoViD measures allegedly intended to protect.
Welcome to our show and I’d like to have you begin by introducing yourselves .
Dr. Ashvinder Lamba, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, please?
Dr. Ashvinder Lamba : I’m a family physician. I work primarily in Brampton Etobicoke. I do a low risk obstetrics, as well as addiction medicine. I also am a long-term care physician and I also am an executive director of a retirement home in Etobicoke. I also have myown primary care practice in Brampton. And I’ve been working since 2014.
A.S.: Thank you. And Dr. Phillips?
P.P.: I’m a family doctor by training but I’ve recently moved up to Engelhardt Ontario where I work primarily in the emergency department, but also do hospital medicine as well.
A.S.: Dr. Gill, please introduce yourself to us.
Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill : I’m a frontline physician practicing and Brampton and and also out in Milton. My training is in pediatrics, in allergy & in clinical immunology. I’m also the president and the co-founder of a frontline doctors group known as Concerned Ontario Doctors. I’ve represented the interests of Canadian frontline doctors and and also Canadian patients through advocacy efforts at at committee testimonies at the Senate of Canada, at the House of Commons and here locally at at the Queen’s Park.
A.S.: Excellent. So this panel is eminently qualified to speak about the issue of how CoViD measures are impacting not just Canadians in general, but also the medical profession and the ability of professionals to be able to provide medical opinions on care and treatment.
So I’d like you to start, Dr. Phillips. Tell us what was your initial to the declaration of the CoViD measures and the CoViD pandemic?
Dr. Patrick Phillips: My reaction to the original declaration of a pandemic back in March and April  was probably similar to most physicians, and especially most physicians in Ontario’s North. We were seeing what was going on in Wuhan, and then we saw what happened and Northern Italy, and then New York and seeing bodies piling up. I have to admit I was I was pretty scared. We knew so little of this virus at that time and
our response was to prepare for disaster. And so we shut down a lot of our healthcare system in Ontario. Cancer screenings went out the window. We switched over to telemedicine. A lot of doctors haven’t seen their patients in quite a while. We basically prepared for disaster, in the beginning.
It wasn’t until probably heading into the second wave, or maybe over the summer, that I started to look into things, because CoViD didn’t really start to spread up north until that point. When I did, I was kind of shocked that a lot of the talking points of the mainstream narrative didn’t really fit with the research, like especially around vitamin D, or the seasonality of the virus.
As I saw the research piling up, I started to ask some questions. That really did not really leave me to want to speak out on my own. I just wanted to kind of learn more about the virus,
but it was what happened in the fall that really started to make me ask questions.
That was when I started to see this wave of patients who missed their cancer screenings during the first lockdown coming to me for the first time just with belly pain or things like that. I lay hands on them either feeling a lump or putting an ultrasound on them and finding many patients just riddled with stage 4 cancer.
At that point, I realized we’re doing something wrong here. I was just seeing the harm that was being done to these patients.
It started to make me wake up and realize that I needed to speak out and at least balance the narrative with some of the harms that are happening from these lockdowns.
A.L.: During the second wave —and I concur with what was already said that when the pandemic started, all of us were very scared and very concerned. We were following Public Health guidelines with regards to avoiding patient contact unless absolutely necessary. We’re trying our best to manage our practices.
Somewhere along the way I was speaking to a colleague at a local hospital.
The hospitals would send us these forms asking if there’s a huge wave of patients that are sick or staff that are sick. Are you able to help us in different areas of the hospital? We filled it out and I was trying to figure out what can I help with, you know emergency pediatrics, adult medicine, and we never got called.
I asked my colleague, so what’s going on at the hospital? Are the beds full? Are we close to being called in? He said, you know half the beds are empty, right? So the time we started talking about this. What is protecting the population?
In particular, I was thinking about Brampton where I practice, where we have a huge minority population, about 73 to 75 percent visible minorities. We started theorizing, maybe it’s because people are coming from elsewhere. Maybe they they’ve been vaccinated before for example, maybe in tuberculosis. Often people get vaccinated for tuberculosis in other countries, so maybe that’s protecting people. We didn’t know. We kept trying to figure out why are the numbers not rising as high as we expected compared to other countries like Italy and New York, and so forth.
A.L.: So we knew that there were deaths, absolutely, people were dying from CoViD, but the numbers didn’t make sense to me, especially compared to other parts of the world. People were saying Toronto is going to have huge surge, because it is urban and so on, but it didn’t happen. Then after the summer, there was information about seasonality of the virus, about vitamin D deficiency in a lot of people in ICU, in those passing away. I was looking for a pattern, and looking at other literature & at other data. So I’m thinking, this doesn’t add up, especially when they started talking about locking down again. That to me, didn’t make any sense at all because again, we knew the effects of the first lockdown. Where was the proof that the numbers are going up significantly enough that a lockdown would work? Because it was also shown lockdowns don’t work.
