Canada’s COVID injection tyranny hits new lows

Music

Mainstream media has betrayed our trust.

Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us

only what they want us to hear.

Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story.

Music

In Canada, we have something called Employment Insurance or EI, which supposedly acts as

a financial safety net for workers and a stabilizer for the Canadian economy during downturns.

EI is supposed to provide temporary income support to people who lose their jobs through no

fault of their own or cannot work for specific reasons.

But it's not free, it's not a gift.

It's a national program funded through premiums paid by workers and employers.

And it's administered by the federal government under the Employment Insurance Act.

And here's some examples as to how it's not free.

You do pay for it throughout your career.

If you average $50,000 a year for a 45-year career, you would have paid about 2% of your salary each year

or a total of $45,000 into EI.

But your employer would pay a bit more, $63,000.

So in total, you would have paid $108,000.

So this is not something that's free.

In July 2024, nearly half a million Canadians were receiving regular EI benefits.

But what if your employer insists that you take an injection that you consider unsafe and you refuse?

And what if your employer then fires you because you wouldn't take the injection?

Would you be entitled to receiving the EI benefits that you paid into for all those years that you worked up to this time?

To answer these questions, we've invited Dr. Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in physics back to the program.

Dr. Hickey has first-hand experience with these issues and is doing all Canadians a great service

by his persistent legal battle against the government coercion to inject all of its employees, because that was the mandate.

After completing his doctorate in physics at the University of Calgary, he worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada

and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Calgary back at Warrifier.

He's now President and Associate Researcher at Correlation Research in the Public Interest,

a registered not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa, Canada.

Well, welcome to the show, Joseph. It's great to have you back.

Hi, Tom. Good to be here.

Yeah, for sure. So first of all, can you tell us about correlation research in the public interest

and how people can donate to help your work?

Yes, correlation is an entirely independent, non-governmental research not-for-profit organization based in Canada.

And we have been active mostly researching COVID period mortality, and we have many papers on that topic.

And we take a very alternative view on this, and our results have led us to take that view,

and I think we're going to talk about that a bit today.

And another topic that we're doing more on nowadays is climate, as well,

including temperature data in Canada and elsewhere.

And we talked a bit about that last time I was on the show, Tom.

Yeah.

We're a team of PhD researchers in Canada and a couple in Europe,

including a professor, Denis Rancourt, who is in our group.

And we're doing lots of work, and you can check it all out on our web page,

which is correlation-Canada.org.

And on that web page, there's a donation section, as well, if you'd like to contribute.

And you can also find a list of all our research papers on the web page.

Yeah, it's all available for free. It's all online.

Yeah, I find it a very interesting site to scroll around.

So here's a question that I hear once in a while, and that is people saying,

well, you know, they're not really vaccines based on the original definition.

So I mean, were the vaccinations or injections, I guess, is the better word to use?

Were they actually really vaccines based on the original definition of vaccines?

Right. So with correlation, our work has mostly been on all cause mortality.

So we take a broader point of view, and we look, we use that data, which is very robust,

very reliable data of counting deaths at the national level, or it can be subnational,

or even regional.

And then we do analyses of what happened during the COVID period on that basis.

Some of that has to do with vaccination and correlations between peaks in mortality

and peaks in the rollouts of administering the vaccines that also were accompanied

by severe measures, public health measures.

So our work is not so much on molecular biology of pharmaceuticals,

but there's also a personal side to what we're going to talk about today,

which is that I was after completing my PhD.

I worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada,

which is Canada Central Bank, a crown corporation.

So essentially a part of government, although with some independence.

And when the vaccine mandates were applied, I was affected by that.

I refused to receive the vaccine, and I ended up losing my job all for that.

And I've been fighting that, or an aspect of that, more to do with the,

how the government denied employment insurance to people who were fired for those refusing vaccination.

And so as part of that process, I have done a bit of research and a bit of arguments regarding the nature of these vaccines.

So that comes more from my personal effort to oppose the vaccination mandate that was applied to me.

So regarding your question about these vaccines or these injections, if you like.

The first thing, the first big picture thing I would like to say is that when you take a step back

and you look at the history of vaccination, what you find is that, first of all, they're not necessary.

Second of all, they're not effective, and they're not safe either.

So necessary, effective, or safe, if they fail on all those counts.

And there's a very, the book that really convinced me the most on this is called Disolving Illusions

by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Vistrianic.

It's called Disolving Illusions, Disease Vaccines, and the Forgotten History.

The copy I have is from, I think it is 2013 or so, around that time.

And what they show is that all of the childhood vaccines that are the subject of,

sorry, are the diseases that are the subject of vaccination.

The mortality rates for those diseases dramatically started to decrease at the end of the 19th century before vaccines,

because of improved sanitation conditions in the Western countries.

So they began, the death rate from these different diseases began an exponential decrease at that time.

And the vaccines were only introduced later after the decrease had already been well, well underway.

And so they make a really strong argument that these vaccines have never been necessary, actually.

