Letter to CPSO

Operation Covid Compensation (“OCC”)

By Registered Mail May 11, 2021

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“CPSO”)

80 College Street Toronto, ON

M5G 2E2

Dear Sirs:

Re: Your Public Announcement Copied Below Reasons for Writing We are writing in response to your recent public announcement (the “Statement”) to members of the medical community in Ontario warning them to adhere to your strict policies relating to Covid‐19 (“Covid”) or else be subject to your disciplinary actions. Your Statement alleges that to do otherwise, doctors might be guilty of breaking their code of ethics and professional responsibilities. We will discuss the Statement in some detail herein and we copy your Statement for readers’ reference. 2 We refer to the response to your Statement in the Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth (the “Declaration”) including the petition that people are now signing. This can be found at https://canadianphysicians.org/ We are writing to add to the content of the Declaration to cover some topics that were not covered in that Declaration. In issuing your Statement, you mandated that the only treatment for Covid allowable is that recommended or mandated by the Governments of Canada and Ontario. You have therefore told the public and doctors which medical treatments and measures are appropriate, and which are not. That is giving medical advice. In doing so you have, in our view, exposed the CPSO and member doctors to lawsuits for damages and costs that might be suffered by the public based on their reliance of your Statement. This potential liability may extend to your executives, your Elected Professional Members, your Public Members and your University Members. We believe that in issuing the Statement the CPSO has done a great disservice to all Canadians. It was, in our view, reckless and unprofessional. It completely ignored real evidence. We note the coincidence in the timing of your Statement and the increased strict censorship by Facebook, YouTube and Twitter in censoring and removing accounts of those who question or contradict the storylines of governments and bodies such as the WHO and CDC. This could be taken to imply that the CPSO is not relying on its own knowledge and investigations, but rather in simply towing the governments’ party line. This is a question that might come up in a court, specifically were you simply complying with government pressures and recommendations (as part of a larger conspiracy) or were you simply too lazy and negligent to conduct your own investigations. Our hope is that in writing this letter, and making it available to the public, that everyone will know and have documented that you are aware that your Statement may cause damages for which, in a court of law, you may be held liable. This letter, together with affidavit that it has been sent to the CPSO and together with any other evidence that may be made available by us would reasonably be made available to any person who may wish to commence legal action against you. Suggested Distribution We suggest that this letter be distributed to Dr. Judith Plante, all Elected Professional Members, all Public Members and all University Members (collectively the “Members”). There may be future issues of litigation against the CPSO and its Members. They should be aware of the issues and potential and have an opportunity to consult with their lawyers as to exposure and appropriate actions they might take. Conduct of CPSO 3 Here are our main points of criticism: 1. Silence 2. Causing harm to the public 3. Hypocrisy Silence 1. Silence of CPSO on medical and ethical concerns about government actions and recommendations. 2. Silence on the incorrect designation of Covid as a pandemic. 3. Silence on the lack of scientific evidence for any of the Covid measures. 4. Silence on the fact that the vaccines have never been proven to have efficacy or been tested for safety. 5. Endorsing government measures and recommendations in a heavy manner even if they cause harm to the public. By virtue of issuing the Statement, the CPSO has effectively declared its leadership role in ensuring appropriate information is given to public relating to the medical aspects of Covid including treatment (appropriate and forbidden) and measures. In doing this the CPSO has clearly publicly expanded its role to going beyond regulatory and disciplinary functions to determining what is truthful and what is not, what is science and what is not, what is good medicine and what is not and furthermore limiting the discretionary rights of a physician. Causing Harm to the Public In our opinion, the CPSO is both spreading false propaganda as to the nature of Covid as well as what are appropriate treatments and measures. Furthermore, by the Statement, the CPSO is trying to prevent (with threat of serious punishment) physicians from providing what might be the best healthcare in their professional opinions. Such conduct by the CPSO greatly increases the prospect of injury, illness and even death to the public who rely upon the Statement to determine their medical decisions. The Declaration provides some specific examples of the ways such harm may manifest. Hypocrisy Do as I say but not as I do is a clear message from the Statement. We will restrict ourselves to two examples both relating to the Statement’s general requirement for scientific evidence in making statements or promotion of a treatment or measure. 4 The vaccines are the most glaring because they can cause the most harm. Physicians have not been allowed to prescribe HCQ but the CSPO and our governments are busy pushing people to take a vaccine if they want to travel or keep their job or stay safe or as a requirement to open schools. Those vaccines have not been properly tested by sufficient clinical standard to have efficacy, and certainly not enough of a benefit to warrant the risk, which is against the Nuremberg Code. The CPSO has not received any evidence for safety of the vaccines and yet is supporting their widespread use. According to the Statement, no physician is allowed to opine or promote any treatment or measure without proper scientific evidence (via clinical trials?) and therefore by endorsing the vaccines, the CPSO is being hypocritical. Masking is another example. We want to highlight one of the elected Members of the CPSO – Dr. Kashif Perzada. He is, from his social media pages, highly promotional of the