K.K.G : Initially like the rest of my colleagues…there was a lot of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the mortality that might come with this virus, a fear of the transmission of this virus ―there was a lot of unknown initially. I had initially supported a very short lockdown simply because of the unknowns. Then I started to read the peer reviewed data that was coming out, and at published medical and scientific literature, and at what was coming out of other countries, including other jurisdictions that had not done a lockdown, such as South Dakota, Belarus, Sweden and they still had, without a lockdown, the same curved pattern that we did .
KKG: They did not have increased mortality above all-cause mortality despite not having a lockdown. I then started to compare the response of the various countries.
Then I started to read through the heartbreaking reports of the harms that were being caused by the lockdowns, the harms that the Western world’s lockdowns were having not only on the citizens within the Western world, but on the citizens of the developing world.
That was heartbreaking to read and I wasn’t seeing any of that being covered in our Canadian media. I wasn’t seeing any of that being talked about by my colleagues. I was originally born in India and I am emigrated as a baby with my family to Canada for better opportunities. I was born in a small little village in India. The very people being impacted by our lockdowns, were people that came from such villages. The UN reports were saying that 10,000 children were dying in the developing World ue to starvation because of the developed world’s lockdowns.
KKG: The UN reports were saying that a hundred and fifty million people will succumb to poverty and death, and that decades of advancement to pull people out of poverty were all being undone because of the developed world’s locked downs, because of our lockdowns cutting off the supply chains.
There were all these harms, all these innocent children that were starving and dying, all these innocent people in the developing world that were facing consequences from our actions. Yet most of my colleagues weren’t even conscious of this. Then more data started coming out about the harms happening locally in Ontario. Also nationally we were seeing a significant rise in suicides & a significant rise in an addiction overdose deaths.
We had oncologists warning of a tsunami of cancers coming over the next decade because most people were missing their cancer screenings. There were warnings of increased deaths of TB happening due to lack of immunizations. There were reports of increased childhood illnesses happening that would normally be prevented by routine childhood immunizations because those children weren’t showing up for the regular immunization appointments there. Our concern is about sequelae from chronic disease such as heart disease and diabetes because people weren’t showing up to the ER because of chest pain, because they were too afraid.
The basic concept of public health is to look at all harms, and yet despite all the new data coming out, months of peer review data, none of this was being put forth by our governments in terms of the policies. The policies weren’t changing.
The policies were still stuck with the subjective modeling done back in March 2020.
What I found shocking is that in the spring and to the summer & into the fall our government still kept using subjective modeling. We already had at that point 10 months of hard, real life data that was objective that informed evidence-based decisions could be based on. That wasn’t happening. That’s where I became concerned. I felt we needed to have a broader conversation about all harms and about the impacts that our actions were having, not only within the Canadian population, but the harms that we were causing within the developing world due to our actions.
KKG: The very first premise of the of our profession is to first do no harm. I thought that our actions were causing harm, and I felt that we needed to really pause and and to evaluate what we were doing.
A.S: So you all came to this conclusion that the the harm that is being done is far more significant than the risks? … the messaging of the risk that we are getting from public health.
In what forums did you raise your concerns? How the reaction? So I’m going to ask you first, Dr. Phillips, about how you went about sharing your concerns.
P.P.: I started to speak out publicly relatively recently, maybe starting in December The medium that I chose was was Twitter just because I started to watch, just kind of seeing public reaction, seeing other doctors on there who are speaking out like Dr. Gill.
I admit I was thinking about speaking out earlier, but it’s pretty scary in the medical profession to start questioning the official narrative, especially when everybody seems to be on board with it.
So, starting to question, I first I chose Twitter. Then I started to reach out to some others who offered to do interviews for me, like with Bright Light news media. [https://brightlightnews.com/author/matthew-parris/]
I’ve done some interviews with them
and other figures that I have just kind of built a network through through Twitter, and through the course of that also spoken to my Physician Group. I’ve sent emails and position papers to the CEO of my hospital, and and to the local physicians as well, just so they weren’t caught off guard when they saw that I’m speaking out publicly.
Of the people who’ve responded to me, it’s mostly been supportive.
But I’ve heard from a lot of physicians that they know there can be consequences, so they’re not comfortable speaking publicly, but they do support at least some of the things that I’m speaking publicly about.
A.S.: Okay. So let’s talk a little bit about the consequences.
First of all, how are physicians coming to this conclusion that there is a consequence for expressing a thought related to their expertise and their profession?
