Nadine, the other process, you didn't
have to prove it was safe. In fact, you
didn't even have to submit your safety
data to get approval. Can I say that
again? You
Well, good day everybody and welcome
back to the show. Today's guest, uh, MP
for Niagara West, uh, MP Dean Allison,
and of course, lawyer Sean Buckley.
Today we're going to discuss the Allison
inquiry which for some people is
becoming a little bit of a hot topic.
And so with further ado, I am going to
invite our guests to the show. Hello
gentlemen.
>> Hello.
>> Hey Nadine, good to be on.
>> Good to see you again. And Dean, so
appreciative that you took the time
today to join us. So thank you very
much.
>> Great to be here. Thanks for inviting
me.
>> Wonderful. Now, I I want to jump right
in because I know we've got a little bit
of a constraint on our time and um you
guys have decided to invite witnesses to
talk and discuss the COVID vaccine
injured. Now, I want to talk quickly
because I don't think that a lot of
people um want necessarily to bring this
up to the surface. people inside who
have been injured obviously need a voice
uh on their behalf, but there's doctors
that have been silenced. There's a lot
of fear around this. People the media is
painting this as kind of an antivaccine
campaign. So much going on. So would you
start um Dean with perhaps what it is
the Allison inquiry is and what it's
not?
>> Sure. And and once again, thanks for
having us on the show today. You know, I
there's two things that two functions of
a member of parliament. One is to
listen. There's more, but two things
that we definitely do is one, we listen
to people's concerns. They come into our
office every day to talk about a variety
of issues. The second one is to actually
help them access government programs.
And so for the last number of years and
for the last 22 years since I've been
elected, that's exactly what I do. And
you know, I was noticing challenges
around COVID when they came out and
people's didn't want to get vaccinated,
but they were having challenges, as
you're well aware, being able to go to
work or travel, etc., etc. And then
let's fast forward not even that far,
but after that, uh, people that had
gotten vaccinated were actually some of
them were getting injured and those same
people or maybe even different people
reaching out to me. And so as my job as
a member of parliament is to listen to
these stories. People were calling me,
texting me, emailing me, uh leaving
voicemails from all across this country.
And of course when I was on the road and
and visiting various different places in
this country, I would people would reach
out to me. So I just thought, you know
what I find strange and what's happened
over the last number of years is that
there's a real reluctance to talk about
this in the public space. you just you
kind of alluded to that in your opening
remarks and I thought and I've been
thinking about it for a number of years.
I've been thinking why can we not
actually have these conversations? Why
can we not have these conversations
publicly? Number one, and number two,
why can we not actually try and put
pressure on the government to do a
better job with the vaccine injury
support program? As you're probably
aware, again, maybe your listeners are
or they're not. You know, over $55
million was contributed to a vaccine
injury support program of which $35
million was spent on overhead and only a
third, think about that, only a third of
those dollars actually went to the
vaccine injured people. And by the
government's own numbers, we have almost
60,000 people registered as injured in
this country. 11,000 seriously, 3,500
applied to the program. 3,000 were
accepted, but only 252. So less than
point4 of a percent of people injured in
this country are actually receiving any
type of compensation. I just feel that's
completely and totally unacceptable. So
when we lost the ability to actually
talk to people in committee uh this was
actually something that the committee
the health committee was going to look
at and after we had a few of our members
walk the floor we lost the ability to
have a minority government where we
could then force this as a conversation
and committee. I said, "Well, there's
going to be no time like the president
to be able to have this conversation
because this conversation should happen
in parliament." It's not. And so, the
next best thing is why don't we have a
town hall? Why don't we have our own
inquiry? Why don't we invite people to
Ottawa to be able to do that? And so,
this is where uh Sean and Theresa
Buckley came in. They were visiting me
last October, so prior to some of the
the us losing our majority in the House.
And I, like I said, this this is a
feeling that just has been with me for
the last two or three years that I
haven't been able to shake. And so I
broached the the topic casually with
Sean and Teresa and said like I know
you're involved with this thing called
the NCI, the National Citizens Inquiry.
Like what are the possibility of us
being able to do that? And we had a lot
of dialogue over like probably almost
six months before we actually made the
decision to do anything because I was
trying to weigh, you know, I'm going to
take a lot of flack for this. What's
going to happen? you know, where where
am I going to end up? And you know, am
am I prepared to walk away from my job
if that's what is required? And Sean
asked these questions. If we get started
in this thing, you've got to see it
right through to completion. And so I I
you know, after sort of praying about
it, thinking about it, talking to my
wife about it, we decided that uh we
would move forward with this regard
regardless of what circumstances were
going to happen. I I didn't have to
worry about those circumstances. That's
good to hear. talked to my le talked to
my leader about it and he said, "Listen,
I've been on the road. I talk to people.
He'll be lined up for an hour or two
talking to people, whatever events he's
at." He said, "People doesn't go by. I
two weeks don't go by when I'm on the
road where someone doesn't come up to me
and say, "I've been injured." And he
understood that because he's actually
been talking to people out out of the
countryside. So,
>> that's fascinating that you bring that
up. um to have to consider like the
position that you're in as an MP, an
elected official, um working for
Parliament, working for your
constituents, to think that you yourself
had to weigh in the consequences of
having this conversation. And one of
those consequences was potentially,
you know, maybe not having a job or
working in a closet um you know, to
finish out your term. I think goes to
show the resistance um of
you around the subject around COVID.
Why? Why do you think that is?
No, like I said, you know, I I think
that it's interesting that I I find out
that, you know, we end up l literally
having these conversations privately.
So, think about that. I'll talk to
people all the time about these issues,
but there is such a huge reluctance to
for people to share their stories
because they've been gaslit, they've
been marginalized, they feel abandoned.
And so I think one of one of the when we
were talking about sort of the frames of
reference in terms of what what does
this inquiry look like, I thought about
this long and hard, you know, as a
member of parliament for 22 years, I
figured what is this I can legitimately
do and not get into the weeds and not
have a have a problem. I'd love to have
a a more wholesome conversation about
everything. That's not what I do as a
member of parliament. So I would
challenge anybody to say, listen, you
can't do what you're doing because this
is my job. I have these conversations
every day. And so really what we're
trying to do is give people permission
to talk about their injuries publicly.
And that's I feel that's been lacking in
this country for so long is that people
felt embarrassed, ashamed, put to the
side. We need to give people permission
publicly to share their stories. And I
think by us being able to start with
this inquiry, I hope this catches on and
people can share more of these stories
and we can begin the healing amongst
family members against neighbors,
against community, etc., etc. We want
people to have permission to be able to
talk about these things freely,
publicly.
Now Sean, I want to bring you into the
conversation here because you and I have
had uh many conversations in the past
about the fear around this conversation
and the fact that people have tried to
sweep it under the rug. People are like,
"We just want to move on. They don't
want to rehash it." Um but I mean
government has a responsibility here.
They said that there was a product out
there that was safe. Um it was coerced.
it was literally forced upon people, you
know, to keep their jobs. Um, I want to
bring you in here from a legal
standpoint and then we'll get back to to
uh uh Dean here. But let let's talk
about where is this fear coming from
because I I understand the college of
physicians uh and surgeons as well, you
know, silenced doctors. Um MPs couldn't
speak out at the time. Um it it was
meant to be this monologue, one
narrative that was shared and that was
that the vaccines are safe and
effective.
>> Yeah. I I want to just segue a little
bit because I think people need to
understand
um that we have different belief
systems. So people watching your show
likely are very um educated on COVID
issues. If I was to say PCR test, you
know, if I was to say all cause
mortality, like they know what I'm
talking about,
but there's, you know, a very sizable
portion of the population
that they watch the mainstream media and
they've actually been given no reason
not to. And I used to watch the
mainstream media and it presents itself
as authoritative.
Um I I think there was even a time where
they did balance journalism
and those people have a different belief
system you know before as part of kind
of the process um to try and figure out
what would it be viable to go ahead with
this because as Dean has been explaining
I mean
all he wants to do is to listen to
vaccine injured persons so that they can
actually be heard and hopefully we'll
break this spell where people are free
to talk about this. Well, we're talking
to MP. He says, you know, and as part of
this process, well, will you talk to
other MPs to see like, am I going to be
alone at the table? Like, is there any
is there anyone who will sit at the
table with me? So my wife Teresa and I
were, you know, having a whole bunch of
MP meetings and like not one person
would, you know, think thought that it
would be politically viable
to sit at a table,
you know, as an a member of parliament
and listen to Canadians publicly.
They're they're they're listening to
them privately, but not a single MP that
we met with, and we're cherry-picking
ones that we think could possibly say
yes, um is communicating to us that they
would think that it's politically
possible
to sit at the table. Now, so we have to
talk about the media in a second, but
but we need to understand because having
these conversations with MPs, I also
came to believe or came to understand
that I'm in a bubble.
I've got this worldview where I know all
these co things. Um, I ex I've come to
learn I bet you it's less than 10 MPs
that don't believe that the vaccines
were safe and effective.
So, okay. So, mo so let's flip this
around. So, most all MPs
believe the vaccine is safe and
effective. They understand that there's
injuries all around them, but they like
a sizable portion of Canadians believe
that the injuries were caused by long
co. Now, let that sink in for a second.
If you believe that most of the injuries
around you are caused by long co because
we all know that we're in a train wreck
of injuries.
We all know there's been deaths of young
people and died suddenly and all of
this. But if you believe that's caused
by long co and you believe that the
vaccine was safe and effective, then you
know you believe the vaccine saved
lives. It prevented a lot of this long
co. If that's your belief, you actually
are going to be morally outraged at
anything that would cause vaccine
hesitancy.
Like we have to understand that that
this is a passionate thing because this
is life and death. just as passionate as
you and I are is wait a second people
are dying
and people are not getting proper
treatment and suffering because we can't
acknowledge it's vaccine injury and not
long co there's the same passion on the
other side
and
the interesting thing is is so the whole
the whole nation is divided we have to
have the conversation
In September, Ras Muen did a poll in the
United States, not Canada, the United
States, but in the United States, they
found that 56.6%
of Americans
believed, and the language is important
here, not that the vaccines caused
death, but the that the vaccines cause
serious death. So, it's not like, you
know, Aunt May's gardener's uncle died.
It's like, no, over half of Americans
believe that the vaccine caused
significant death. Well, what's what's
the figure for people that think the
vaccine cause significant harm,
including death? It's going to be a lot
larger. And the same in Canada. Over
half of Canadians have zero trust in
public health now.
And they're getting fed up with the fact
that we can't have this conversation. So
we we have to have this conversation or
or we will not function as a polity and
we will have next time when we actually
do need public health to be listened to
we're going to be in in an extreme
crisis. Like it it doesn't serve any of
us. And so the only way we can get
confidence back again is to actually
have this conversation have those hard
conversations and then you know take
some action to restore trust in public
health. Look, I I would like to think we
could be a nation again where that
happens. And actually, I believe we're
going to get there, Nadine. And I
actually I'm I'm tired of Canadians. Oh,
the next generation is going to be
poorer than the last. And we're we're
we're meant to be the richest country in
the world, and we we need to get back.
Like, it's just we've just gotten so off
the track that and I'll get back to what
we're talking about. So, why can't we
have this conversation?
That's above my pay grade. All I know is
is that it's by and large because the
government is avoiding it and the media
is avoiding it. Now is the media
avoiding it because the government is a
big funer of the media? I don't know. Is
the media avoiding it because pharma is
a big contributor of this? I don't know.
Um I do know like I believe Dr. Hoff and
he he was at our last press conference.
I mean doctors from day one in medical
school vaccines are safe and effective
act and we've all come to understand
this and we all understand the
messaging. Have we gotten to the place
and clearly we have because whenever you
get to the place where you can't even
have a conversation you're captured
now whether what you believe is true or
not your mind's captured. So we're a
nation whose mind is captured on the
idea of vaccines. They're safe and
effective. that's our are captured
whether they are or are not our minds
are captured on that issue so we can't
have a conversation so I think step one
is is we have to come to realize that
our minds are captured that we're we
actually can't have a conversation that
we can't have an open mind about it that
we can't listen to each other like we
have to understand we're captured first
and that's both sides of the equation
and then once we come to understand that
we start we have to, as uncomfortable as
it is, start having these conversations
in a respectful and loving way because
we're not meant to be divided.
And, you know, here we've got um Canada
has a culture because we're so spread
out and you know, we we it was so we had
to rely on each other so much during the
pioneer days um just to survive that we
have a culture of helping each other and
we have a culture of taking care of our
own. And now we've got this large group
of people that need to be taken care of
and we're not. And we need to get back
to our roots and we need to have the
conversation. I don't know why the
mainstream media has been complicit in
preventing this conversation and I don't
know why the government has been
complicit. It could be that that we've
all just kind of had this momentum with
good intentions and now we're captured
including the government's captured and
the media's captured. I don't know. I'm
just speculating. I just know that we're
captured.
>> Now, I want to bring this question to um
MP Allison here because
the government really did push this um
and and I know it wasn't the
Conservative government, but the
Conservatives, the NDP, everybody was in
consensus that, you know, the vaccine
was safe and effective, everybody should
get their vaccine. I mean there's some
liability I think that comes along with
um this idea that if you know you're
told to do something or coerced to do
something or given an ultimatum in order
to do something you know and it doesn't
work out um I think there might be some
liability. Thus, I think for a lot of
Canadians, I don't even think they
understand that we have a Canadian
vaccine injury program because and
that's existed before COVID. Uh,
correct. But, you know, this idea that
it's safe and effective that we don't
give people the proper information to
make an informed decision and there was
tremendous pressure. Is this potentially
part of the reason why the government
just wants to kind of sweep this under
the rug and does not want to have the
conversation?
>> Yeah. Well, you know, when I'm attacked
from the the opposite side, I mean,
they're saying like this this this Dean
guy is trying to create vaccine
hesitancy. I'm saying like I'm not the
one that said people were injured. It's
your your own government numbers that
said it's injured. to actually set up a
program to make sure that uh you would
could take care of some of these
individuals woefully underfunded and
woefully complicated to actually figure
out it. So I say it again like I don't
know how I can't be on safe ground by
one listening to people's stories and
two fighting for the programs fighting
for the things that they they deserve to
be a part of. I think you hit the nail
on the head. You know how many
government programs do we have in
existence right now that people have no
idea exist and people have a hard time
accessing? That's part of what I want to
shed a light on and I want people to
understand like I want people listening
in public health to say, "Wow, uh maybe
they already knew that, but I want
Canadians to understand that." You know,
people say, "Well, if you've been
injured, why can't you get
compensation?" Well, it's a great that's
a great question. And you know, Sean can
probably we've both heard stories. Sean
has heard more stories about how
difficult it is to fill out those forms.
If you hear Dr. Hoff talk about how he
had 14 injured people. Here's a guy a
doctor 20 30 years in his community,
1100 people, First Nations, knows his
patients, knows exactly what's going on,
knows what happened before they were
took the shot, knows what happened
after, and not all 1100 of those people
got injured, but he knows very clearly.
He said they had 14 people. I think now
in his practice he thinks they're 36 14
individuals that he actually wrote stuff
to actually wrote you know to the
government of BC and it was all rejected
nine pages of stuff he had to fill out
and they was rejected they they sent it
back and said no that's a coincidence so
you think about the process all along
think about the process first of all of
even people knowing there's a program
you just alluded to that people don't
even know there's a program then think
about them trying to get sign up from
their doctor which is almost impossible
here is one doctor, courageous, that
actually was prepared to fill out the
forms. Think about that for a second. A
courageous doctor prepared to fill out
the forms that was actually rejected. He
got to the point where he said, I it
doesn't even make sense to fill out
these nine pages of forms just to
indicate that people were uh injured in
BC. That's not the vaccine injury
support program, which is separate
altogether. So I what we what we're
hopeful is that as we have this
conversation first of all more people
will understand they're not alone and
number two we hope that the government's
listening to say you know what not only
do you need more money in this program
because a lot more people that are
injured you think about those stats we
got the 60,000 people that number the
government recognizes but we just heard
from Dr. Hoff talk about how difficult
is even to have that registered with
people. So maybe that number is even
more. And so then we we get to the third
step and that's actually trying to
access the program. And Sean could tell
you stories about and I I've got
stories, Sean's got stories, but think
about how complicated it is just to get
into the program because then even if a
doctor signed off, they're rejected as
well. And I think these are the things
the government needs to hear is the
process needs to be streamlined and
there needs to be a lot more money set
aside for these individuals who on good
faith on being told that these vaccines
were safe and effective took that
vaccine. Now I have a couple of
questions as it relates to this because
what is the role of government period
when it comes to people's personal
health um and the decisions that they
choose to make in this particular case
and it wasn't just Canada it was around
the world people were told they were
coerced in my opinion to take this
vaccine um and that came from the
government directly all the way down
college of physicians and surgeons um to
your point with Dr. Charles Hoff
literally would not I mean he put in 14
that he knew only to have all 14
rejected then just said you know why am
I bothering to do take the time to do
the paperwork when it was pretty evident
they did not want this um to be known or
to be documented um it was just a denial
in my opinion of the facts the
information that was being provided
because they had a narrative so you know
what what is the role of government here
during ing events like this where you
have in my opin opinion it was a flu you
know let's call it something else co 19
and you know that the deaths did not
start increasing the mortality rates
didn't start increasing until after the
vaccines were introduced
>> who do you want to start
>> Sean go
Sean you want to take a stab I'm happy
to add to that as well after
>> tell us what you really think? So, yeah,
>> I have strong opinions.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
>> Can I share something? Can I share
something interesting that that um has
come up? So, we've had like a,000 or,00
people I think now I I don't have the
most recent count. It changes every day
of people that have applied. And first
of all, understand a lot of people are
not applying because they don't they
don't want to testify in person. So
these are just people that are willing
to testify in person that are applying
and then a lot of the country doesn't
even know we exist yet. I mean we just
So the fact that we already have,00
people that have applied and then you
know there's volunteers that are
filtering these people down because we
only have like maybe 45 slots because
we've only got four days of hearings,
right?
So, and then, you know, they get on a
short list and they and they get down to
me and I interview them and we've
already they've already filled in a
pretty extensive form.
Now I'm interviewing people, you know,
they they, you know, one's like a
quadripollegic but can move the little
joystick on the wheelchair so he can get
around, you know, another's like
early 30s, lost his kidneys and is
waiting for kidney transplant and on
dialysis six days a week and if he's
going to testify, he has to arrange for
dialysis in Ottawa while he's visiting
or he can't come, you know, and people
just in chronic pain like just horrific
stories. And I've added a question and I
asked them, well, what's been the most
difficult part of this? And I'm
expecting it to be the pain and the
suffering, being a quadripollegic, all
of this. And almost without exception,
that's not the answer. Almost without
exception, it's the gaslighting and the
not being heard by the medical community
and the vaccine injury support program.
So could you imagine you know like
literally people are showing up in
emergency like not able to walk
and they're being told well this is a
psychiatric problem you need to see a
psychiatrist like they cannot the system
can't you imagine so you're suffering
terribly and you're basically being told
you're making it up that this is a
psychiatric thing. Yeah. You're 16 years
old and you've just decided never to
play sports again and and to start
living in a wheelchair. Like literally,
this is an example where I've
interviewed this girl was 16 at the
time, into volleyball and soccer and all
of it, like super athletic. I'm being
told, "No, it's it's in your head.
You're just making this up." Um, like
it's just so you're having this
experience where almost all of a sudden
you're in a different world and it's
just traumatizing you and traumatizing
you that that it's not the fact that you
go you'll never walk again. It's not the
fact that you're in chronic pain. It's
not the fact that even if you get a
kidney and best case scenario, it's 12
years and you're on dialysis again. You
will never have a normal life. No, it's
actually that you haven't been heard,
that you've been gaslit, that you've
been you've been treated like you're a
modern-day leper. And I am ashamed when
I hear these stories. I am ashamed that
these that the most traumatic thing, you
know, people have been traumatized by
filling in our form.
Like we've gotten a whole bunch of
feedback. We we have a very simple form
on our website and then once we get
that, our system sends you a more
detailed form so we can get more
information. Like there's an initial
sorting. Is this realistic for us to get
more information on? Well, we got a
whole bunch of feedback on this form,
not because the people wanted to be mean
to us, but just even the idea of filling
in a medical form is retraumatizing
them.
And then when they get the form, the
email that's on the form, it's like, you
know, we may have some volunteer doctors
interview you because we know we're
under the spotlight and people are going
to say, oh, it's was this is long CO or
something else. It's not vaccine injury.
So we only want to put people on the
stand where if their own doctors haven't
said this is vaccine injury that you
know at least some doctors that are are
willing to have an honest look say no
this is a real plausible thing. Well,
the idea of being interviewed by a
doctor is traumatizing people. Like,
what have we done
as a as a nation, as a medical system,
you know? So, the fact that these, you
know, that the the mainstream media is
against this and, you know, calling this
down, I I'm just finding the whole thing
fascinating. Do we not know that we're
hurting people?
And so I I want to maybe this question
for you then um Dean here just because
we right now we're in the midst
especially here in Alberta. You know
Albertans are very unhappy with kind of
Canada in general. There's lots of
conversations going on about
constitutions which brings up rights,
freedoms um and the role of government
um and government quasi institutions
which I would argue like the college of
physicians and surgeons is somewhat of a
quasi you know government institution um
even though it it you know it's supposed
to be independent I think there's lots
of overlap but it brings up the concern
about institutions and the lack of trust
and it brings up concerns for me about
the role of government. The government
took a very specific role around COVID.
It came out and told people, you know,
what they would put into their bodies.
It then reassured them that it was safe
and effective. Um and and I understand
the predicament that MPs might have been
in, but it's one thing for the college
of physicians and surgeons to make that
statement as supposedly experts in their
field, but then for politicians who are
not experts in the field and most of
them are overwhelmed with already the
workload that they have um probably
didn't do the studies, didn't read the
reports. Um not that there was any
actually done, but what is the role of
government in times like this? you know,
wouldn't it be better for individuals
and for people to um you know, make that
decision themsel rather than to find a
government coming down with a heavy hand
coercing them to do that?
>> Well, absolutely. And I think that's,
you know, we this could go a whole bunch
of different ways here. I mean, David
Redmond, I'm sure you're familiar with,
in Alberta, is always saying that we had
all these pandemic responses, you know,
national, provincial, across the
country, and we didn't we didn't do one
of them. You we put public health in
charge of it instead of actually looking
at uh ways we could actually follow the
plan that had been written years before.
So, I I I take serious issue with the
way they dealt with pandemic response
and and no one's really had a good
conversation with that. The second's
around informed consent. You know, my
thought was always there should be
choice on that. And if you watch some of
one of the press conference, they the uh
one of the reporters said, "Well, you're
antivax." No, I'm I'm actually choice.
People should have that choice. And you
don't give people that choice when you
say you can't travel, you can't see
grandma, you can't have your job. And
the list goes on and on. And you know,
you see how the government is
backtracking now or has been. It's like,
"No, no, we never really said that." No,
no, you did say that because you forced
the provinces to have all these
ridiculous rules. be forced a lot of
companies certainly if it was federally
regulated you were forced to be able to
do that and so what happened to this
whole issue of choice and so at the end
of the day uh you know it's it's whether
it's freedom of speech or whether it's
uh freedom of choice when it comes to
informed consent and what you're going
to put into your body uh these things
were severely lacking and I think that
at the end of the day you know you you
had politicians paring these these same
responses based on what they believe to
be true not once again having because
she has to look at the information
believing public health and if you go
back to what David Redmond says you know
public health should never have been in
charge of a pandemic or didn't having
some type of response because you know
we could talk a whole bunch of other
things of this uh inquiry how the fact
that we you know 125,000 kids across the
country uh failed to return to school.
We could talk about all the lockdowns
and what kind of financial harm it did
to small and medium-sized businesses.
Man, these are all topics worthy of
these kind of conversations. The
conversation we want to have is
specifically around the fact that
individuals were harmed and individuals
that are now harmed deserve to have
right to compensation because the
government admits they actually did harm
them. So I think that you raised great
points there. But you know, I actually
had a private members bill around these
two things around travel and freedom.
And while uh conservatives supported
this, none of the other parties in the
house did, which would give you a good
indication of where people's uh stands
actually held on when it came to co 19
vaccinations.
>> Now you have been criticized for doing
this publicly and not doing this as a
private inquiry or um you know behind
the scenes. What what is your goal for
doing this on on a a a more public
manner?
You know, because I mean you are taking
criticism that this is antivaccine.
You're creating hesitancy. Um vaccines
are safe and effective. Um why why bring
this to the public on on a bigger scale?
you know, I mean, I love it because it I
mean, it certainly, I think, exposes the
the truth and you're doing it in such a
transparent manner out in the open that
it allows people, you know, to at least
make their own judgment. But for you
personally, why why do this in a public
manner like this?
>> Yeah. No, I I think it's important. I
I've been doing it privately for a long
time. And I think, you know, that was
always the challenge is I think people
feel like they haven't been heard
publicly. there's been no
acknowledgement from the government that
anyone's been injured. There's no
acknowledgement even of those that are
injured that that can even actually get
access for the program. So, I think
probably we I think we're in a a sweet
spot. We're in the right spot because we
certainly have more pro freedom people
that say it doesn't go far enough. Uh
and we've got a we've got, you know,
political people that say you've gone
too far. So, if you're being criticized
for both sides, maybe you're actually
doing the right thing. I like I I'll say
it again like I think there should be
more of an inquir that goes further with
a whole host of topics. As a member of
parliament, it is my job to listen to
people and advocate for them on behalf
of their programs. This is what I'm
doing. And I think it's so important to
have this publicly because so many
people feel they're alone. They feel
like they're alone because they haven't
been allowed to have this conversation.
A lot of people can't even have this
conversation with their own families,
you know. So, it depends on what family
you were raised in whether you could
have this conversation. And I think that
by saying this publicly, what people are
going to begin to realize across this
country is that you know what, I am not
alone. There's actually people going
through some of the similar things. And
I thought that that was only me. And
there's not a chance on earth we can
begin the healing process if people
can't feel at the very least that they
are being heard. And so that's really
what I'm hoping to accomplish that
people will be heard. people then we can
put some pressure on the government and
you know when I go back to the house to
say this is what I heard we need to do a
better job with the vaccine injury
support program and then you know if
enough people want to continue this
conversation it's really going to be
people that are going to need to demand
more from their government right at the
end of the day government always goes
where people force them to go government
always goes where you know the most
amount of noise is being made and so I
think if we can start having that
conversation I hope that this is not the
end but it is the beginning of a
conversation that the general public can
have as we move over time. So with that
in mind then what is the outcome that
you would like to see as a direct result
of the inquiry?
>> Two things that people will continue to
have this conversation they'll feel like
they have permission to speak publicly
about their injuries and about what has
happened that we encourage doctors
journalists politicians all the above to
have this conversation that they've been
afraid to have over the last couple
years. and that the government would
realize that they there's more people
injured than they than they've admitted
and quite frankly there needs to be more
money in the new iteration of whatever
that vaccine injury support program is
going to look like and so they need to
do a better job and need to simplify the
process of people being able to apply to
get access to that. Now Sean, for you
there's legal implications in what um
Dean just said because you know if the
government is going to acknowledge that
there's been more uh harm done than you
know they're admitting or willing to
accept um you know that that means that
we do have to increase funding for
vaccine injured uh you know programs and
those types of things and you know
what's the likelihood I mean you've been
working in the health industry for a
long time health Canada and you know
they don't like to admit when they make
mistakes and you know there's con Dean's
smiling because that's just it
government does not like to admit
government doesn't like admitting when
they're wrong I don't understand
>> not just at health Canada in every area
every
>> if we want to talk legal consequences um
Nine I I don't think we can even
understand what potential legal
consequences
there are because Um
there was something bigger than COVID
happening here. Like let's just even
talk, you know, about Dr. Hoff
submitting 14 um adverse reactions.
Precoid
like the adverse reaction reporting
system is meant to be an early alert.
It's meant to be very easy to file and
easily accessible because it's meant to
be just an early warning. Adverse
reaction reports aren't meant to show
causation or anything. They're just to
say, "Oh, wait. Should we be looking at
something here?" So, precoid doctors
could submit directly to Health Canada.
But
as CO approached, before it happened,
they changed it. So, in every province,
you had to submit to a provincial board.
Wait a second. This is a a federal
reporting system. Why do you have now as
a doctor have to put there's a barrier
put in place where now you're submitting
to a provincial board?
That's that's pretty interesting. And
citizens used to be able to direct
report but during CO they couldn't. So a
decision was made. You know you're
talking about the colleges. Well, in the
province of Alberta, as I understand it,
is basically a law was put in place um
that direct forced all of the colleges
that you can't do anything that goes
against public health um orders.
Well, so then it became, you know, the
College of Physicians and Surgeons just
all of a sudden they're breaking the law
if they're not ensuring that all of
their doctors comply with public health
orders. and the public health orders
were directing everyone to get
vaccinated. Well, this is by design.
This was put into place beforehand. You
know, you're saying safe and effective,
safe and effective.
Well, you know, the Allison inquiry,
even though the inquiry hasn't started,
the rules of the inquiry allow evidence
to be entered um into the record that
isn't witness evidence. and and so far
the only evidence that's been entered is
the law around the approval of the COVID
19 vaccines. And so anyone can go to
allisonin inquiry.com or coestimony.com
um which hosts the Allison inquiry
website and go to exhibits
and look at the Canadian law. And so
this is no conspiracy theorist. You
anyone can go to the Canada Gazette
themselves. This is the government.
These are government publications. So,
we're just talking about the law. So, if
the law is a conspiracy theorist, that's
fine. The Canadian government is a
conspiracy theorist.
So, the law in Canada was changed for
these vaccines.
Yeah. You see, the government of Canada,
they're antibaxers, right? So, they
publish this stuff. It's, you know, it's
clearly uncomfortable. So, our regular
drug approval law, as flawed as it was,
for any drug except COVID 19 drugs,
you would have to prove that they're
safe and you'd have to prove that they
were effective and it it's right in our
drug law and we have that as part of the
Allison inquiry record.
Well, the Minister of Health before any
pharmaceutical company submitted an
application, but it had to be in
coordination with them because two filed
within 30 days of this and you couldn't
pivot this quickly.
An interim order is issued. This is
Canadian law. So, they changed the law
exempting the CO 19 vaccines from the
regular process. Now, important point is
they could still go through the regular
process if they wanted to. They now have
two choices. I can prove them to be safe
and effective, my vaccine, or I can go
through this other process. Nadine, the
other process, you didn't have to prove
it was safe. In fact, you didn't even
have to submit your safety data to get
approval. Can I say that again? You
didn't even have to submit your safety
data to get approved. You just had to
tell Health Canada how you were going to
get them the known safety data.
So
when we're getting all this messaging,
safe and effective, safe and effective,
that's political messaging
because a decision was made to encourage
everyone to get the shot. Whether that
was well-intentioned or not, we have to
understand
that when the government wants the
populace to do something and wants the
populace to do something strongly, we
are going to have messaging to encourage
the populace to do that. And I I think
it's important for Canadians to
understand that that messaging which was
I call it political messaging because it
was to encourage the population to do
something
doesn't necessarily mean that it's true.
And when you look at Canadian law so I I
invite everyone to go look at the
Allison Inquiry record of exhibits
it's really clear. And what I don't
understand, Nadine, is is is, you know,
probably any journalist spending half an
hour could discover
that the law was changed
and that these vaccines did not have to
be proven to be safe and effective. In
fact, the words safe and the words
effective are not even in the test.
>> Yeah. So how how can it be that that you
know when this was happening and the
media is saying safe and effective safe
and effective safe and effective that
not a single journalist figured out that
actually there that requirement wasn't
there and how can it be five years later
that a single journal like no no no news
organization
has actually shown to the public well
wait a second these vaccines weren't
proven safe and effective And the thing
that I find interesting, and this is
political,
is okay, let's say we're in a crisis
during COVID. Well, I can see you
exempting them during the crisis. If
we're in a real crisis and and hey,
we're not sure what to do. We're going
to relax the requirements. That's fine.
But we have still exempted the CO 19
vaccines from being proven safe and
effective to this day. And we're still
injecting children with them. And so
I don't think we're in a crisis with CO
19 today.
So I don't understand why we have we're
injecting children with a co 19 vaccine
that to this day we have not um required
them to go through the regular process
of being proven safe and effective. To
me that is a political decision and it's
part of what's going on. is. So why why
is it that we we don't today require
those vaccines to go through the regular
drug approval process? Well, I think
that's a a much bigger conversation that
maybe Sean, you and I can have um at
another time because I think if you look
at what's going on in the United States
today with the amendments that are being
proposed to the just even the regular
childhood vaccine schedule, um you know,
they're taking, you know, drastic
measures, I think, and challenging the
effect efficacy and the safety of just,
you know, regular vaccines. um the
timing of those, the scheduling of them,
and a lot of the arguments are based
around convenience. Well, it's very
inconvenient for a a parent to bring
their, you know, son or daughter in to
do three separate, you know, vaccines.
You know, it's more convenient to do it
all at the one time, but that's the
wrong question to be asking. The
question is is does it provide less of a
toxicity, less of a reaction, is it
safer? You know, those questions are not
being asked. you know, they're
challenging, you know, that to to keep
the status quo. Um, and you have to
wonder sometimes, you know, whether or
not that's deliberate. And I think to a
certain extent, you're talking about the
media and the messaging. And the media
and the messaging was the same. It was
the same everywhere. So, it had to be
coordinated. It had to be deliberate.
Um, and you're seeing that still today.
You have a comment to that? Well, I'm
just actually not necessarily a comment
on that, but I just, you know, what I
think is so precious about what MPD
Allison is hoping to accomplish here is
we you I just want to refocus this on,
you know, we we are learning through
this process that we've got a large
number of people that have been
literally silenced.
Literally silenced. And they are
suffering terribly and their stories are
they're going to change this nation.
And I think that
or I think you know if you were to ask
us what we're hoping to accomplish is I
think that we need to have this
conversation. You see, cuz we can go all
these different ways and I can actually
get excited about um real problems. And
I think I think the real problem is is
that somehow we've arrived in a place
where we cannot be honest with with each
other, where we cannot disagree with
each other, where we can no longer have
civil conversations. Um which is really
hateful. Like it's almost like we become
a hateful country. And and these people
that are vaccine injured feel that way.
And you know, I think that God is going
to use this inquiry
to basically reveal first of all to
speak through these people and just say,
"Wait a second. We need to have this
conversation and where it leads, who
knows?" Because the one thing that I
I've come to understand is I really
don't know what's going on.
I have strong opinions, but I know when
I actually listen to other people with
an open mind, I can see things
differently. And I also know that we're
all the same. So that if I had a
different belief system, I would act
just the way people that have that
different belief system act. Like we
need to cut each other's slack and we
need to start having a conversation and
see where that goes. Now, MP Allison,
what do you think that through this
process we can start the healing process
that we can actually start to rebuild
some of the the trust in our
institutions? Because I think trust in,
you know, our health care system, our
our politicians in general is probably
at an all-time low. Do you think that
this is going to help that uh process?
So I I think in the first step I think
this is uh a great first step in the
healing processes for individuals right
they can talk about their stories and
feel like they're being heard. I mean
the only way you build trust in
institutions if the is if institutions
show up and say you know what we may
made some mistakes and we need to do
things differently. So I don't see the
institutions uh at the table right now.
As I said I think this is important for
individuals. Individuals need the
ability to move on or start the healing
process and feel like they can have
conversations. Can you imagine if we go
another 5 years and some of these
individuals can't have a conversation
with their family? Now, it takes two to
have the conversation. I also understand
that. But if they can recognize that
indeed they were injured and that now
they're going to have more
conversations, we need the medical
community. What What kind of damage has
this done to the medical community?
Well, and then you know in terms of the
the ability for for people to believe
and have trust in in doctors, right?
What about the the journalism community?
I mean, we we look at their institutions
like our publicly funded uh you know CBC
and some of the mainstream media. This
is why there's been a a huge influx of
independent media in this country
because people don't feel they can trust
the institutions that they have have
become to. So, while this starts the
process, it's a two-way street. other
institutions have got to step up to the
table and if they're not prepared to do
that there's only so far that we can do
but I really do believe we can start the
process of healing with individuals.
>> Now what kind of support have you had
internally um for this inquiry um
amongst your peers? I mean I know the
media has been pretty tough on you guys
um but you know you're sitting as an MP.
Have you had lots of support um within
your own party within government
all levels of different parties or where
does it stand?
>> Yeah. So I haven't had a lot of support
from the uh from the governing party. Uh
as a matter of fact I've had a bunch of
attacks from individuals uh members of
of of of the uh of the governing party.
I have had lots of response positive
response from my own members. As a
matter of fact, I've had a number of
members uh you know, for example, our uh
the first our lady Michelle who spoke at
our second press conference, uh her
member of parliament is Bob Zimmer. And
I was I was taking her back to her hotel
after the press conference. She said,
you know, Dean, I've had a lot of great
conversations with Bob. Bob has been
very receptive. And I would say that
that has been the case with other
members of parliament across the
country, even members in the in in the
in the government. So, I think that uh
you know, while I'm hoping for a good
turnout, I also understand that members
of parliament are incredibly busy. This
is right after Labor Day weekend. This
was uh the best we could do working on
Sean's schedule, Teresa's schedule, and
my schedule, which is there's always
never a great a great opportunity to
figure out what what would be the best
time. The reason why we're doing it then
and not while we're sitting is because
committee rooms are at a premium. It's
very hard to get access to committee
rooms because regular scheduled
committees are be going to be going
about their business. So, we're doing
this the best way we can, but if I've
got any indication for the number of
people, I got a couple emails today. I
got one from an individual that says,
Dean, I've got uh uh somebody that would
like to participate and I've told them,
you know, I'm going to send them to you.
And by the way, I'm going to be there.
They're not someone that's come out
publicly and said that because they're
probably working on their schedule. I've
had a lot of other MPs have said,
"Listen, take a look at this person
here. They've had an issue. Would you
talk to Would you, you know, get them
into the, you know, at least into the
queue and through the website, help
figure that stuff out?" I've had a ton
of support from that that perspective.
So, you know, I'm I'm proud of the
colleagues that have actually taken the
time to speak to some of these injured
people and I would say that that's
probably happened with a number of
parties across the way. And so, that's
great. Now the next step is let's get
these people in a public forum once
again where they can tell their stories
publicly where they can start to feel
like they are have permission to tell
their stories publicly.
>> So now I know we're running out of time
here. When is the inquiry? It's
September 8th to the 11th in Ottawa in
Parliament as you've pointed out. Where
can people watch? Um, are they able to
participate in person? Um, give us more
details about that.
>> Can can I answer that one, Dean?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> So, um, yeah, so just go to the Allison
Inquiry website. So, it's
allisoninquiry.com or coestimony.com and
we can get you those to post. Nadine,
um, subscribe to the newsletter. We will
be live streaming it um, off the
website. We will be live streaming it on
on various social media. I expect the
dean will be live streaming it on his
social media and I will on mine. Um, so
there'll be and there'll be others that
will be live streaming it. So hopefully
you'll be live streaming it, Nadine. So
um, and we may have a live stream in
both French and English. So sub follow
us on social media, subscribe to the
newsletter. Um, also you know I just
Dean was talking about David Redmond.
