Dr. McCullough now is aware of the CPSO and interviews some of it’s victims

Earlier this summer, Dr. Peter McCullough was called as a witness in the star-chamber hearings for the removal of the medical licence of Dr. Mark Trozzi.

This was at the CPSO, or the Ontario College of Surgeons and Physicians. Now the college forbids anyone from recording these hearings, although I have no clue what the legal status of such an act would be, but they make all kinds of warnings about recording the hearings so I contented myself with watching at a friend’s who had a link to the broadcast of it and making a few notes.

To start with, Peter McCullough does not suffer fools gladly. The main lawyer for the tribunal uses the same tactic with all defence witnesses, and the tactic has nothing to do with determining the truth of the matter at hand, only of attempting to smear the witness, usually with guilty by association fallacies for the purpose of attempting to not allow their testimony to be heard. This alone is a far far cry from the purpose of the creation of the colleges in the first place.

As we understand it, the colleges were created to represent patients when a patient feels they were badly or improperly treated by a doctor. If a patient made a complaint, then the college could demand the patient files and examine them to try and determine if the doctor was malfeasant, or if the patient was inaccurately assessing the situation, or perhaps being vindictive.

And now we run up against the word that causes all the eye rolls, as Maj. Coughlin says.

We see now that the courts operate dialectically, as opposed to in the socratic method of evidence based decision making.

In this context, it means that the CPSO now is demanding patient records, not just with no complaints from the patients, but in fact where the patients are deeply grateful for their care. The college is now acting to protect the state ideology and narratives, and the facts of the matter are only a mild inconvenience.

When Dr. McCullough was being questioned, the lawyer for the CPSO tried her usual tactic of wasting the witness’ time by making them listen to her reading things and then agreeing that what she read was in fact whatever the document said. The purpose of this was to create the impression that the doctor was a bad person or an in-credible witness for having agreed with what the lawyer read was an accurate representaiton of the document in question, which had the effect of shaming the witness, even though the document was usually some other material from a site with which the witness had appeared on as a guest or an interview.

In other words, they may have made a witness agree with a reading from say, Info Wars, and then point out that the doctor had appeared in an interview on Info-Wars and therefore, everything Alex Jones ever said before or since goes to credibility.

This is a rhetorical trick and not any attempt to determine value. But where it becomes dialectical, is the nature of the crime, perhaps even more so than the methods to force a guilty verdict.

The college is now after any doctor that wasn’t sufficiently in jack-boot step with the universal application of the experimental mRNA gene therapy for Covid19. Even in one case we know of, for simply refusing to take one themselves and maybe offering some form of assistance to others who rejected the shots.

The issue of their safety or efficacy is not discussed. Only the failure of the doctor to align with the narrative view. This is communism, or more specifically, dialectical. This is about the power and reputation of the state, and the state ideology. And, like in Islam, truth is not just a distant second, it is the enemy.

Dr. McCullough handled the state inquisitioner deftly though. He refused to play their game and explained that if they had any questions of substance, they can ask them but he will not waste a minute listening to her read things and then assessing if she read them correctly. In fact, his treatment of her was kinder than she deserved, but he didn’t want to further jeopardize the case against Dr. Trozzi so he remained exceptionally compliant, other than refusing to be part of the CPSO tactical deceptions.

But the CPSO woke the dragon on this one. As they say, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you, and Dr. McCullough became aware of how the CPSO operates, and what it means to any kind of fair process and medical care for the public.

At this link, there is a 44 minute interview of two other people entangled with the College in a similar case to Dr. Trozzi’s. In fact the College appears to be going after all doctors who took patient health over state diktats. This is worth watching as people who read this site, will likely get more out of it than most. You can hear by their answers the meta-text on what is actually taking place here. Remember, with the left, the point is never the point, the revolution is always the point. My current favorite example is this reveal of the Trans-dialectic for what it really is, by the person who created it. 

Unfortunately i have no idea how to embed Substack videos here so you have to click above to see the interview. But I couldn’t resist this three minute segment of it I had to grab from the middle. In this section, a great deal is said. But do click through and watch the whole thing. The CPSO is a microcosm of every institution and regulatory body in Canada, and perhaps across the developed world now. Understanding how they operate is the key to predicting how things will go with much greater accuracy.

Below is the interview RAIR did with Dr. Mary O’Connor from Aug. 2022 where she details how the college sent thugs in all but name to steal patient files from her office, in order to get evidence that people were avoiding the carefully constructed rat trap that was mask and vaxx mandates. They were a rat trap in the sense that all exceptions were built in to the mandates, such that it was fully up to the discretion of the mRNA pushers to decide if your exemption was legit or not. They could literally claim to read your mind on this one. They could claim that they did not believe your faith was real, or even act as a cleric of any faith and interpret it to allow the vaxx, no matter what it actually said. They could allow or disallow a priest or doctor’s exemption note, forcing some people to get second and third shots after initial adverse reactions, based on logic as bad as all the rest of it all was for the last three years. In other words, dialectical. Where the purpose of speech was to create an outcome, and not convey information for better decision making. It was a rat trap where exits where provided that you could see before going in, but what you could not see, was that all exits led right back to the entrance of the trap. The purpose of the fake exits, was to lull people into walking into the trap in the first place.