Can you talk a little bit about that? Perhaps Dr. Lamba?
A.L.: What I would say is, in our profession, We are very good at following the rules and thinking about the best for everybody, especially our patients. We all took the Hippocratic Oath. Already mentioned was first, do no harm, but also in our profession we’re trained as a group, we are trained to think a certain way, we are taught to look at evidence based practice.
But we also trust each other a lot. We’re in a were in a profession where there’s a high stakes when it comes to our patient patient care and patient lives, and we trust each other for that reason. If I’m assisting with the surgery and something goes wrong and the surgeon tells me something goes wrong, I’m going to trust that. I’m going to do what they say.
A.L.: You’re very dependent on each other. You help each other. I think that when wehear other doctors say certain things, we tend to believe them.. Sometimes it’s hard to go your own way if you don’t completely agree with a colleague.
And yeah, there can be consequences for not going with the narrative, so to speak.
Even though we are independently licensed, we do work for companies. We work for hospitals. We are associated with many different organizations that can potentially affect how we work.
A.S.: Okay, so in the CoViD context, how would you describe that working environment? Or that climate?
A.L.: As time goes on, I feel like it’s more splintered. at the same time, I also feel like the vast majority is seeing through, they’re seeing the data that’s coming in, and the policy, and the policy and what evidence-based data we’re seeing, they’re not jiving at all.
And again what Dr. Gill have referred to in terms of looking at peer-reviewed articles and at the data that’s come out, and it’s been almost more than a year since we’ve known about CoViD That data is not being applied to policy. It is very obvious at this point.
And there’s still many doctors who still believe in policies which were originally started, say in March or April 2020 -they haven’t changed much. There’s a lot of people that still believe that those policies should still be in place.
The doctors that are trying to be more…. trying to get the new data out there, and trying to base the policies on that data- There’s a lot of pushback.
A.S.: And you can tell us about that push back?
K.K.G.: I find that if you’re willing to go with the narrative, the media narrative, if you are calling for more draconian measures —we’ve had colleagues call for martial law, we’ve had colleagues call for full lockdowns, zero CoViD, etc. It seems like the more draconian policies you advocate for, the more mainstream media coverage that you get.
There isn’t public push back to that. However, if you start pointing out the fact that it’s not the virus that’s unprecedented, but it’s our response that’s unprecedented, that a lockdown has never, on such a large scale, ever happened before in our history, that the Canadian and the World Health organization’s pandemic responses up until even 2019 never included a lockdown. And that this is completely unprecedented— If you start mentioning things like that, there is significant pushback.
And if you even cite peer-reviewed literature showing studies published in, say The Lancet, for example, that showed that the lockdowns do not reduce mortality, and you start citing other peer-reviewed literature that shows that over the next decade and two, we’ll actually see significant increase in deaths due to all of the other non-CoViD related chronic diseases that we’re presently ignoring— 21:52
K.K.G.: even the American Pediatric Society has warned of a generation that will be lost to illnesses, due to significant anxiety, depression, educational harms seen in young children, We’re seeing all of that.
K.K.G.: But if you bring forward this, you’re labeled a conspiracy theorist, despite even citing peer-reviewed literature. If it goes against the dogma that’s presented by the mainstream media, which is very fear-driven, there is an unwillingness to actually engage in debate. I’ve been trying since May 2020 to get colleagues to simply discuss all harms. I been I been trying to have colleagues engage in debate about the impacts that the lockdowns are having within communities that do not have the privilege of our profession.
So we know that the lockdowns harm immigrant communities. We know that they harm people of color. We know that they harm the working class and we know that they harm the poor, we know that they harm people within the developing world.
Within our profession, there’s a significant disconnect, and there’s there’s an unwillingness to even engage in that debate. There seems to be anger, even animosity, if you bring forward those concerns.
I find this shocking because we’re supposed to be advocating for those that don’t have a voice.
We’re supposed to be advocating for those that are vulnerable.
Where I practice in Brampton as Dr. Lamba mentioned it’s nearly 75% people of color, and it’s mostly immigrant, working class of people where oftentimes English isn’t the first language. So so how are a couple a family where both of the parents work supposed to be homeschooling their children when their first language isn’t English, right?
KKG: There’s all of this happening and there’s significant pushback. If you go against the dogma of the lockdowns, you’re labeled as not only being a conspiracy theorist, but as being dangerous, as wanting people to die, which is the complete opposite of what you’re actually advocating for.
A.S.: Talk to me about some of the reprisals that you’ve personally faced, like some of the sanctions that you’ve experienced as a result of speaking what you know to be true and well-researched and grounded in evidence. What has been the reaction?