And then you get into other questions about whether they're effective, whether they're safe on top of that.

And so that's the big picture of you.

And overall, there's no case for the products at all.

Yeah, I'm going to ask a sub question.

And that is I was watching a presentation last night from Dr. Raankur.

And he was pointing out that in the black plague, for example, the autopsies show that, you know,

the remains of people show that they were very malnourished.

They were sick, even before the particular disease hit them.

And that that was the main cause of death.

Right. So yeah, when you look at those studies of the victims of the black plague,

you find that it's not just a killer pathogen that is affecting everybody with the same lethality.

It's really the most impoverished, the most vulnerable, frail social status, or health status,

people who succumbed to that and not the wealthy, who would have had, you know, clean air, good food,

freedom from harassment by the government and so on.

And the conditions that would have allowed them to stay healthy in this crisis time.

And so that contradicts the popular image we have that a pandemic is a killer pathogen that harms humans indiscriminately.

And what we have seen in our research is that none of the pandemics that are attributed to influenza over the past hundred years are actually pandemics.

There's essentially no excess mortality for any of them.

The only exception would be the period of this so-called Spanish flu.

Oh, there was a very large excess mortality.

That was World War One, right?

Just after World War One, and that's important that it was just after, in the years after World War One,

that excess mortality event has very interesting characteristics, which is that it is the younger population, the young adults,

although they're the ones who died at that time.

And whereas what you would expect from influenza or respiratory illnesses,

that it would be the older part of the population that would be dying in excess, definitely.

So there's something very strange going on.

And it all points to a very stressed population coming out of that very dire time of World War One.

Also, the use of opioids had become more common at that time in the United States.

And so it points more towards a stressed, impoverished, younger adult population coming out of World War One,

with possibly opioid addiction happening as well, a pretty widespread in the United States.

The point is that it was much more likely to be bacterial pneumonia that would have been the actual response,

the killer responsible for the Spanish flu.

And even there's even articles by Anthony Fauci of all people that advanced that view that the Spanish flu was, in fact, pneumonia.

And so it's not this picture of a viral respiratory, like a new virus that emerges,

sweeps across the nation and kills a lot of people.

It's not that simple. It's probably not that at all.

And so that's important to keep in mind.

That seems to be a more realistic picture of the history of so-called pandemics, which aren't really what we think of as pandemics,

which brings us to the period of COVID-19.

And what we have found in our research is that the mortality of patterns, when you look at different jurisdictions around the world,

during the COVID period from 2020 to about 2023, are not compatible with the paradigm of a spreading novel virus that would be responsible for death.

Yeah, that's right.

And especially, we zoomed in in a recent paper of June of last year, did a very extensive detailed study of the periods just in the spring of 2020,

which was the initial months March, April, May, especially of 2020 in the United States and in Europe.

And we looked at a high resolution in terms of time and geographics.

That means sub-national regions, counties in the United States, and something roughly equivalent to counties in Europe.

And then using weekly all-cause mortality.

And we find results that are really not at all compatible with the concept of a spreading virus.

So you'll have one of the most important things.

You'll have jurisdictions with incredibly sharp peaks of mortality, and then neighboring jurisdictions that have no excess mortality.

But there's a difference in the standard of living between the two.

And there is, yes, and there's also a difference in the kinds of health measures that were applied.

And how the region would have got people to go to hospitals or not.

That was one of the things we saw in Italy was that the Italy was one of the hotspots, the largest peaks of excess mortality in the spring of 2020, especially in Lombardy in the North.

And there was a neighboring region, Veneto, which is where Venice is, where in Lombardy, they had the authorities had told everyone to go to the hospitals, news you have symptoms, essentially.

And in Veneto, they said stay home if you have symptoms.

And then there's lots and lots of reports of what happened to people who were put on mechanical respirators, which are known to be very risky.

As soon as you put on one of those, the probability of dying is very high, just from being on one of these mechanical respirators.

Yes, and that's all detailed in the report.

But that was one of the differences between those two regions.

Intense, I would say mistreatment in hospitals in the in the in the panic period of those first months in some regions and other regions.

More taking a hands off approach and they had very different outcomes in terms of the mortality.

But there's no spreading.

There's no sign of spreading.

And you also have even within, say, a province.

Lombardy is something like a province of Italy.

Within a within a region like that, you have sub regions, some of which are urban and some of which are rural.

And when you look at on that basis, you see that when there are peaks of mortality, they all rise and fall in synchrony.

Regardless of whether it's urban or rural.

And so if you follow the paradigm of viral spread, the virus would be arriving at an airport, typically, which is an urban area.

And then it would be presumably, if you follow the paradigm, it would be spreading out to the urban areas over time.

And all the models and their detailed models that try to model this, they always predict that those rural areas are going to have their peaks of infection or mortality later than the urban centers where the airports are.

Just because of the geographic spread.

That's right. Yeah. It takes some time for people to travel.

Infected people to travel from the center where the virus has arrived.

Infecting others. And so the infection travel takes some time to travel out to the rural areas.