use and efficacy of face masks. He is somewhat vitriolic in his condemnation of those who would question the need for face masks. Has he based his public statements on clinical trials or any other reliable evidence? Of course not. We have not found one reputable paper or study that is peer reviewed and shows masks have any efficacy whatsoever in preventing the spread of viruses. None of the governments in Canada have ever been able to refer to a single peer reviewed study showing the efficacy and safety of masks. In contrast we are aware of over 75 peer reviewed studies that show that masks are not effective at all in preventing the spread of viruses. Some manufacturers even put warning labels on their packaging that their masks are not effective in preventing the spread of viruses. The CDC has recently stated that prolonged use of masks may be harmful. How can the CPSO threaten physicians with punishment for correctly saying masks are proven to be ineffective and yet say nothing about their own elected Member Dr. Perzada for promoting, falsely, the benefits of masks without legitimate evidence. This unequal application of standards together with the do‐as‐I‐say‐not‐as‐I‐do aspect is hypocritical. Legal Issues General Legal Issues We are not lawyers or legal consultants. We are not offering legal advice or legal opinions. It seems to us, however, that in issuing the Statement, the CPSO has put itself in a position of giving medical advice and decrees to physicians and the public alike. It will be interesting to see 5 what the public will do when loved ones die in Ontario from taking the vaccine; and people are already dying. We further consider that should someone sue the CPSO they would likely refer to the Statement. Specifically, the CPSO is very clear that it is wrong and punishable for Physicians to recommend any treatment or make any technical medical statements without scientific evidence. Yet in its Statement the CPSO is endorsing, and thus making medical recommendations, in agreement with government recommendations and Covid measures, where absolutely no supporting evidence exists. This includes all the Covid measures including the vaccines and the withholding of HCQ and other treatments that have been shown to be effective in treating Covid with no side effects. None of the governments’ measures are based in science or supported by appropriate evidence. To reiterate, we are not lawyers, but common sense would tell us that this Statement leaves the CPSO wide open for a lot of lawsuits given this inconsistency. The Statement is, with the hypocrisy, an admission of guilt. Nuremberg Code and Lawsuits Lawsuits have already been happening and in one case the courts held Pfizer liable for 80% of the pulmonary inflammation cases resulting from the mRNA vaccines. The article attached covers the first lawsuit and contains a link to the second, much bigger, lawsuit. The second lawsuit will be claiming far beyond the drug manufacturers and is alleging, inter alia, wide‐ spread fraud. Government reports show deaths from the mRNA vaccines to be over 4,000 in the US and over 7,000 in the EU. Injuries resulting from the mRNA vaccines are reported at over 50,000 in the US and over 365,000 in the EU. It could be that these numbers are materially understated. This is after only about 4 months since the vaccines were launched. We expect results to balloon to horrendous levels. https://breaking‐news.ca/the‐new‐nuremberg‐trials‐2021‐please‐share‐this‐info/ Relating Nuremberg Code Lawsuits to CPSO The recent and imminent lawsuits are not likely to target local professional organizations such as the CPSO. They could, however, readily be relied upon by assorted other people and their lawyers should they wish to bring action against physicians, bodies like the CPSO and any other party promoting Covid Measures and government recommendations and mandates. Anyone wishing to bring lawsuits against organizations such as CPSO, its Members or doctors who chose to obey your Statement, even if the claims are in small claims court, will have all of the legal pleadings, evidence, affidavits and precedent that they could use. 6 The potential for lawsuits against the CPSO and its Members will endure for years. The number of claimants could be in the thousands if not tens of thousands. The effects of the mRNA vaccines will unfold over many years. The fact that this letter has been sent to you is evidence that you are aware of the issues. If the Statement and its instructions go without retraction, then anyone who suffers injury or death, or other financial loss from the date of your receipt of this letter as a result of following government mandates or recommendations should, we expect, have a case against you. About OCC OCC is a name for diverse volunteers who act independently and in cooperation without formal agreement or status. OCC was founded to assist Persons (be they individuals, businesses unincorporated or incorporated, or other entities) to express concerns for the Covid Measures promulgated and enforced by our governments, professional associations, media, institutions, companies and others, and to further develop means for which such Persons may recover damages and losses suffered from the illegal imposition of such Covid Measures. The OCC name permits some degree of anonymity as our governments and their partners in this Covid scheme have shown a propensity to use taxpayer resources and other resources to retaliate and punish all who fight back against the Covid Measures or criticize offending parties. OCC does not provide advice (legal or otherwise) to any Person, nor does it make any claims itself. It demands nothing from addressees to its letters or other communications. What it is doing is creating some evidence for the use by any Person wishing to protect their rights and freedoms and seek compensation for damages caused. In large part this evidence is to show that certain potential defendants had prior knowledge that their actions were causing harm (damages) and that they had a duty to themselves prove they were justified in their acts and could not rely on government assertions or recommendations or illegal regulations as a defense. Hopefully, OCC’s activities can provoke inquiry and critical evaluation by the public and important constituents relating to what we consider, in our opinion, a major fraud by governments and their co‐colluders, against the people.

Yours Truly

OCC