K.K.G.: It’s it’s been shocking. It’s been tremendous and unlike anything that I’ve ever experienced before!
So, in April 2020 I read a peer-reviewed publication by Dr. Harvey A. Risch [American Jl of Epidemiology https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093 Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Patients….] who’s a Yale professor of epidemiology & public health where he had reviewed the data on early outpatient treatment, of HCQ treatment for high-risk patients.
After reading that publication, I then started to read additional publications. I found, which I was ignorant of before, is that many countries, many governments had already adopted early outpatient treatment for the high-risk patients. Many of these countries actually had lower mortality rates compared to Canada. As I started to share more of these peer-reviewed Publications, and started to read the data —what I didn’t understand is: why weren’t we simply having an open debate about this, because patients that could potentially benefit from this treatment were being denied that choice.
KKG: And so when I started to advocate for us to be able to have this debate, there was tremendous pushback. I was called and anti-vaxxer. I was called a conspiracy theorist, called be a dangerous person by fellow colleagues, by people that were hyper partisan. They had politicized these issues.
So a lot of medicine and science during this pandemic has become politicized, where people have taken certain positions, not based on the peer-reviewed literature, but based on what they think aligns with their political party.
A.S.: So I see the two of you (P.P., A.L) nodding your head in agreement. So what would you say about your own personal experience? A.L.: It was amazing because you get that we’re just talking about having a discussion. We’re not saying we’re right or you’re wrong . That’s not what we’re saying at all. We just want to have a discussion about what is the best to go with regards to treatment, in regards to the lockdown, anything.
It was amazing because as soon as you might have mentioned maybe there are early outpatient treatments that might be useful, you were labelled as like, oh you support Trump.
I couldn’t I couldn’t get over that. What does this have to do with Trump? It was so hyperpolarized. It was unbelievable.
I can speak to that value maybe even from the other side. From the very beginning we had almost no CoViD cases and still locked down in Northern Ontario. The evidence was developing so rapidly that I just kind of eventually tuned it. I figured I’d look into this when the second wave comes so I’ll be up to date on the literature. I can attest I got most of my information around these things from the media.
I remember hearing about Trump recommending hydroxychloroquine
and how that was so dangerous and it was killing people— Some of that was based just on the media and also on a Lancet publication that was withdrawn two weeks later because it was fraudulent.
But that caught on in the medical community and even the idea of even suggesting that we prescribe hydroxychloroquine for this was just unthinkable. I have to say I was shocked when I looked at the actual data of like meta-analysis of study after study showing that it’s effective as an early Outpatient Treatment.
P.P.: It was another thing that just kind of threw me back—what’s going on here?
I have to say I had bought into it.
Many medical colleagues I talked to— the same thing happened, we got a lot of our information from the media. We’re human beings like everybody else. Unless you’re going to really delve into a topic, we kind of absorb a lot of our medical knowledge from colleagues. Now I’d say it has been tainted and influenced by media.
A.S.: Did you ever feel that you had to stop talking about it or did you fail even more compelled to talk about this after you did your own independent research?
At that point I had already decided, after seeing all the harms that we’re coming into my emergency department. I mentioned the cancers as just one of them, but the suicidal children…like that. I was seeing in record numbers people coming in with just dental infections every day, major, like something that could have been fixed easily. They had facial cellulitis. I’ve seen some with infections that spread to their throat, that could block off their airway, like pre-penicillin type of diseases.
They were coming in [late] because of the fear of coming into Emerg. Dept.
Everybody that I talk to is convinced that they’re going to catch CoViD if they came in there and they might die from it.
P.P.: At that point, at least, I knew I needed to speak out on the lockdowns anyway, and so the more I delved into it, I felt people need to be aware of this, that there’s other options, there’s treatments. There’s so much research that is not being talked about and not just one paper. Right? This is paper after paper of study after study, and the meta-analysis the compilation of the data supports.
So many things like vitamin D, Ivermectin hydroxychloroquine as early Outpatient Treatment, and I was just shocked that it wasn’t being even talked about.
In a Health crisis, right the people who are responsible for making policy decisions with respect to healthcare, like public health officials. They would stand to benefit from hearing these voices.
Is it because they’ve already have read all this, and they’ve decided to just dispense with it?
Or do you think there’s something else going on? Why is it that you haven’t been consulted — because you belong to an organization that represents quite a number of physicians
So you would be one of those groups that are engaged in and very interested in this topic and who definitely have a lot to offer.
KKG: I don’t think any Frontline physician has has actually been consulted. Very early on, Concerned Ontario Doctors [carenotcuts.ca?] had written an open letter way back in April 2020. We then did a follow-up letter back in May. At that time it asked for things like PPE, but it had mentioned other things — the overall response. And there was no response back from the provincial government.
Most of voices we hear from are from academics. Some are not necessarily on the front lines and not speaking from their experiences or shared experiences. What I find perplexing during such a pandemic, if we are willing to shut down life as we know it, if we are willing to shut down schools and make businesses permanently closed…if we’re willing to shutdown economies, to force people not to see their loved ones, if we’re willing to force people to not have funerals for their loved ones, or to see them at their time of death, why are we not willing to look at all aspects of health promotion?
It is part of health care, and critical part of public health.
From peer-reviewed literature we know that obesity, metabolic disease such as diabetes type 2, for example, these are significant risk factors for death amongst CoViD patients, but we never ever hear a recommendation surrounding diet, exercise or health promotion coming from our Public Health officials.
There is now significant data on vitamin D and vitamin D deficiency being a significant risk factor for people of color for CoViD-19. It is quite substantial, which is similar to the data that we also knew from previous viruses such as influenza, for example, which has a large body of data and we know that vitamin D is actually essential for our overall immune responses.
So in many countries even even the UK, for example, they’re supplying free of charge vitamin D for the high-risk populations that are also at risk of vitamin D deficiency..
A.S.: Why isn’t Canada doing this? KKG: Exactly. This is something that we have brought up to the public health officials. AS: And what’s the response?
KKG: There was never a response. A.S.: Has there been any invitation for consultation on CoViD measures in general? [Negative head shaking.]
A.S. Has there ever been any public forum where physicians and physician groups have been invited to comment on policies before they are announced as we are seeing in press conferences?
[Negative head shaking.]
K.K.G.: No, the exact pposite is happening where physicians are being scared into self-censorship. Physicians are being scared into not sharing their opinions, into not sharing published data that goes against the political narrative.
Let’s talk about where that censorship is coming from. Do you see signs of censorship and who are the agents of that censorship?
P.P.: I’ve had definitely messages from colleagues as well over social media, or through emails and things like that where I’ve been called dangerous. So that’s that’s part of the conformity culture that medicine has, the kind that I’ve noticed..(Sometimes that has its benefits, like if you’re actually doing something really dangerous.)
I only recently began to speak out. So I haven’t faced a lot of major institutional pushback or censorship that way.
A.L.: I feel that the majority of our colleagues are understanding what is happening. But I think there’s a enormous amount of fear. And again, because we do work in institutions that have the ability to reduce our hours, or to reduce our ability to get O.R. time and so forth, right?
So, this is a true threat to our livelihood, if we do speak out.
P.P.: I’ve noticed he even in my own institution that the nurses are very aware that the College will go after them. They’ve been warned.
Although I’ve had many conversations about these harms -because I see these harms every day from these lockdowns- I talked to the nurses about them and they’re all very aware. The nurses that I work with are scared of their college because they’ve made it very clear that they will go after them if the nurses make social media posts that in any way call into question the public health measures, or if they voice their opinion on any of the main mainstream interventions.
37:07 A.S.: So let’s talk about your [KKG’s] complaint. You actually had a formal complaint filed.
So without getting into the substance of the complaint, can you tell our audience about what precipitated that, and what your reaction was as a result.
KKG: So in early August, the federal Chief Public Health officer Dr. Tam had indicated during a press conference that we will likely have these lockdowns, the social distancing, masking measures in place while after we even have a vaccine perhaps for another one to three years.
I had tweeted out that it’s that that we don’t need to wait for a vaccine, right?
Then there was this entire cancel culture mob that, for over a week, ran a dehumanizing campaign against me to make me seem like I was some sort of monster that was dangerous to Society for my opposition to these harmful lockdowns, for my call for public debates about early outpatient treatment, for my advocacy against the actual lockdowns, for my call to actually talk about the published data.
So when I say truth, I mean we know now that the risk of death varies greatly depending upon age and depending upon overall risk factors, which we didn’t know early on. But we know that if you’re under 70 your chance of survival from the virus is approximately 99.95%.
If you’re over 70, it’s am 95% For a child the risk of influenza is is am actually greater than the risk of SARs-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.
KKG: So these are discussions we’re not having. So we’re not rationalizing the overall risk. We’re not contextualizing the overall risk. We’re not looking at the relative risks compared to the harms and the risks of the actions of the lockdowns and overall sequelae of that.
And so there was this monstrous campaign. It was orchestrated. It was organized through certain actors online.
39:47 And it involved members of the academic profession, and also some members of the media, who are very pro lockdown. They ran a campaign to get people to launch a complaints against me.
In all my years of practice. I have never had a patient complaint ever,
A.S.: and these were not patient complaints?
K.K.G.: These were not patients. They were mostly hyper-partisan people who had no idea of the research of what I was actually talking about, and they were just going along with the mob mentality of me being “dangerous”, a “conspiracy theorist”.
40:37 How dare I challenge the Dogma, right? It was tormenting, absolutely tormenting, I got abusive messages to my clinic, my staff, were harassed, I was harassed, and I was vilified. I was made out to be some sort of monster, right? And it was a nihilistic sort of attitude that has been predominant within North America where there’s this dehumanizing conformity, right?
41:12 So if you don’t conform, you must be some sort of monster, and there’s a lot of ignorance behind that. So rather than engaging in debate, rather than actually challenging what I was saying, countering it with facts, engaging in a professional respectful debate, they just attacked me as a person.
It was extremely dehumanizing.
But I kept speaking out, and I’m still speaking out, because this is much greater than me. The whole reason I’m speaking out is because I know people within the communities I practice are being harmed. Fellow Canadians are being harmed, people where I was born are being harmed, people around the world are being harmed, people that are marginalized, that don’t have a voice, that don’t have a platform (and that’s something I’m privileged right now to have)— And so, my voice isn’t just my voice right now. My voice is a voice for millions, and I’m willing to put myself in in harm’s way in terms of the public backlash, because I know, in my heart, I’m doing this for all the right reasons.
Five years from now, I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I did everything to try to prevent further harm to society and I’ll know that I was on the right side of history. That’s what profession teaches us a core element of being a of actually being a physician is patient advocacy, is advocacy for the community, advocacy for the general population. If I can’t be a voice for them, well then, who is going to be a voice for them? They they have no voice.
A.S.: There is a vacuum right now in public health with respect to these voices. It’s like they’re just glossed over as if they don’t exist, right? So I wanted to talk about why is it that we’re not having all the physicians coming out and talking about this? Because this is so compelling — the evidence is so compelling, their research is so well documented. So why aren’t we petitioning as physicians and physician groups? Why aren’t we petitioning our governments to do an about-turn, or to at least have a public, open debate about such important issues and health crisis?
P:P: So I think it as Dr. Gill brought up.
I think there’s something going on in group psychology in our society right now.
I forgot the other term, but it has been called a Moral Panic.
P:P: In a Moral Panic something is seen as Unthinkable. A CoViD death or a case of CoViD in our psychology, is an Unthinkable Thing that could never be justified.
The other side of that coin is that everything is justified to bring down CoViD numbers. And so, under this quasi compassion for people who might catch CoViD, we throw out any evidence from our minds because it’s so unthinkable for somebody to ever catch this disease now. We throw under the bus everybody who’s being harmed, because it is considered immoral to even think of the harms that could come from trying to save lives from CoViD.
So in people’s minds it’s all about saving lives, right? But only CoViD lives.
If you look at how scientific or medical debate the usually works, you can look at our highways, right? So we have deaths every day from motor vehicle accidents. Yeah, doctors would want to reduce those numbers of deaths, but we would also weigh the other side of that —to be able to go to work, to go to school and all those things. People are able to weigh those risks because it we’re not in a moral panic over motor vehicle collisions, right? That’s not seen as an Unthinkable Thing. It’s seen as an accepted risk.
But because of the fear and the Moral Panic that’s been created around CoViD, psychologically, it is just seen is Unthinkable to even question anything that is being done to reduce CoViD numbers.
A:S: Okay. So you’re talking about the psychological fear, as well as the college sort of environment that’s being created by attacking people who are in leadership roles such as Dr. Gill. What about the term you referred to called CoViD zero? Could you tell us a little more about that?
P:P: There’s a campaign and it’s happened in many countries to eradicate CoViD, right? So the idea is we will accept anything, or take on the most Draconian measures possible to get rid of CoViD. I think, in their minds , that we just hadn’t locked down hard enough.
KKG: What I find perplexing about that advocacy group is that when you look at the at the peer-reviewed literature, when you look at the data from other countries, for example, Peru had very Draconian lockdown measures. They had one of the hardest lockdowns globally, it was military enforced. Now have one of the highest deaths per capita from from CoViD-19.
So when you look at the data, having a harder lockdown doesn’t save lives and yet the Colleges don’t consider the Covid 0 groups to be dangerous, right???
KKG: So even though they are also going against Present Public Health measures —the present Public Health measures are not advocating for CoViD Zero— but some in this advocacy group, as I mentioned are even calling for martial law, and all these other Draconian measures, measures we know from experiences of other countries actually lead to more deaths.
But the Colleges don’t consider that to be dangerous?
A.L.: And the other thing is that I just don’t understand is that all you have to do is just look at the raw numbers. All you have to do is look at the years before CoViD, and look at all cause mortality. All-cause mortality is how many people have died in the country total? Right? So statistically look at last year versus after CoViD. Is there a difference?