And that's not what you see in the real data in terms of the peaks of mortality. It's synchronous. It happens all at the same time.

Whoa. And so it's more of the sun. That's right. It's not compatible with the models. And we go into great detail explaining and showing how the models, even the state of the art models, predict that essentially everywhere where there's a big airport.

You're going to have a big peak of infections and mortality given an infection that starts, say, in China, which is, you know, the idea here.

So you would have about as many infections in Italy as you would in Germany or as many in New York City as you would in Los Angeles.

And but that's not at all what you see in reality when you look at the mortality data. So you have Italy had a huge peak of mortality in the north in Milan, which is the second largest city in Italy.

But essentially nothing in Rome, which is a similar is bigger and is a similar size city to even Rome even receives more flights from China and East Asia than Milan.

So huge peak in that nothing in Rome, nothing in Germany, which also has large airports, huge peak in New York City, nothing in Los Angeles at that point of time.

So why is that like it taking the case of Rome versus Milan? Why was Milan hit so hard in Rome wasn't right. So because of the policies that are applied that that the main point of our paper is to argue that these results are incompatible with the paradigm of spread.

And then you can ask, well, if it's if we believe that we agree that that's incompatible, then what would have caused these peaks of mortality instead and then you can propose an alternative hypothesis, which is in our view is that the measures that were applied were responsible for mortality.

Ultimately and and via the mechanism of bacterial pneumonia. So we think that the deaths were respiratory and they were often labeled as respiratory by the doctors who would have assigned a cause of death.

And it's just and we think that the stressful conditions of that panic period in the first month are such that the they create conditions where the one is much less able to cope with those kinds of respiratory infections, especially for populations of people who are vulnerable health state.

Yeah. So I guess the bottom line is that it's probably it's not a pandemic. It was induced by the measures that were taken to fight the supposed pandemic.

That is that is our view. Yes, on this. Yeah. And you can see, for example, in New York City, the burrow, which is a county in New York City is the Bronx is the one that is the most devastated in those first months. And that is the poorest burrow of New York City.

And very vulnerable population there. And it has large hospitals in the other, the other aspect is that it is a very impoverished county, but it's right beside a very wealthy county, which is Manhattan.

And so we did something called we called inter county disparity socioeconomic status compared to say a factor like the the median income for the county one county compared to its neighbors.

And it turned out that the Bronx is the one where this disparity is highest. It's kind of like an inequality type of measure.

And that is where the excess mortality was highest. And we saw some similar results in London, England. There are some I think they call them burrows in London as well. Some regions of the city where you have a similar effect happening very poor people living beside very rich people.

And we, while this is more discussion, but we speculate that in those cases, you can have charitable through charity charitable organizations throughout many years, you have the establishment of these large publicly funded hospitals in the poor burrows funded by the neighboring wealthy people through philanthropy.

Yeah, in that situation in the spring of 2020, that was like the most deadly place to be because you're a very in a very frail health state, but you have this big hospital where you're encouraged to go to.

And then they're applying these treatments and there's also yeah, and miss treatments essentially. So do you call the injections vaccines?

Well, I don't make too much distinction on that because of my view that, and I get that from literature, such as dissolving illusions by Humphrey's industry. And I can other books of that nature that the vaccines are not useful at all.

And so I don't take too much issue with the distinction between the pre-coated vaccines and the and the mRNA vaccines, especially for theoretically, and this is another aspect that I wanted to bring up, especially for respiratory illnesses.

And this is something I argued when I was, you know, I had lost my job because of the vaccine mandate and I was appealing to my employer because they offered a process like this where I could I could at first I asked for what's called an accommodation, so an exemption to their policy and I had given several different reasons medical religious and human rights reasons for the exemption and I argued them all.

And the medical one was that I was a male under age 40, I was 36 at the time and it had already been proven scientifically that males under 40 were at significantly elevated risk of heart inflammation.

So myocarditis and pericarditis from the mRNA vaccines and that's really like a really well demonstrated result risk from these from these vaccines and including even including autopsy studies of younger males who have died from having myocarditis directly after one of these injections.

Yeah. So just as an aside, I should mention that some coaches, some coaches of soccer teams in Europe, they decided they didn't want to have people on the team who were vaccinated.

There are a lot of videos of people collapsing on sports fields from the time it's quite shocking.

But what I wanted to say is that as part of so so I was denied the accommodation.

Oh yeah, because the government just decided they were going to brutally apply this mandate to everybody.

And then but then my employer offered this what they called an appeal process so I was given time to present additional information if I if I wanted to and so what I did was I wrote.

Sorry, but by this time you were not being paid, right?

No, that's right. I was they called it unpaid leave without benefits.

I'm lovely. It was involved.

And so then you know that when I was pursuing this through the tribunals, they decided to call it suspension without pay.

It ended up being the equivalent to being fired because I never got my job back.

Oh yeah. And they called it misconduct, right? That was the excuse.

Well, that's the other thing.

Right, and I would like to talk about that because that is a whole legal battle with what's called the social security tribunal trying to get employment insurance.

