Canada Is Going Nuts (Medical License Strippers, and McCullough in Shining Armor)

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

If you don't already know, there is a defrocked doc in Toronto who runs a great, modest website: DrTrozzi.org. It seems numerous physicians stood up for the right against vax and are now eating in soup kitchens. Below, I'll tell you about Dr Crystal Luchkiw's attempt to get her license back by appealing to a tribunal.

The tribunal seems to be run by a group of, pardon me, gangsters. They can't possibly be doctors. How would they know how to prescribe medicine? How would they even know how to take your pulse? The whole scene is eye-poppingly bad.

Or maybe it's eye-poppingly good insofar as they ran out of ideas, on July 12th 2023, for punishing the Trozzi's and Luchkiw's of this world.

I am referring to a "statutory body" known as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the CPSO. Well, I mean it must have some statutory basis for being able to take away a doctor's livelihood. (The parallel trick in the US is for each state to give the AMA disciplinary power.)

Dr Mark Trozzi is young and sure of himself as only a real, good doctor can be. He called for help from Texas's super-cardiologist, Peter A McCullough. That was too, too much for the Board of Gangsters. I will link, below, the video of McCullough being interviewed by Derek Sloan.

Peter has been an expert witness many times and knows that the first part of the deal in the courtroom is for the Enemy to try to get you dismissed as an unworthy witness. Being as how he is the author of hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles, the CPSO attorneys were unable to knock him down, though they tried for hours, as if repetition would make their luck change.

We at home were allowed to watch it. provided we sent the CPSO a request for a link. I tried it but it did not work. Maybe just as well, as they mentioned a $25,000 fine for anyone who recorded it, "or shared it," Hey, whatever happened to pillow talk -- has that been criminalized too?

So I am relying on the good will of Trozzi's attorney, Michael Alexander of Toronto, whose business card you may want to put in your wallet. He reports, at the end of the Sloan interview, that the second part of the ordeal, in which McCullough was placed on the rack, was the undoing of CPSO. Dr McCullough is the type who says "Stretch me, stretch me, see if I care."

I have forgotten to say that this whole thing is about Pfizer causing grief -- you knew that, right? And who has the scoop on myocarditis better than Sir Galahad?

So did our team win? We are not to know, yet. The CPSO reserved its decision. Nevertheless, Trozzi's Attorney Michael Alexander is being made to hand in his wrap-up by Monday and since there was no recording he is asked to pay $3500 to get a perfect copy on the express option. (If you want to help, that's only CAD 3500, at 75 cents on the dollar, works out to $2625. USD)

I said I would mention Crystal Luchkiw's case at CPSO. It was possibly started by a complainant (oh-oh, the similar case of Dr Russell Pridgeon in Australia sends up a bright orangey-red alert):

"A member of the public emailed the College expressing concern about an online video interview in which the member [Crystal] discussed various issues relating to COVID-19. The writer stated that the video was full of misinformation including the claim that the government and local hospital were exaggerating the number of cases and that it was a government hoax.

"The writer also alleged that the member claimed the vaccine, among other things, had not been properly researched. The writer stated that, as a result, their own family members were refusing to get a second vaccine. The writer asked the College to investigate the member and prevent her from spreading lies."

Gosh, this THE first I have heard of one of us conspiracy types being able to persuade the public of anything. Goodonya, Crystal!

We can walk quickly through her case. In no way did CPSO dig into the matter of the vax (How could they?) Everything was about her failure to cooperate with the medical powers that be. She did not allow the NIght Visitors to inspect her office or her patients' charts.

Significantly, when her attorney pleaded that consideration must be given to the fact that hospice patients who depend on Crystal will be left out int cold if her licence is revoked, all the CPSO could think of was that "this was not part of the case."

"Don't ask What would Jesus say, OK?"