Also remember, in the categorization of deaths, we’re not too sure what’s going on there either. I work in long-term care, I work in retirement homes. I fill out many, many death forms. Remember pretty much everybody’s being thought for CoViD in any institution, whether it be Hospital, long-term care, retirement and sometimes CoViD-19 is going on there because they’re positive CoViD, or they had symptoms, but that might have not have been the reason they died.
But how is the government counting these cases? We have no idea.
o what we have to do is look at all cause mortality and look at that number, because we actually don’t know if they’re being categorized correctly, right? So that’s one thing that I’ve been trying to get out there. That just look at the numbers, just look at the total number. That’s all you have to look at, right? And again, anytime there’s a medical intervention, you have to weigh the benefit versus the effects of it. I think all of us sitting on this panel, and again the silent majority, that is growing day by day, believe the the harm of the lockdowns way outweighs the harms of CoViD.
A.L.: People are going to die from CoViD. Absolutely.
But again, we also know that it’s seasonal. It’s going to come back every year. Are we planning on locking down forever because CoViD is not going to go anywhere. It’s endemic. H1N1 didn’t go anywhere.
A.L.: Swine flu didn’t go anywhere. All of these viruses. The vaccination is in the flu vaccine every year [not clear at all] but they want to make CoViD separate. When CoViD theoretically could probably be included in the flu virus. We don’t really know because nobody’s having this discussion. [not clear at all]
KKG: and as Dr. Lamba mentioned, that all-cause mortality data is so important to look at. Sweden, for example, didn’t close down schools. So their schools remained open during the entire pandemic for children under the age of 14. All their daycares remained open, all the businesses remained open. They had no mass lockdown. They had no mandatory masking, had zero deaths from CoViD-19 within children, and there was no increased transmission found amongst teachers compared to the average of every other profession.
And when you look at the all-cause mortality data for Sweden, it’s
no higher than their all cause average mortality from the past decade, and it’s comparable to actually 2015, and this is a country that didn’t do any of the Draconian measures that we have done.
Yet we’re not looking at that data . Similarly, when you look at data from Health Canada or from Stats Canada in terms of CoViD in terms of all-cause mortality, Canada also hasn’t had an increase in all-cause mortality deaths.
50:53 —— So we need to start looking at the broader published data that we have rather, than continuing to go with these subjective models, which are entirely dependent upon what measures you input, and then start having this broader discussion, which is so crucial.
A.L.: One thing I wanted to say about long-term care because most of the deaths are in long-term care, we can all agree to that again. We need to look at the numbers. We need to look at previous years how many people have died, and what have they died from?
A.L.: We need to look at it: Was it a viral illness or what was it? Right? Because that’s the only way we’re going to know if CoViD has actually increased the numbers or not. And as far as we know they haven’t. We haven’t seen the data.
So if the government could please provide us the raw data, we just want the numbers.
Almost any citizen, you don’t have to be a doctor, you just have to be able to read and do basic math. We can figure out —has the death rate gone up or not? That’s what we need to know and we need, we want that data. We want to see it.
A.S.: And has there been a call for this data? What’s the response been?
K.K.G: Silence again. Similar in terms of various jurisdictions across the world define a CoViD case very differently. Here in Ontario, the definition of a case changed in early August, where we started to even include people who are immune, who have IGG antibodies, as being a CoViD case which is appalling. You’re considering someone who is immune as being a case??
K.K.G.: If someone is swapped multiple times and comes up positive multiple times, they are are counted as a new case each time. We know that there are significant limitations to the PCR testing that’s being applied.
Even the World Health Organization has come out with two statements one as just recent as a couple weeks ago,
[illustration of WHO Information Notice for IVD users 2020/05 d/d 20 Jan. 2021]
where they have a sounded the alarm in terms of possibility of high false positives from high cycle thresholds where, according to the peer-reviewed literature, including some data that was published with co-authorship from the public health agency of Canada, if you have high cycle thresholds significantly higher than 30, but even higher than 25, you can be a PCR positive case, but not be infectious because you’re picking up an active remants of the of the RNA virus.
Here in Ontario, according to the published paper from the public health agency of Canada, [illustration – Jl of Clinical Virology 128 (2020) 104433 Real-time PCR-based SARs-C0V-2 detection in Canadian laboratories. ]
Ontario labs are using cycle thresholds varying from about 38 to about 45.
Now there’s more and more peer-reviewed literature coming out showing that it’s a very unlikely to have a viable infectious virus culturable if you’re using a PCR cycle threshold above 25, and definitely if you’re using one above above 30.