Yeah.

But the one little point that I wanted to make about vaccines was that while making my appeal to the employer.

I wrote a roughly 800 to 766 page document where I laid out all the scientific evidence that was my reason for not taking this vaccine as well as many legal arguments about.

You know, the how the Constitution is supposed to protect you from being coerced into.

I'll bet they were shocked to see such a such an appeal.

Well, they had to deal with it.

But one of the one of the arguments that I made was this argument that's professor of security back in Germany was making.

He's a very prominent immunologist and also he became a very vocal critic of the COVID MRI vaccines.

And he was arguing at that time that vaccines for respiratory illnesses in particular make no sense to be.

It makes no sense to be injecting them into muscle in your body.

Oh, okay.

It's very interesting.

And you know, not someone who's done any training in immunology or anything, but I just pay attention to what he was saying and carefully read it.

And what he says is that it's textbook immunology that there are essentially there's a divide in the immune system.

And you have the mucosal immune system.

So it's the respiratory tract, especially that has its own immune functioning.

It produces its own antibodies.

Whereas the rest of it is called the parent tarrel.

So it's the rest of the body.

And so and then the two basically don't cross over.

So if you were to have a product that functions like a vaccine, you know, you introduced it into the body.

And it trains the body to create the antibodies that are there to attack the pathogens.

If it's if it's working and you're able to do that in the muscle of your arm.

Those antibodies that that you're that you're now trained to produce are not going to be active in the mucous membranes of your respiratory system.

Which is textbook immunology that they that they are.

They use it.

Conceptually it makes no sense.

And he was going on and on about this.

And very convincingly.

And so what it would mean is that you'd need to develop some kind of product that is more of a spray or something that gets into your respiratory tract and allows you to develop the antibodies there that would be needed to attack the pathogen.

That's being breathed in and it's going into your lungs and the best words affecting your rent.

So that was one of the arguments I made in my appeal is that that's a medical reason for me not to be vaccinated is that it makes no sense to be injecting this product into your arm when you're trying to stop a respiratory virus.

That was one of many, many, many.

So that I included.

And that's online. There was some alternative media coverage of that appeal back when I did that back in 2022.

The documents on everything I've tried to do on my own case there are on the website of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.

So it's ocla.ca and that includes then this once once I lost my income for not being vaccinated.

Then there was and I just want to emphasize one point.

You were working remotely.

That's right. Entirely so.

Yeah, and you know I had a discussion with Copilot last night as you saw.

And admitted that there was no rational reason to inject people who were working remotely.

Yeah, that's right. So I was working entirely from home since March 2020.

So that time this was in the autumn of 2021. So it was 20 months.

I'd been working at home 100% from home for 20 months.

All my colleagues worked entirely from home.

I had no contact with them. They had no contact with me.

None of us had any contact with each other or with the public or anybody.

We were isolated as far as our work was concerned from everyone.

Yeah.

And you can't transmit a respiratory virus across a computer at least.

That's what we believe back in the fall of 2021.

So we have to go we have to go for a break now.

I tried a lot of track of the time because it's so amazing.

The story we're hearing. I mean what we're hearing just before we go to break.

Tell me if this sort of sums it up.

There was no pandemic.

The vaccine could not not not only did not but could not actually solve the respiratory problem.

And yet they were insisting everybody do it.

And their actions were what caused the excess mortality.

Even the insisting is part of that story.

Oh man, what a nightmare.

You know, but we'll be right back after the breakup.

My guest today is Joseph Hakey a PhD in physics.

And yes, you can hear we're turning the tables right upside down.

So stay tuned for the second half.

Let's get real. Let's get loud on America loud talk news.

Yes, this is Dr. Peter McCullough.

And I'm personally inviting you to join me in Nashville until I second,

and fourth, for historic experience in 2026.

America loud news, 250 slash 10 Nashville.

Along with clear and the wellness company,

we're celebrating two big milestones,

250 years of America and 10 years of America loud news.

I'm calling all Patriots to this historic weekend

with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks,

and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.

I would love to see you there because your presence matters

and you are family now is a time to get together

and we can exchange ideas, answer your questions,

and enjoy fellowship.

Join us and register now at America loud.News

forward slash Nashville.

That's America loud.News

forward slash Nashville.

We'll see you there.

Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body.

Are you doing enough to keep it strong?

Introducing the wellness companies break through healthy heart formula,

designed by Dr. Peter McCullough.

Now upgraded with touring.

This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health

and works to protect cells against oxidative stress,

packed with D-ribose, to boost heart function,

touring to help maintain heart muscular health,

Cohen's I'm Q10 and Selenium Citrate

to help reduce risk of cardiac disease

and a vitamin B complex with L-carnitine

for energy and muscle support.

Endorse by the wellness company's Chief Medical Board,

this formula is your ally for heart health.

Reclaim your health now at twc.health

forward slash out loud

and use code out loud for 20% off your first order

plus free shipping.

Is your gut a mess?

