Three doctors ordered to comply with investigation of allegations re: illegitimate medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines
Three doctors are being ordered to fully comply with an investigation the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is conducting into their practices, including reports of providing illegitimate medical exemptions for vaccines.
All three physicians, Dr. Mary O’Connor, Dr. Mark Trozzi and Dr. Patrick Phillips, are under investigation for actions influenced by their beliefs that vaccines are a “misguided and ineffective way” to address COVID-19, according to the reasons for judgment issued by the Ontario Superior Court. . . continue reading
Seemingly baffled, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan didn’t quite know what to say when told only one of the four defendants for a hearing showed up.
It was a landmark hearing for Ontario. Four doctors — Rochagne Kilian, Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi and Patrick Phillips — had been scheduled to appear to fight legal proceedings brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) late last year.
Trozzi, O’Connor and Kilian have been accused by the CPSO of failing to comply with investigations into allegations they issued false medical exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine. Phillips, the CPSO says, is threatening to re-release a tranche of confidential documents on Twitter. . . .
. . . What followed was a journey down a rabbithole of anti-Covid-19-vaccine rhetoric, conspiracy theories and one claim that the pandemic was a “planned exercise in population control.” It concluded with an argument from defence lawyer, Swinwood, that Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions are akin to Nazi Germany regulations.
But these views from licensed medical professionals — seemingly at odds with the science that an education in medicine preaches — are not confined to this one virtual court hearing in Ontario. A small but vocal minority of doctors across Canada is attempting to sway public opinion to oppose COVID-19 vaccines. . . continue reading
The National Post
Today’s column has to start with a tip of the cap to my colleague Tyler Dawson, who has delivered a fine account of an extraordinary Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench case that was decided last week. It concerns a struggle between medical student Rafael Zaki and the University of Manitoba’s Max Rady College of Medicine, which expelled Zaki in the summer of 2020 after about a year’s worth of disciplinary procedures.
Zaki’s offence was a total of three Facebook posts that attracted anonymous complaints from 18 fellow students: two were written in support of the right to bear arms, and the third was an extended, uncompromising anti-abortion monologue that seems to have touched on just about every pro-life argument ever devised, irrespective of consistency or convincingness. . . continue reading
Rafael Zaki said he was expelled for his conscientious and religious beliefs. The judge said the university appeared biased in its decision
The National Post
A Manitoba medical student who was expelled after failing to satisfactorily apologize for his controversial views on guns and abortion has been granted a new adjudication of his expulsion.
Rafael Zaki, a Coptic Orthodox student at the University of Manitoba who was supposed to graduate in 2022, posted three items on his Facebook page in February 2019. He was expelled in August 2019
One year later, after losing two appeals within the university system, Zaki asked Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench to review the decision made by the University Discipline Committee. Zaki said he was expelled “for holding conscientious and religious beliefs that abortion is harmful.” . . . continue reading
WASHINGTON (CNS) — A U.S. District Court judge’s Aug. 9 ruling to block the Biden administration’s mandate that doctors and hospitals perform gender-transition procedures despite their own moral or medical objections is “a victory for common sense, conscience and sound medicine.”
That is the view of Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington. He is the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.
“Today’s ruling protects patients, aligns with current medical research, and ensures doctors aren’t forced to violate their religious beliefs and medical judgment,” he said about the ruling in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra. . . continue reading