K.K.G.: So we are basing, on these parameters, all these Draconian measures, we’re taking away basic civil liberties, basic freedoms, fundamental freedoms that don’t come from the government.
These are our birth rights, and the government’s role is to protect them, and they’re being taken away based on flawed testing. And we’re not even having discussions around that.
When these questions are raised to government officials, again there is silence. These are discussions that need to be happening. These are debates that need to be happening. If we’re not going to have them now, when when are we going to have them?
A.S.: In this climate, I don’t think the purpose is to have them. If I could just give my opinion, because what I’m hearing from you is that there is a silencing that’s happening. There are repercussions for those who break that silence. There is also a renewed climate of fear that is being propagated.
A.S.: So right now we’re being told about a new strain. In your opinion, does that change anything you said about this wealth of information you’re describing about the harms of the lockdown? Does that change anything with respect to the to the new strain?
P.P.: I’d say it doesn’t really. Corona viruses are known to mutate frequently. The cold virus is the same story right? It’s the reason why they didn’t even bother trying to get a vaccine for these before because they mutate so often that it would It would be mostly useless.
That there are mutations was well known before, and is not really news, but in particular, the one that they’re looking at, the B117, there is evidence that it is more infectious
but slightly. We don’t really know entirely.
A lot of this hasn’t really panned out in really good, solid studies.
There’s no evidence that it’s significantly more harmful.
If you look at evolutionary pressures behind these coronavirus mutations — they’re going to mutate to be able to spread further. But they like their host to be alive in order to propagate, right? So the longer you can live with it, the more likely you are to pass it on. So they tend to become more infectious and less deadly with time.
A.L.: Until we see the data showing that it’s more more deadly —which we doubt is going to happen— there should be no panic. But again, look at the narrative, the media, those players that you’ve been seeing the whole time. They’re the ones that keep propagating the fear.
A.L.: People need to start looking at the facts.
K.K.G: When you look at the data in many jurisdictions around the world, you may have had an increase in cases, but you’re not seeing a correlated increase in deaths.
What Dr. Gupta, who’s a prominent epidemiologists from the University of Oxford, has said is likely to happen with this virus is that it’s likely to become endemic. It’s not likely to go away. It’s likely to just become an endemic where it’s becomes just like every other virus set that we just learn to live with. 57:41 So the possibility of a zero CoViD isn’t supported by the data. Such a goal would just lead to destruction of of our Democratic Society and immense harms to the most vulnerable with the inability to get to the goal that they’re advocating for.
And so we really need to comprehend the life cycle of viruses, and to learn to live with CoViD-19, because in some jurisdictions around the world, it has already become endemic according to the data. 58:23 4:48 PM
We also need to realize that there’s more to our immune system than just antibodies. So often even in the official government narratives, the immune system response is only talked about in terms of antibodies, but we have T cells and T cells are known to play a very prominent role in the body’s ability to fight off not just the SARs-CoV-2 virus, but many others viruses as well.
In the peer-reviewed literature, T cells have actually been referred to as the warriors fighting against SARs-CoV-2.
In one peer-reviewed paper, it was argued that closing schools, preventing the transmission of the common cold virus amongst children, potentially may have led to more SARs-CoV-2 deaths among the vulnerable, because there’s a potential that prevented the cross-protective immunity seen from the common cold virus against SARs-CoV-2.
[illus. Int’l Jl of Infect. Dis. 2021 Feb 11 Pre-existing T-cell immunity to SARs-CoV-2 in unexposed healthy controls pmid 33582369 doi 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.034]
So we need to realize that on a more granular scale there are other other harms that are potentially happening from these lockdowns that we’re not recognizing. We need to really have a very broad overview of our actions and really dissect each government intervention —the total harms and the total benefits— as opposed to just going with this media fear narrative.
K.K.G.: Right now, everything’s being driven by fear. When we’re overreacting to fear, we’re not rational. Rather than being reactive, we need to start to becoming proactive and to start to assess the published peer-reviewed literature, the actual data that we now have over the past year, as opposed to these modeling figures. The models just need to be thrown out the window.
A.L.: And so for the public those listening about peer reviewed articles. It might seem overwhelming, but really, at the end of the day, like I mentioned before, we just need the all-cause mortality from pre-CoViD and now. That’s all we need and all of us can see for ourselves, and all of us need to be proactive—not just academics, not just physicians, all of us.
Because if we want to have any say in how our country is going to move forward, we have to become active actively involved. A.S.: Well, that’s a great note to end on. I want to thank you all for joining us today, and for all the important work that you’re doing to inform the public and also to stand up for your own beliefs and your thoughts and your expressions. Thank you.
The Sources below, in a more in a more clickable form are at