I'll quote CPSO at length in case any American doctors need to cogitate on this approach. The citation is: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Luchkiw, 2023 ONPSDT 14 (CanLII)

"The member did not dispute the evidence about her actions. Her defence to the allegations is that she had no duty to cooperate with the College’s investigations because they were initiated without reasonable and probable grounds and seek to regulate matters beyond the College’s authority.

"[3] We find that the member has a duty to cooperate with the College’s investigation and comply with the terms of the interim order. We are satisfied that the College has proven its case. Accordingly, we find the member has committed professional misconduct and failed to respond to a written inquiry from the College. We also find that she has breached the terms of an interim order. [See? Nothing about the vax itself. Just disobedience.]

"[4] As set out in the College’s submissions, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the crucial role that self-regulated professions play in protecting the public interest. The court observed in Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48 that the “privilege of professional self regulation…places the individuals responsible for enforcing professional discipline under an onerous obligation.

"The delegation of powers by the state comes with the responsibility for providing adequate protection for the public.” (para. 36) The court also stated that, in light of this onerous responsibility, there is a corresponding need to ensure that self-regulatory bodies are not unduly restricted in carrying out this important task, and that they have “sufficiently effective means at their disposal” to gather relevant material (para. 37).

"[5] The investigative powers granted to the College under s. 75 of the Code are key elements of its regulatory function and are the means by which an investigator gathers relevant material in an investigation. Supporting these powers are ss. 76(3) and (3.1), which place obligations on the College’s members with respect to such investigations:(3) No person shall obstruct an investigator or withhold or conceal from him or her or destroy anything that is relevant to the investigation (3.1) A member shall co-operate fully with an investigator."

And so to Dr Russell Pridgeon, late of Zimbabwe, now under arrest in New South Wales.

I have just published a book about him. (It's at Amazon for $12.50) entitled "Society Is the Authority." Pridegon himself wrote a book, "Everybody Knows," in which he slaughters the Australian Federal Police's case against him.

In my book, I had a last-minute chance to sneak in the case of Crystal Luchkiw. Here is page 102 for your perusal:

1. The 5,000-word decision focuses on Dr Luchkiw's lack of co-operation with the investigators. This shouts that they can't handle a discussion of informed consent, much less about Covid.

2. They said her behavior was "disgraceful, dishonorable or un- professional." Note the "or." That phrase should not combine all three pejorative terms. One can be unprofessional (which also needs defining) and yet not be disgraceful, much less dishonorable.

3. I am personally conscious of the clever set-ups in government today (US, Australia) that allow non-elected officials to "make law." This is itself a major issue and maybe Luchkiw case will bring it to prominence. As I show in my 2013 book, "Consider the Lilies: Review of Cures for Cancer," the 50 states obeyed AMA regulations about "best practice" that forced doctors to treat cancer by the Big Three (surgery, chemo, and radiation) and by NO OTHER method, no matter how excellently it worked.

4. Thus, the problem there, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths, really boiled down to the AMA's ability to choke Medicine and Science in this way. So again, with Dr Luchkiw, she is doing something intelligent for a patient, yet a NON-legislative body intervenes to put her out of business. Oh? Isn't the CPS-Ontario a statutory body? Sort of, but it's authorized to make decisions about health (e.g., vaccines) that Parliament never debated.

6. Now to Dr Luchkiw's claim that her patients have a right to informed consent (unequivocal, since Nuremberg Code). If patients do have a right, and if she is asked by CPSO to override it, who is the wrongdoer? I am asking: whose Daddy can beat the other's Daddy up? Can CPSO beat up the people of Ontario?

7. The Tribunal in Luchkiw proclaimed : "... regulated health professionals have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practise medicine." My guess is that they do have a common-law right if the community grants it. Society is the authority. This is too big for CSPO to handle.

Note: Criminal behavior by government has no immunity. Many "official" behaviors today are criminal, but our brain can't easily see it.

The link below is to Derek Sloan's interview of McCullough, Trozzi, and Alexander: