Search this site

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript GraceLife Church seizure, Pastor James Coates arrest, Tim Stephens arrest, Charter section 2(a), freedom of religion denial, religious exemption refusals, human rights accommodation law, undue hardship standard, Amselem precedent 2004, university mandate appeals, arbitrary exemption process, civil liberties funding gap, property rights absence, living tree doctrine critique, constitutional litigation limits Included in the Report: Mr. James Kitchen Lawyer Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-130 Hearing Vancouver British Columbia Date: May 4, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Legal challenges involving church closures, religious freedom claims, vaccine mandate exemptions, and alleged systemic failure of Charter protections during COVID-19. One Line Summary Alberta constitutional lawyer describes defending churches and religious objectors during COVID and alleges systemic failure of Charter religious protections. Synopsis James Kitchen, an Alberta constitutional lawyer, testified regarding his involvement in multiple COVID-era legal challenges, particularly those involving church closures and arrests of Christian pastors. He described advising Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church prior to his arrest and subsequent 35-day imprisonment for refusing bail conditions that would have restricted him from holding church services. He further detailed the physical seizure of GraceLife Church by authorities and described assisting church leadership in organizing alternative services. He also referenced the arrests of Pastor Tim Stephens and legal proceedings related to Church in the Vine, including a court’s refusal to permit argument under section 2(a) of the Charter. Kitchen testified that, in his view, freedom of religion protections became effectively hollow during the pandemic. He described instances where courts dismissed or declined to hear Charter arguments related to religious freedom and argued that prosecutors routinely characterized religious claims as trivial or insubstantial. He compared Canadian outcomes to certain U.S. cases where churches successfully challenged restrictions. He further criticized the “living tree” constitutional doctrine and stated that judicial interpretation significantly narrows practical Charter protections. He also testified extensively about religious exemption requests related to vaccine mandates. According to his testimony, most Christian clients seeking accommodation were denied, often with standardized responses questioning the sincerity or theological validity of their beliefs. He described what he characterized as arbitrary decision-making processes, including a case where multiple university appeals were granted only after his intervention. He concluded by expressing concern about the limited number of civil liberties lawyers in Canada, the high cost of constitutional litigation, and the broader societal consequences if courts fail to provide effective remedies for alleged rights violations. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript AHS vaccine mandate, religious exemption denial, clinical nurse specialist, informed consent concerns, workplace hostility unvaccinated, forced retirement, remote work denial, family division vaccination, church conflict mandates, stress leave impact, physician relationship breakdown, senior visitation restrictions, sudden deaths reports, healthcare career termination, professional isolation Included in the Report: Ms. Grace Neustaedter RN, MSc Registered Nurse Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-190 Hearing Red Deer Alberta Date: April 28, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Denial of religious exemption and forced early retirement following COVID-19 vaccine mandate, with resulting professional, family, and community impacts. One Line Summary Master’s-trained nurse describes religious exemption denial, workplace hostility, forced retirement, and family and church division during vaccine mandates. Synopsis Grace Neustaedter testified that she worked as a registered nurse for 41 years, including 18 years as a clinical nurse specialist with Alberta Health Services (AHS), and held a Master’s degree in Nursing with formal research training. She stated that after reviewing available data and considering her faith convictions, she became concerned about the expedited vaccine rollout and the perceived absence of standard due process in informed consent and clinical testing. She described observing strong adherence among colleagues to public health directives and reported that discussions in her workplace included disparaging remarks toward unvaccinated individuals, which she found distressing. Neustaedter applied for a religious exemption but testified that she never received formal acknowledgment or approval. She stated that she was informed through informal channels and union contacts that only one religious exemption had reportedly been granted within AHS. On December 15, 2021, she received recognition for 40 years of service on the same day she was prohibited from entering AHS facilities due to her vaccination status. Although she had previously worked remotely and was actively engaged in research projects and educational module development, she testified that she was not permitted to continue working from home while other vaccinated staff were. She described significant emotional distress, stress leave, and eventual early retirement. Beyond her professional life, she testified to family division regarding vaccination decisions, restricted access to grandchildren and elderly relatives, strained church relationships, and the loss of friendships. She also recounted personal knowledge of several sudden deaths occurring after vaccination within her extended social circle, while stating she did not personally know anyone who had died from COVID-19. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript RCMP mandate, vaccine refusal, open-source investigation, early treatment suppression, Mounties for Freedom, Police on Guard, security clearance revoked, pension risk resignation, Freedom Convoy policing, BLM enforcement contrast, Detective Helen Grus, sudden infant death inquiry, political influence policing, oath of office, neglect of duty Included in the Report: Mr. Danny Bulford Former Law Enforcement Officer Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-160 Hearing Red Deer Alberta Date: April 26, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Opposition to RCMP COVID-19 vaccine mandate, internal suppression of dissent, and concerns regarding policing conduct during mandate enforcement and the Freedom Convoy. One Line Summary Former RCMP corporal describes opposing vaccine mandates, loss of career, and concerns about policing standards and institutional inaction during COVID. Synopsis Daniel Bulford, a former RCMP corporal with 15 years of service including eight years on the Emergency Services Support Team assigned to protect the Prime Minister, testified regarding his decision to refuse COVID-19 vaccination and publicly oppose federal mandates. He described conducting what he termed an open-source investigation into vaccine safety and efficacy, reviewing government publications, pharmaceutical fact sheets, and commentary from various medical professionals. He stated that he found official information insufficient and became concerned about reported cardiac risks, biodistribution claims, and the suppression of early treatment discussions. After speaking publicly against mandates and helping organize Mounties for Freedom, he was required to surrender his building access, had his security clearance reviewed and revoked, and ultimately resigned in December 2021 to avoid potential pension consequences tied to dismissal for misconduct. Mr. Bulford testified that internal efforts to raise concerns within the RCMP were unsuccessful, including correspondence with senior leadership and discussions with colleagues. He characterized the organizational response as dismissive and described three general attitudes among members: silent opposition, active support of mandates, and refusal to engage in discussion. He further stated that he was unaware of any RCMP criminal investigation into alleged wrongdoing related to COVID-19 mandates or restrictions, despite what he described as serious ethical and legal concerns. He referenced disciplinary proceedings involving Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus as an example of perceived institutional resistance to inquiry. Regarding public order enforcement, Mr. Bulford contrasted police handling of Black Lives Matter demonstrations with enforcement actions during the Freedom Convoy, describing what he viewed as inconsistent application of public health restrictions and use of force. He suggested that political considerations influenced investigative decisions within the RCMP and stated his belief that the organization neglected its duty to investigate potential misconduct related to pandemic policies. He concluded that broader societal compliance, rather than solely government action, was central to the crisis and encouraged citizens to speak openly, seek financial independence from government, and refuse compliance with policies they consider unjust. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Emerson Border Slow-Roll, January 17 2022 Protest, Outdoor Church Fines $1296, Winkler Gathering Tickets, Freedom Convoy Participation, Nine Company Trucks, Ottawa Impoundment Incident, Licence Plate Removal, Ontario Permit Suspension, Winnipeg Legislature Occupation, 50 Truck Convoy Peak, Police Negotiation Process, Emergencies Act Threat, Mask Mandate Lifting Claim, Premier Dialogue Denial Included in the Report: Mr. Diedrich Wall Trucking Company Owner Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-094 Hearing Winnipeg Manitoba Date: April 14, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Testimony describing organization of cross-border truck protests, Winnipeg Legislature convoy occupation, church gathering fines, business risks including vehicle seizure and permit suspension, and the perceived impact of convoy actions on lifting mandates. One Line Summary Trucking company owner Diedrich Wall testified that he organized early border slow-roll protests, sent nine trucks to the Freedom Convoy, helped lead the Winnipeg legislature occupation, and believed convoy pressure contributed to lifting COVID mandates. Synopsis Diedrich Wall testified that as a southern Manitoba trucking company owner employing approximately 40 people, he became active in anti-mandate efforts beginning with outdoor church services in Winkler in May 2021, after indoor worship was restricted. Approximately 70–100 people attended two outdoor services, after which he and other organizers were fined $1,296 per event for violating gathering limits. He described police documentation of attendees and stated that continued services were discouraged through threats of additional enforcement. In January 2022, following federal vaccine mandates for cross-border truck drivers, Wall organized a “slow-roll” protest at the Emerson, Manitoba–U.S. border beginning January 17, intentionally slowing commercial traffic without blocking the highway. He later sent nine company-affiliated trucks to participate in the Freedom Convoy, four of which remained in Ottawa. One owner-operator truck leased to his company was impounded during enforcement operations, licence plates were removed, and provincial operating permits in Ontario were suspended for approximately one month. Wall testified that he and his wife understood participation could jeopardize their entire business and the livelihoods of their employees but felt morally compelled to proceed. Wall also helped organize the February 2022 truck protest at the Manitoba Legislative Building in Winnipeg, where approximately 50 trucks and large numbers of supporters gathered for several weeks. He described the protest as peaceful, involving ongoing negotiations with Winnipeg police, and stated that demonstrators sought direct dialogue with Premier Heather Stefanson but were denied. He testified that protesters ultimately vacated after receiving notice that enforcement action would proceed under emergency authorities. Wall concluded that the convoy movement exposed governmental overreach, restored public unity, and contributed to the lifting of provincial mandates, including mask requirements. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 13, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript RNA microRNA research, lipid nanoparticle expertise, CT cycle threshold critique, Pfizer adverse effects personal, pediatric vaccination opposition, Réinfo Covid conference, university suspension without pay, Bill 32 academic freedom, media censorship allegation, IJVTPR publications, pharmacovigilance six-week window, adverse event underreporting claim, spike protein biodistribution concern, vaccine vial analysis proposal, whistleblower status claim Included in the Report: Dr. Patrick Provost PhD Molecular Biologist Both (Expert and Personal Experience) Witness ID: NCI-W-260 Hearing Québec City Québec Date: May 13, 2025 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Scientific critique of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, allegations of underreported adverse events, institutional censorship, and claimed violations of academic freedom following public dissent. One Line Summary A Université Laval professor describes vaccine side effects, opposition to child vaccination, suspensions for public statements, and argues that mRNA vaccine risks are underestimated and academic freedom is threatened. Synopsis Dr. Patrick Provost, a full professor and RNA researcher at Université Laval, testified regarding his scientific background, personal experience following a Pfizer COVID-19 injection, and subsequent public opposition to pediatric vaccination. He reported experiencing five unusual side effects after his first dose and stated that his physician declined to formally report them. He described speaking publicly at a December 7, 2021 conference to question the risk-benefit balance of vaccinating children aged 5–11, which he identified as the turning point leading to complaints and disciplinary proceedings by his university. Provost outlined two unpaid suspensions and an ongoing arbitration process related to allegations of biased interpretation, lack of rigour, and dissemination of polarizing information. He argued that these sanctions violate Quebec’s Bill 32 on academic freedom and reflect institutional censorship influenced by political and private interests. He described media coverage as defamatory and asserted that debate on COVID-19 policies has been suppressed in mainstream outlets. He also detailed the discontinuation of a university opinion column and described broader concerns about self-censorship among academics. Scientifically, he presented three publications in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. He argued that mRNA vaccines function as pro-drugs with unpredictable biodistribution and spike protein expression levels, raising myocarditis concerns. He reported findings from retrospective pharmacy record analysis suggesting that adverse events occurring beyond a six-week surveillance window may be undercounted, and he asserted that overall vaccine-related adverse events may be substantially underestimated. He called for independent laboratory analysis of vaccine vial contents, public scientific debate, and strengthened protections for academic freedom. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Canadian Armed Forces, vaccine mandate, Chief of Defence Staff, Directive 1-3, National Defence Act section 126, religious accommodation denial, medical accommodation denial, 5F release category, grievance system delays, whistleblower protections, Inspector General proposal, vaccine injury reporting suppression, chain-of-command authority, morale collapse, Veterans Affairs denial Included in the Report: Ms. Catherine Christensen Lawyer Expert Witness ID: NCI-W-159 Hearing Red Deer Alberta Date: April 26, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Legal analysis of Canadian Armed Forces COVID-19 vaccine mandate, chain-of-command authority, accommodation processes, and institutional impact. One Line Summary Military lawyer testifies on CAF vaccine mandates, alleged coercion and accommodation failures, and institutional consequences for service members. Synopsis Catherine Christensen, a lawyer representing Canadian Armed Forces members and founder of the Valour Legal Action Centre, testified regarding the implementation and consequences of the CAF COVID-19 vaccine mandate introduced in October 2021. She stated that she represents approximately 360 serving members and veterans and has communicated with thousands more. She described the mandate as being implemented through a series of directives rather than under section 126 of the National Defence Act, which would have required court martial proceedings to determine reasonable refusal. She asserted that this approach avoided independent judicial review and resulted in inconsistent enforcement across the chain-of-command. Ms. Christensen testified that religious and medical accommodations were largely denied despite sworn affidavits and chaplain support in some cases. She described remedial measures, 5F release classifications, and administrative actions that she characterized as punitive and stigmatizing. She alleged that some military medical personnel were discouraged from formally reporting vaccine injuries and that official injury statistics underreported adverse events. She further stated that grievances filed by members ultimately return to the Chief of Defence Staff as final authority, limiting perceived impartial review. She estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 personnel were lost through resignation, release, or other administrative outcomes following the mandate, which she argued significantly weakened operational readiness and morale. She described a breakdown of trust within the chain-of-command and characterized the mandate as having long-term institutional consequences. Among proposed reforms, she recommended creation of an independent Inspector General outside the chain-of-command, strengthened whistleblower protections, comprehensive health coverage for injured members, mandatory injury tracking, and legislative review of section 126 of the National Defence Act. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 15, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript risk matrix modeling, root cause analysis, scientific process critique, mitigation effectiveness assessment, age-stratified COVID risk, vaccine risk-benefit calculation, lockdown comparison Sweden, ICU capacity analysis, Cochrane mask review, Charter rights suspension, stakeholder engagement, cognitive dissonance, financial cost escalation, liability transfer contracts, governance accountability Included in the Report: Mr. Dean Beaudry Risk Management Professional Expert Witness ID: NCI-W-165 Hearing Red Deer Alberta Date: April 26, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Risk management analysis of COVID-19 policies, mitigation effectiveness, governance accountability, and economic consequences. One Line Summary Retired risk manager applies industrial risk assessment frameworks to evaluate COVID mitigation policies, concluding governance and accountability failures. Synopsis Dean Beaudry, a retired project manager with approximately 30 years of experience in large-scale industrial risk assessment and incident investigation, presented a structured analysis applying risk management principles to COVID-19 policy decisions. Using root cause analysis and risk matrix methodology, he argued that Canadian pandemic responses failed to follow established scientific and risk management processes. He identified key root causes as dismissal of balancing procedures, suppression of dissenting expert opinions, undue authority under emergency powers, and what he described as a breakdown in governance accountability and ethical standards. Mr. Beaudry compared COVID mortality risk to other familiar national risks, such as accidental death, using government data to assess probability and consequence. He emphasized age stratification, pre-existing conditions, and comparative risk positioning on a matrix framework. He evaluated mitigation measures including vaccination, lockdowns, masks, and ICU capacity expansion, arguing that effectiveness assessments were not transparently conducted or updated as real-world data became available. He referenced international comparisons, including Sweden and certain U.S. states, to question the impact of lockdowns, and discussed vaccine adverse event statistics using official reporting figures. He further addressed governance and accountability, contrasting corporate executive liability structures with political decision-making during the pandemic. He cited financial impacts including increased public debt, cost-of-living escalation, and pharmaceutical revenue growth, arguing that consequence models were asymmetrical and lacked direct accountability for decision-makers. Throughout his testimony, he emphasized stakeholder engagement, evidence-based decision labeling (fact, opinion, assumption), and detachment from emotion in high-stakes policy decisions, concluding that failures in values, transparency, and structured decision-making processes contributed to national harm. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

7.5.3 Epidemiology 101 in the COVID-19 Era 7.5.3 Epidemiology 101 in the COVID-19 Era Introduction The concept of epidemiology dates back to Hippocrates, who observed that by and large, there were two types of diseases: endemic diseases, which occur continually in the population, and epidemic diseases, whose occurrences are sporadic, such as infections with unprecedented symptoms. Although the science of epidemiology has made much progress since antiquity, understanding the occurrence and the evolution of a new disease that creates significant morbidity and mortality is still a huge challenge. The occurrence of a new pathogen—its transmission in human populations, the interaction with the infected host leading to diseases of varying seriousness, and the ultimate resolution of an epidemic as it progresses to the endemic state—is a highly complex multifactorial phenomena whose driving forces are difficult to identify. The relative contribution of the various factors is also very difficult to measure. We have learned a lot since the beginning of the modern scientific adventure, yet our knowledge is still very limited. The paradigm of modern reductionist materialism, starting with Descartes, is that the world is like a machine whose parts interact with one another according to specific laws of nature written in the language of mathematics. According to this paradigm, all we need to do is identify the components and discover how they interact with one another. With that understanding, it‘s assumed we can control the world. That worldview has several shortfalls as it applies, for example, to the science of epidemiology and as it converges at the intersection of statistics, physics, biology, engineering, psychology, sociology, and politics. The many unknowns in all of the parts of this idealized machine, let alone in the ways they interact, make any modelling attempts to describe and predict how that works is at best naive, if not totally misleading, in many respects. A flurry of mainstream media commentators took centre stage to project the illusion that epidemiology was a mature science able to predict the evolution and control of pandemics with sophisticated models fuelled by powerful computing. The reality was that what we learned about epidemiology over the past decades had not made our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic any different than previous pandemics. This illusion of knowledge fooled many people into thinking that they could attribute the rise and fall of epidemic waves to specific human interventions or lack thereof. The main innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic was the questionable deployment of the RT-PCR diagnostic as a proxy to follow the epidemic waves. Strangely, instead of monitoring the waves of sick people, public health focused their attention on the presence of a viral genetic sequence to define a “case,” irrespective of its consequence on morbidity and mortality. Moreover, despite the poor predictive power of the RT-PCR tests to inform disease progression, they were used in attributing deaths from COVID-19 to respiratory illnesses of all kinds and without formal demonstration. This created systematic errors of attribution that biased official statistics all over the world. Over-reliance on Modelling We were misled by models. Without delving into too many details, it is necessary to discuss the concept of viral transmission. The physicochemical interaction of an ill-defined biological agent, the virus—which is sensitive to all kinds of environmental conditions, like UV and humidity—travels in the air to enter the airway of another biological being, which will interact with this virus in different ways, depending on the robustness of the mucosal immune system challenged with an unknown viral load. Combining all these parameters, which we cannot properly measure in a web of interactions, quickly becomes a combinatorial explosion of probabilities that are impossible to determine. Assuming we could measure all of the parameters, which we cannot, modelling is then challenged by the mathematical laws governing the interaction of the different components. A relatively simple example is the law of fluid dynamics to estimate the virus transmission in the air, depending on the gravitational force, wind velocity, and humidity. As the equations cannot be fully resolved, we have to assume several measurements. Without those precise measures, what are we going to input as a modelling parameter? The bottom line is that modelling is a useful tool to generate a working hypothesis, based on approximate assessment, to be validated by empirical measures. Modelling cannot make accurate predictions of complex systems. The limitation is not only the computing power but also the uncertainty about the input parameters to run the model. If the assumptions are incorrect, the output of the model is useless for prediction and is referred to as a GIGO model (garbage in, garbage out). The over-reliance on models can be due to the difficulty in testing model predictions experimentally or due to the time involved to collect data before the model‘s accuracy can be formally assessed. Nonetheless, when a modeller consistently misses the target by a long shot, it would be wise to question the assumptions and mathematical process used to produce its prediction. A stunning example was the misleading prediction that resulted from inaccurate modelling. This modelling team had been repeatedly off target in their predictions for more than 10 years: notably in the last flu pandemic of 2009 and the mad cow disease debacle that led to the unnecessary slaughter of cattle herds and huge economic losses for UK farmers. Proper Monitoring of Pandemic Progression It follows that we must be very wary of modelling. The only way to determine if any human intervention will influence the progression of a pandemic is to carry out well-designed observational studies in randomized trials whenever possible to eliminate the unknown influence of confounding factors, while carefully avoiding random errors and monitoring systematic errors resulting from selection or information biases. Only true experts with established credentials and a track record can generate and properly interpret those epidemiological studies. Many of those experts informed us of what to expect by making analogies with similar epidemics of the past. The inescapable conclusion of the careful analyses of the best experts, like Prof. Denis Rancourt and Pierre Chaillot, was that there were no pandemics of extraordinary magnitude in 2020–2023, as the authorities promulgated for those three years. The scale of the pandemic was exaggerated, and in rich countries—with notable exceptions such as Sweden, Japan, and a few American states—the health measures deployed caused more damage to the health of populations than COVID-19 itself. Although Sweden had a bad episode in long-term care homes during the first wave in early 2020, they refrained from imposing lockdowns and ended up with much better public health outcomes. Statistics compiled at the global level showed that the median age of people who died of COVID-19 exceeded the age of life expectancy and that the vast majority of seriously ill people had several other pathologies. This led Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet , to declare in his September 26, 2020, op-ed that the COVID-19 pandemic was truly a syndemic. That is, COVID-19 disproportionately affected the most vulnerable. Healthy young people were more than 1000 times less likely to be seriously ill or die from it. In these circumstances, he was advocating for more nuanced public health measures, as did the signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration. Furthermore, the peak of excess deaths observed in different regions of the world coincided with the drastic measures put in place to manage the perceived threat. It‘s almost impossible that those excess deaths were caused by the dissemination of a deadly virus which didn‘t spread across borders and remained in discrete locations within a state or across states. The drastic measures included (1) withholding early treatments, (2) inappropriate use of ventilators that restored anoxia in COVID-19 patients deprived of early treatments, (3) withholding antibiotics to treat incidental bacterial pneumonia, and (4) comfort end-of-life treatments for patients deemed incurable. An accurate account of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the story of a statistics fraud. What did they count? The definition of pandemic was changed. It became a statistical pandemic with cases. After changing the definition in 2009 by ignoring the gravity criteria and only counting numbers of sick people, the WHO further changed it in 2020 to count cases—including people who may not have been sick. Looking at all-cause mortality adjusted for the age pyramid, we note that 2020 was among the lowest since that statistic has been recorded. Nothing happened, anywhere in the world. As for hospital saturation: for example, in France, even with the dubious attribution of hospitalization due to COVID-19, those patients made up only about two per cent of hospital occupancy. The only apparent hospital saturation was induced by an administrative decision to send all the respiratory-symptom patients (up to three million in France) to only seven of the 1500 hospitals. Because of the planning already in place in anticipation of COVID-19 waves, hospitals were emptied, and people avoided them due to fear. As a result, the occupancy was much lower for many months—for example, 50 per cent empty in April 2020. No pandemic was evident when measured by an increase in respiratory disease by the sentinel network, a monitoring system. To put the data in perspective, during the worst previously reported pandemics, the sentinel system recorded up to 800 cases per 100,000 population, like in 2014–2015. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number never exceeded 150 cases per 100,000 population. If one adhered to the definition of epidemic as an excess number of sick people, there was no epidemic in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Pandemic by Alleged Fraudulent Testing and Attribution of COVID-19 Cases Mainstream media reported alarming surges in COVID-19 deaths worldwide, which were determined not solely through initial RT-PCR testing but by the WHO‘s coding ICD-11, implemented on January 31, 2020. This method was seen as a broad and scientifically questionable way of attributing deaths to COVID-19, often based on superficial symptom diagnoses with or without confirmation via RT-PCR testing. When all respiratory infections were broadly categorized as COVID-19 cases, it led to the creation of misleading “epidemic“ curves on the Our World in Data website. In reality, the spread of a respiratory virus infection did not align with synchronous events in numerous countries; some were merely delayed in adopting the ICD-11 code, while others had not yet implemented rigorous health measures. The statistics showed that following the implementation of ICD-11, all other respiratory diseases seemed to gradually disappear and become COVID-19, even when the virus had not been detected. Perverse financial incentives appeared to trigger a diligent transfer of coding attribution. There was an increase in deaths in some places, like France, that had instituted strict measures in April 2020, but not in other countries, like Germany, that didn‘t implement those measures. The so-called first waves occurred in a minority of countries or regions. This could be seen all across Europe and even across different provinces in France, as only 14 out of 100 provinces showed excess deaths, and the spike of excess deaths correlated with the stringency of implementing health measures. The same thing happened in the USA. Furthermore, excess deaths were overrepresented in “deaths at home“ due to the lack of treatment because sick people refrained from going to the hospital. Even if most were attributed to COVID-19, there was no proof because autopsies were not performed. For example, there were 5200 deaths at home during the COVID-19 period in France, and 4800 of those deaths were from “stroke and heart attack, non-treated“ during the same period in a given database, while another database reported up to 6000 deaths from stroke and heart attack. Therefore, every one of the 5200 deaths at home could be accounted for by the lack of treatment. In the same vein, the reported 5000 excess deaths in LTC homes for the elderly were equivalent to the number of people treated with midazolam instead of Rivotril, as the stock had been exhausted by the U.K., the USA, and Canada. The rationale was that COVID-19 was a deadly, untreatable disease. Therefore, hospitals would be saturated, and there would be no room to treat the sick elderly; instead the reasoning was give them palliative care for this deadly incurable disease. In France, the most prevalent place of excess deaths was in hospital. An incredible