Two-thirds of Americans suffer because of gastrointestinal issues

and I was one of them.

That is why we created a three-step

doctor formulated, completely natural gut reboot system

that you can do at home in just minutes a day.

Go to chemicalfreebody.com

forward slash out loud today.

Get the Malcolm Healthy Gut Bundle,

reboot your gut and your energy

and save 20% on your first order.

Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years,

but our diet and the way we eat has.

Creating an environment in your mouth

for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.

For better oral health, get spread, dental defense,

and oral care line designed to combat

acid creating bacteria.

The toothpaste, mouthwashments, and gum

all contain xylitol and natural ingredients

shown to dramatically improve oral health.

Sprite can be found online

and it all find natural retailers.

The smartest food on the planet doesn't come from a lab

or in a package.

It grows in a class jar.

I'm Doug Evans, author of the National Vest Seller,

The Sprout Book.

Sprouts deliver up to a hundred times

the antioxidants of mature vegetables.

They grow in just three to five days

for under a dollar serving.

Get your spouting kit at thespoutingcompany.com

slash out loud.

Use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.

Grow smarter.

Prepare for the next pandemic

with the wellness company's

contagion emergency kit designed by Dr. Peter McCullough.

Get life-saving medications like

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use.

Order now by going to TWC.

.help forward slash out loud

and use code out loud for $65

off your first order plus free shipping.

For the United States,

a semi-win centennial is a promise.

The American experiment was a stroke of genius

and a world of oppressors.

July 4, 2026 marks 250 years

since the sign-in of the Declaration of Independence.

America out loud dot news is that place

to awaken your heart, soul, and mind

to the out loud truth.

So I'm on with Dr. Joseph Hickey

and he's telling us his personal story

not just the research that they did,

but also the personal story,

which I'm sure must have been a driver

to do the research.

Because what the government did was not only,

you know, ridiculous.

It didn't make any sense.

It was actually very counterproductive.

Wasn't it, Joseph?

Yes.

And so we were talking about

what happened in the fall of 2021.

Yeah.

And you put into the appeal

and with all the science and the legality

and all sorts of things.

And how did they react to that?

Right.

And just to take us back to that time

of the late summer fall of 2021,

there's something I wanted to mention.

There's an infamous Toronto star front page,

which is a prominent newspaper in Canada

where they had quotes about how people

were feeling about the unvaccinated.

They call them at the time people

who had not received the COVID vaccines.

And they've got these big letters on the front page

and it says things like,

if an unvaccinated person catches it

from someone who is vaccinated,

boohoo, too bad.

I have no empathy left

for the willfully unvaccinated.

Let them die.

Yeah.

Yeah.

One of our neighbors is a PhD geologist

so you think he's a pretty smart guy.

And yet he and his wife,

who were both vaccinated,

they would walk on the other side of the street

when I came by with the dog.

And our dogs are cock-a-poo,

so that wasn't scary in the morning.

But yeah, they were just so paranoid.

And I saw this with lots of people

in Ottawa, Canada.

It was illegal to sit on a bench in the park.

You know, I mean, the whole thing got replaced.

It was like one of the Python almost.

Yeah.

So that's just a little reminder

because we can forget the intensity

of what it was like at that time.

And basically, one way of looking at it

is you could say that the true to a government

in Canada that wanted

they were a minority government

and they decided to call an election

and kind of have a kind of referendum

on these vaccine mandates

because they were popular.

But you could see that from the headlines there.

I was reading.

Yeah.

And your neighbors and so on.

And they decided to have a kind of referendum

on the vaccine mandates.

It was a hedge issue.

And they won that.

And then they pushed through these

these very draconian mandates.

Not only that,

but for the people who lost their jobs

because of that,

they also denied employment insurance benefits.

And those are now there to support you

when you lose work

and you're looking for a new job.

You've been paying into this insurance program.

It's normally there to support you

for a couple of months or a couple of weeks.

And so it was insult to injuries.

The injury of losing your job.

But then this insult on top of

we're not even going to give you these benefits.

So people were quite upset about that.

And so I tried to pursue that myself.

I, you know, as soon as I was put out of work

for refusing vaccination,

I applied for this employment insurance benefit.

And that has been a process now that's gone on since,

well, about November 2021 till now.

So I guess it's four and a half years or so.

So what happened was the,

there's the government first makes the decision.

And they, they,

they first called it voluntary leaving work

without just cause.

Like you quit.

You had no good reason to do it.

Okay.

And then I asked them to reconsider it.

And I give them that big package of documents.

I give to my,

and arguments I give to my employer.

I give it to the government.

And then they,

they came back with their final decision

and they called it misconduct.

Oh, yeah.

You know too much.

So if you've committed misconduct

in the Employment Insurance Act,

which is the written law,

then you're not entitled to these benefits.

And normally that means something like stealing from your employer

or violence in the workplace

or not showing up for work,

even though you've been told,

I get it again.

So that would be what misconduct usually is.

But now it's insisting on the,

the right to choose what medical treatments you receive is now.

If you do that and your employer doesn't like it

and you lose your work,

now that's considered to be misconduct.

Even if it was never in your contract,

it's, you know,

and you work entirely from home

and there's no logical reason for this.

So that now is,

and the government's view is misconduct.

So then I took that case

to what's called the Social Security Tribunal.

So it's kind of like a court,

but it's not exactly a court.

It's an administrative tribunal.

But it's there to,

and then becomes a legal battle between me

and the commission,

the government,

to argue over whether it was this misconduct or not.

And so this took years,

I tried to challenge the constitutionality

of that section of the act that talks about misconduct

because misconduct is not defined in the act.

Let's tell you what it is.

And I argued that when a law is not clear,

when it's a vague,

that that violates the constitution

and it can lead to,

the government can then be arbitrary

about how they use that law.

That's a very important,

fundamental constitutional premise

as part of the rule of law.

And so what they did was they refused

to let me make that argument.

They barred.

I mean, they didn't even hear it.

They wouldn't even let you approve.

They wouldn't let you even,

wouldn't let you even go to court on it.

That's right.

They wouldn't let me have my day in court on that,

on that.

Normally when you raise a constitutional issue,

they have to,

they have to hear it.

They have to at least let you make your argument

and then decide.

Because you're challenging something really fundamental.

But here they used a pretext.

They used this procedure

where you have to provide notice

to the attorney general

and actually the attorney general

of all the provinces

because it's constitutional.

It's important.

They have to have an opportunity

to respond and defend the law

because that's their,

that's, you know,

their role as the ministers.

They used that

because that section had,

you're supposed to include a summary

of your legal arguments that you're going to make.

They started saying

and are, and in holding

as decision makers

that they can exclude

an argument if they think

it has no chance of success

based on this procedural notice stage

before you've ever made your arguments.

And this was new

because they had just changed the procedure

in 2022.

And so it was quite a battle.

I even went to the,

it did give me appeal,

leave to appeal

within the tribunal

on that question

of whether they can bar it

in that way

and I ended up losing that appeal.

So that was part,

a big part of the saga,

trying to somehow

challenge the constitutionality

of what they're doing here

because really what they're doing

is they're just using

the benefits regime

to coerce people

to get vaccinated.

And that's not bad enough

that you lose your job,

but they're saying

something you've paid

tens of thousands of dollars

into

and as I said in the introduction,

EI is not free.

It's not charity.

You and the employer

have paid tens of thousands

of dollars into this

and they won't let you have it

when you need it.

Yeah,

and you can't just have

a benefits regime

and then use it

to coerce people

to do things

that violate their fundamental rights

or infring on their fundamental rights.

Yeah.

That's what they did.

But that's exactly what they're doing.

And so that is what I argued.

I ended up taking this to court,

which is what they call

judicial review.

So you get,

you ask a court

to take a look at what

the administrative tribunal did.

And so then I had to argue

that this whole misconduct thing

is crazy.

This is illogical.

What they ended up saying

and what they've been saying

in many cases,

it's not just mine.

There's a lot of cases

on this topic.

Exactly the same topic,

although my case

is distinguished from the others.

That's one of the things

I argue,

but the topic of being

denied EI

for refusing vaccination.

They keep applying this formula

that if you willfully disobey your employer,

then it's misconduct,

regardless of what the employer

was demanding of you.

That's the logic of applying.

And that obviously has absurd consequences

if you think about it

because the employer could be asking you to do anything.

They could ask you to go

and murder somebody.

And if you refuse,

according to this logic,

then you have committed misconduct.

If your employer fires you

because you refuse,

then you're not going to get the benefits

that the government has set up

to support unemployed workers.

So that's the kind of situation

that we're dealing with

is that the courts

and the tribunals

have been applying this formula.

So in my case,

I had conclusive

documentary scientific evidence

of harm to me,

which is the myocarditis

and the paracaditis,

if I were to comply

with my employer's demand,

that was on the record

in an affidavit,

in the tribunal process

and before the court,

and that was never contested

by the other side.

They did not take any issue

with it.

They didn't provide one IOTA

of counter-evidence.

And so this is on the record,

and so the facts of my case,

and I worked entirely from home.

So those two features of my case,

distinguish my case

from all the other ones

that have been before the courts.

So I had to argue this,

and I had to keep trying

to drive home this point

that when the decision-maker

at the tribunal

decides whether an employee's

action is misconduct,

and the action is a refusal

to do something,

and the decision-maker has to look

at what was being demanded

of the employer.

You can't just ignore it.

And if that demand introduces

a real risk of harm to the employee,

then that has to be part

of their consideration.

They can't just ignore that.

There are other cases

where it's obvious

that the person would lose their job,

and it's uncontested.

That's the workplace violence

or the theft from the employer.

These other cases,

which would more typically be misconduct,

in that case,

you don't really need to

spend a lot of time

considering that aspect

of the action.

You just think about,

and they focus on more on,

was it willful?

Yeah.

They deliberately do it or not.

Yeah, so they drove a truck

in the front door of the building

because they were mad

at the boss.

Exactly.

That's pretty obvious.

Or they operated construction

machinery when they were

high on drugs.

These are the type of cases

that actually have normally come

before the tribunal for that.

Yeah.

So I did what I could

to advance that argument.

The judge kept asking me,

aren't you just

challenging the reasonableness

of the policy,

the employer's policy?

And the reason he did that

is because there are lots of cases

that the court has said

the tribunal can't evaluate

the reasonableness of the policy.

The tribunal can't make a declaration

about policy was good or bad,

or right or wrong.

All the tribunal can do is evaluate

the employee's action

and see if it was misconduct.

It's a bit of a

softestry that they're pulling.

Yeah.

And I dug in with Copilot last night

a little on that because I said,

well, what if the employer said

that there's an exitrestrial invasion

and therefore a part of your,

you have to as part of your job,

hide under your desk

for the first two hours of every day.

And Copilot said,

oh, no, they would consider that absurd.

And so they would not say

that that was misconduct.

If you said, no,

I'm not hiding under my desk.

This is ridiculous.

But it is ridiculous.

And it is absurd to tell people

they have to get an injection

even when they're working remotely.

And so it said,

yes, in a common sort of,

you know, if you look at it from a normal point of view,

the government's policy was completely absurd.

But then it went to a very convoluted argument

as to how legally it was not absurd.

And does that hold any water?

Like, I mean,

can you say that I would say

the two are the same.

If there's no exitrestrial invasion,

if there's no pandemic,

if the hiding under your desk

would make no difference anyway

if there was an exitrestrial invasion.

And the vaccine does nothing positive.

Then surely the two cases are similar

because they're both absurd.

So in that case,

the tribunal does have the ability

to declare something ridiculous

and therefore throw it out.

So the idea that they can't judge

whether something is absurd.

I don't know if that's actually true, is it?

No, I don't think it is true.

But it's just that it's where they've gone

with the jurisprudence.

And so it becomes a real uphill battle.

If the judge sees that you fit into that category,

then it becomes very difficult

to get a different decision from the judge.

So it sounds like they're kind of making

of the rules as they go along.

They are.

And something that's very important

is that the written law,

the Act, the Employment Insurance Act,

has this section about voluntarily

leaving without just cause.

That's another way that you can get disqualified

from the benefits.

So you can either be doing misconduct

or voluntarily leaving for no good reason.

But when you look at that section

about the voluntarily leaving for no good reason,

there is a list of good reasons.

They say, okay, they might say that you voluntarily left.

But there's this long list of 14 reasons

why you can't leave.

And it can be things like

the employer is creating an unsafe workplace

or the employer has policies that are against the law

or practices that are against the law

or their sexual harassment

or there's these different things

where it would be you could just walk out quit

and you would still get the employment insurance benefits

according to the written law.

So given that that's the intent of the Act

that are refusal by an employee

to do something is not always something

that would disqualify them from benefits,

you can't then interpret the misconduct section

to mean any refusal is categorically

going to be disqualifying you from benefits

regardless of what it is.

It's against the intent and the purpose of the

what the legislature had in mind

when it created the Act.

That's the distinction shows that.

So that's another thing I argued to the judges.

You can't apply this formula

because look at, no, that's not the intent here.

Yeah.

So what happened then?

Well, it's a reserved judgment.

So the judge said at the end, Mr. Hickey

has argued that his case is distinguished from all the others

and I had a table where I had looked at

there's 30 plus cases and I had made by notes

all the cases and he saw me holding my table up

when he asked me about certain cases

and I was responding to what the government had said

and by looking at my table and everything

and so he said,

I'm going to have to step back

and analyze that and decide.

You're going to have a real headache.

Yeah.

And another thing I wanted to mention

is in during the argument,

I had talked about a case, another case,

where I had to illustrate how my case

was different from others.

But there was a case of a security guard

and a case is called Sullivan.

And he refused vaccination and he lost his job

and he was trying to get employment insurance.

There was no possibility of working from home in his case.

But he did, he went back in March of 2021.

So before the mandates were applied,

he had asked this doctor for a medical note

to get an exemption from the COVID vaccines.

He got it back then.

And at that point in time.

And it was because he had had allergic reactions

to other vaccines pre-priority COVID.

So we had that note.

And then when later in the fall when the government

applied these mandates,

he went back to the doctor and tried to get a new note

and the doctor refused

because they had been advised

that they're not supposed to do that.

And so he was not able to fill out his employer's forms

where they had said,

here's the form, bring it to your doctor

to get the medical exemption.

He couldn't do that.

Because the doctor wouldn't help.

But he used his old,

his note from a few months earlier.

And he gave that to the employer.

And then the employer still fired him.

And he was still denied employment insurance.

But he was trying to argue that,

look, I've got an actual medical reason here.

It didn't matter that one went all the way

to the federal court of appeal

and he did not end up getting benefits.

But I asked the judge,

look, what if that medical note had said

that the employee had a 50% chance of dying?

If not, yeah.

A COVID vaccine.

Would he still then be denied employment insurance

by the tribunal?

And then the judge said probably.

Wow.

So I mean, they do have the opportunity

to apply logic and actually say,

this is irrational.

But they're not taking that opportunity.

Exactly.

Wow.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's like a bloody nightmare.

When I was talking to a copilot,

it was like I was going around and around in circles.

It would make a statement.

And I'd say, OK, if that's true,

then what you said previously is not true.

And I kept doing that over and over and over.

And it finally admitted at the end.

Yes, the government's decision was irrational.

It makes no sense in the normal point of view.

But because there it was considered a pandemic

and the vaccines were considered real treatment,

then they can kind of twist the law so that it does apply

and you were engaged in misconduct.

And so I said, so it sounds like the only way

to really kill this is if somehow the mandates were declared

to be unlawful in the first place.

And that there was no pandemic and the vaccine didn't help.

And it admitted, yes, that could kill the whole thing.

Because that, to me, sounds like one way

that maybe you can win,

although the process would be horrific.

And that is to somehow find that the mandates were unlawful.

Do you agree with the copilot on that?

Well, if the AI eventually admitted

that this is absurd what they're doing,

and it seems to be a step ahead of the tribunals

and the judges on this point.

It did admit it.

It said however, there are two definitions of absurd.

One is the common language definition

where something makes no sense and everybody can see it.

But then there's this legal way you can twist it

into being not absurd.

And the government just simply is making up rules

to engage in what they want to do.

And that is to force people to have vaccines.

I mean, that's the overall objective, isn't it?

It's not really even honest in that sense.

That's right.

Yeah. No, it's.

And it's that coercion was clear

from statements of the minister of employment at the time

in the fall of 2021.

Yeah.

So your latest court case,

you don't have a result yet.

But you're going to see one in a month or two.

Is that what you expect?

Something like that.

Yeah.

Do you have any idea?

Is it going to succeed?

Or you're just going to hold your breath?

What do you think is going to happen?

Or can you even say?

Oh, well, I've done what I can do.

And I'm a self-represented.

But again, you know, I'm not a lawyer.

Yeah.

I'm just doing what I can as an individual.

And I thought it was important to push it to this stage

because of the principles involved.

And a lot of others have done it too.

Like I said, there are about 30 court cases in this.

So that's just the tip of the iceberg because you've got hundreds

of tribunal cases and then thousands of cases

that don't even go to that level, you know.

So I estimate on the order of 10,000 people

that would have been denied employment insurance benefits.

Oh, wow.

Estimate.

I'm sure this is just rough estimate.

But it could be more, quite a bit more than that.

I don't think it's so much less.

So the government must be helping you lose or open the floodgates

for other people to follow suit.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But it should.

I mean, they paid into that program.

It's not free.

It's not like you're getting a gift.

You're getting money back that you put in.

So I mean, to hold it back is just completely immoral.

It was also a scenario where you have lost your income

because of your, your, your deciding

to choose what medical treatment you want.

Yeah.

See if we're not received.

Yeah.

So because the government said that you is taking away your job

because you don't want to receive this medical treatment.

So is it not a typical situation to be unemployed?

I guess that you can argue that any situation of losing your job

because being laid off is also a very rough situation

to be as well.

So we'll definitely stay in touch with you to find out what the outcome is.

But I'd like to drill in a little deeper to some other issues next week

if you're okay with that.

And that is whether the COVID injections were properly tested,

whether they were really safe.

What was the benefits worth the risk?

You know, and things like, you know,

I saw a testimony actually from a Pfizer representative.

I think she was a vice president,

where she admitted before the European Commission

that they never tested the drug for transmission.

And yet you had Trudeau standing up in front of various audiences

saying, imagine if your child was sitting on an airplane

next to somebody who was unvaccinated, you know,

and he was making the case and so was Joe Biden,

that it would stop transmission or at least reduce it.

But the actual manufacturer admitted under oath

that they didn't even test it for that.

Can we get into some of that next week?

Yes, although our work,

our research with correlation,

has more been on the big picture of mortality.

Rather than the nitty-gritty of the vaccines

and what did they do with the clinical trials and so on.

Yeah, well, the mortality issue

and the real causes of all those deaths,

that's something that I really do want to dig into.

Because this could turn the tables upside down

on the whole history of pandemics.

I mean, it's amazing research.

You know, so we unfortunately we have to log off for this week.

But we'll be back next week to talk to Dr. Joseph Hickey

about all of this because, holy smokes,

this is going to turn the world of epidemiology upside down

or at least the government's approach to it.

That's for sure.

So, Joseph, thanks so much for being a guest on my show today.

Thanks a lot, it's my pleasure.

Yeah, for sure.

So next week will be an exciting presentation.

I really look forward to the show next week.

So this is Tom Harrison, my guest, Dr. Joseph Hickey,

a PhD in physics who's been looking into the whole COVID issue,

the injections and everything else,

signing out from the other side of the story.

Music