He's Lieutenant Colonel David Redmond
who was trained in the armed forces to
be an emergency management specialist.
He's a world expert. He set up the
province of Alberta's kind of um
response uh at the National Citizens
Archives. So national
citizensarchive.com
he has testified under oath. It will
change everyone's opinion of what
happened if you watch his presentation.
Yeah, I've had Colonel Redmond on the
the show here and during COVID in
particular actually he wasn't able to
make an event that I was uh attending
and he allowed me to present his
information and he is just a brilliant
man and as you've pointed out an expert
in emergency preparedness and you know
this whole claim that Canada didn't have
we weren't prepared for this we were we
had a plan there was plans and they just
threw out everything and denied that we
had ever done anything and we were
illprepared. Um which again for me it's
just it's a a destruction of the
credibility. It it destroys trust. Um
you have to believe that there was an
agenda here. Um any final words MP um
Dean Allison, you know that you know
people who are watching that you think
you know maybe they should hear or um
just some sentiments of your own.
>> Yeah. No, I I just, you know, I think
that uh so important to be able to have
dialogue. I worry about censorship in
this country right now and censorship
really is about, you know, not letting
people tell their stories. We see an
increasing amount of legislation since
CO that involves some elements of
censorship. And I I think that's why we
have to be so diligent. We have to be so
we need to make sure we continue to find
ways to have conversations
and tell the truth even if it's not
comfortable. And I think, you know, this
is why I appreciate what you do and so
many other independent people. You know,
if we don't continue to fight for our
ability to have free speech, we're going
to lose it. And I think that, you know,
censorship is shows up in many different
forms. One of them is, you know,
refusing to hear what people have to
say. It's just it's simple. We're
talking about people just listening to
people. That's what we're talking. We're
not talking about anything. We're we we
wanted to be very clear. We could have
done so much more, gone so much further,
but we wanted to make sure that we were
on safe ground. And that's why we're ju
we're just listening to people. Think
about that. Listening to people that
have been injured. And so I just I just
people need to be so much more aware
that our freedoms are not always free
and they're not always going to be a
given that we're going to have to
continue to to fight for that. That's
why I think this inquiry is so important
is because if we don't give people
permission to tell their stories, what
is next? Is it going to be because I
don't like what you said about A, B, or
C? We've got to be very diligent around
these things. And so that's why I think
this inquiry is so important. People
have stories to tell and they deserve to
be heard and that we need to give people
permission to tell their stories in a
public way, not privately. They're
having those conversations but in a
public forum.
>> Regrettably, I think the Liberal
government is going down the path of
censorship and uh fear. Um even people
like myself in podcasts and independent
journalists who do try to bring the
truth. Um I think are under attack with
some of these new bills that are out.
Again, a conversation for another time.
Um but you know, you see what's
happening in the UK. People are posting
things online um and being put in jail.
some of them for, you know, terms um
much further than more serious crimes,
you know, uh that are being committed.
So, it it is a scary proposition to
think that we can't even just have a
conversation. Sean, any last words from
you that you'd like people to know or I
mean, you've been on the show many times
and and your breath and knowledge,
especially as it relates to Health
Canada and a lot of the the issues. Um,
you know, they're self-evident, but you
know, any any final words today for our
audience? Well, I I'd just like to
follow up on what what Dean was saying
is I and invite people to participate.
Like these people um really need to be
heard and they need to tell their
stories and I I promise you it will
change their lives and let's privilege
them. Like let's all watch this live and
listen to their stories because you know
they are going to pay attention and
they're going to talk about how many
people were online watching. And if we
can if we can have those numbers large
if we can participate as a country
that's how we start this journey. You
know if we do this and nobody watches
then you know that's a tree falling in
the forest with no one to hear. So I
think we all have a responsibility to
watch and get other people to watch like
let's make this the event that starts
the conversation. I see this a little
bit as the freedom convoy, you know,
during the COVID um days itself in the
pandemic where people did feel alone.
They they were feeling very pressured
and very isolated
and uh when the freedom convoy happened,
it was like, "Oh my goodness, there are
other people who think like me and there
was a sense of community and
camaraderie." So, um, it sounds to me
like that's what we're you're trying to
recreate here is to give people that
space to know they're not alone.
>> We're listening.
>> You you can't recreate what they did.
Um, they they acted at at a time like I
remember I they gave me hope. So, I I'm
so I'm I will be thankful every day of
my life for what the truckers did and
the sacrifice that they made. Um, so I
don't I don't want to make any
comparison. I just do know that that um
that God's moving and he wants us in
Canada to come together again. And I
believe that this is this is a start and
I'd really invite everyone to
participate.
>> Amen to that. Well, thank you gentlemen
both for being with us today and for
sharing some information and we'll be
watching.
>> Thanks Nadine.
>> Thanks so much.
>> You're very welcome. Well, there you
have it everybody. The Allison inquiry.
Please do check out the website. Please
do check out follow along. Please do
participate. As Sean and NP De and
Allison have said, you know, there's no
point in doing this if nobody is going
to listen, nobody wants to partake. Um,
it's very important that we continue the
conversation and that we preserve and we
fight, we defend our right to have our
voices heard, especially when it comes
to our government officials. Um, there's
been harms that have been done here.
It's important to know who's
responsible, you know, for some of these
harms and there's programs out there
that are available that Canadians are
not even aware of. So, that in and of
itself tells you some of the issues that
we have to address here. So, anyway, I
want to say thank you all for listening.
Please do like, please do share. Again,
I can do these all day, but if nobody
shares them, if nobody, you know, uh,
gets involved, likes them, send them to
friends, send them family. Um, say,
"Hey, check this out." And so please do
like, please do share, please do
subscribe to the channel and uh leave us
your comments. God bless you all.