spike of 6000 out of 7000 excess deaths in three days was reported, with 3000 on the same day. This can only be explained by two reasons: (1) people coming to the hospital were already very sick, and (2) the common treatment in ICU to put patients on ventilators was associated with a high mortality rate. The three causes described—denial of early treatments, ventilators, and palliative care—accounted for the bulk of excess deaths. The RT-PCR tests were the driver of the statistical fraud. A test was not the reality. For example, the pregnancy test although very accurate has both false positive and false negative results. If we tested everyone, we would get falsely positive pregnant men and falsely negative pregnant women. We required additional medical data to establish the reliability of the RT-PCR test. By testing everyone, including those without symptoms, we identified a substantial group of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases who were even believed to be capable of spreading the virus. This raised questions about how they could transmit the illness if they didn‘t carry an infectious virus but rather viral RNA sequences. If non-ill individuals who tested positive could transmit their non-sickness to others, it implied that everyone had the potential to be a source of infection. Moreover, the RT-PCR test had not undergone formal validation with a gold standard, as was the case with pregnancy tests. Say the PCR test is 95 per cent reliable, and we tested everybody indiscriminately and found that both asymptomatic and symptomatic people were positive, on average, less than 5 per cent of the time. We would say, then, that the test lacks coherence. Positive PCR testing over-represented the asymptomatic—detecting, more frequently, people who were not sick while missing people with symptoms—75 per cent of the time. Therefore, these symptoms were most likely not representative of COVID-19 disease. It was a “case-demic.“ During the Omicron phase, the percentage of positive RT-PCR tests increased dramatically to more than 30 per cent in France. Was it truly due to increased viral circulation, or was it from modifying the testing protocol? In France, the combination of RT-PCR tests, COVID-19 vaccines, and the vaccine pass produced strange epidemic curves that were better explained by human behaviour because the RT-PCR tests were not coherent. Putting the vaccine pass in place created an artificial vaccine efficacy. The only efficacy seen in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in France was a reduction in RT-PCR positive tests. If vaccinated people were not obliged to get tested, a bias of positivity of unvaccinated people who were obliged to get tested would be created. Similarly, when it was revealed that the vaccine was not preventing transmission and that the vaccine efficacy waned over time, people who were anxious about the possibility of infection, got boosted. At the same time, people who refused boosters, which were mandatory for an up-to-date vaccine pass, had to be tested more often. As a result, the boosted people tested less than the double-vaccinated or the unvaccinated, and that created the illusion that the booster worked. However, as soon as the vaccine pass was lifted, the curves inverted because the boosted people, being more anxious, were testing themselves more often than the double-vaccinated or unvaccinated people that no longer got tested when it was not mandatory. It was all a statistical illusion. The chilling implication of this rigorous statistical analysis of the official data was that it was a sham pandemic perpetrated by the military and administrative state through a sophisticated psychological operation against the civilian population. While some people may have died from a virus, which probably escaped from the Wuhan lab, the deaths did not show up in the excess-death data. Deaths from the three other declared pandemics since WW II also did not show up in excess-death data. But wars did, intense heat waves did, and earthquakes did, yet proclaimed pandemics did not, except the Spanish flu. A pandemic should be characterized by a significant excess of sick and dead people, not unreliable RT-PCR positive cases. The definition was perverted by an unvalidated display of pandemic waves that instilled fear in people and compelled them to submit to never-before-accepted NPIs as a prelude to the vaccination campaign that was sold as a relief to the unsustainable harmful health measures. Recommendations Due to the confusion caused by improper testing for COVID-19, particularly using unvalidated RT-PCR testing, the following recommendations were made: A. Pause the use of RT-PCR or rapid antigen testing when it is not accompanied by a thorough medical evaluation of disease symptoms. B. Conduct a rigorous validation of RT-PCR testing , including standardized cultivation of the active virus. Establish a defined threshold for the number of amplification cycles that show due use. Considering the confusion that arose from the lack of transparency in official public data, the following recommendations are added: C. Ensure that all government data is consistently and transparently shared with the public for independent evaluation by qualified experts in epidemiology and statistics. D. Make any disparities between data analysis , done by the government and data analysis done by independent citizens, subject to review by an impartial advisory committee composed of experts in epidemiology and data analysis. This committee should be regularly vetted through public forums to maintain transparency and accountability. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 1, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 March 16, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2