Shaun Newman Podcast - #638 - Natasha Gonek

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

She is a professional investigator who has worked with regulatory healthcare colleges and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Currently she acts as advisor and consultant to lawyers on behalf of patients, healthcare providers, employers, and more. Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text: [phone] – and be sure to let them know you’re an SNP listener.

This is Brad 14. This is Doug Casey. This is Tom Romago. This is Alex Kraner. This is Viva Fry. You're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Tuesday.

How's everybody doing? With government deficits running out of control, now might be the perfect time to diversify some of your hard-earned savings in the physical money that can't be printed. Yes, I'm talking gold and silver. Yes, I'm telling you with the craziness of the world, this is a good place to put some money. Yeah. Silver Gold Bowl. my favorite precious metals dealer. Why? Well, I tell you, they're Alberta. They started out

a rocky mountain house. I'm sure like that. And they got a great ownership group, great team. I've been privy to their headquarters and getting to meet at Nome and really, really have been enjoying it. So if you're interested in anything, silvergold bowl or silver and gold, silver and gold, silvergold.com here in Canada, silvergold bowl.com in the United States. Oh, that went down the wrong tube. Yeah, you can get a special feature price on everyone's favorite silver coin, the Royal Canadian Mintz, Silver Maple Leaf. We've been giving away in studio here and been having lots of fun with that. And if you've never felt one in your hand, I'm telling you, you won't be disappointed.

This offer is only available for you here on the podcast. So text or email, Graham, in the show notes for details. Or just send them a note saying, hey, thanks for supporting. The SNP. RECTech Power Products for the past 20 years, they've been committed to excellence in the power sports industry. They've got a full lineup, including Canam, Skidu, C2, Spider, Mercury, Ebene Raja.

They're open Monday through Saturday. Parts Department. You can find a ton of stuff. If you haven't been to their showroom on the West Satelloid Minster, you don't know what you're missing. Stop in today or go visit them online. Rectpowerproducts.com. Calrock, your trusted partner in surplus oil field equipment,

leading supplier of new, used, and reconditioned oil field production equipment in Canada, but that's not all. Tank fabrication, new and refurbished, fluid, storage tanks, trucking, pump jacks, and demolition, calrock.ca, for all your needs. Ignite distribution out of Wainwright,

Alberta can supply industrial, safety, welding, automotive parts. They got on-site inventory management to make sure that you don't run out of whatever it is that makes you roll, all right? And you get to deal with Shane Stafford, who is a pure beauty. 780842-34333 for him.

If you haven't signed up for Substack yet, that's where we've been added in some bonus material, some exclusive stuff. We're waiting on the Cornerstone Forum. Once we have it, we're going to be putting up some videos there as well behind the paywall. So if you want to support the podcast

and get some cool stuff, why not head there? Okay, let's get on to that tale of the tape. She's a professional investigator who has worked with the regulatory health care colleges, and the office of the chief medical examiner. I'm talking about Natasha Gonic. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to Sean Numa podcast.

Today, I'm joined by Natasha Gonic. So thank you, ma'am, for hopping on. Yeah, thank you for having me, Sean. Now, I've been sent your name. I don't know. I got a text line. They love to send me things. I've been sent your name a lot.

And so I guess I don't know where you want to start, but I would love to know who Natasha is. And then, you know, as we build that out, get to, you know, the Emmington Police Service and everything you're talking about there with freedom of information requests and all the jazz. But I don't know where you want to start. Like, who is Natasha? Yeah. Hi, I'm just one of those weirdo investigators that sits in a dark office all the time. And they don't usually let us out to talk to people.

So no, we're, so my background is regulatory investigations. So that's that's kind of where I ended my quasi professional career in the industry. During the COVID measures, I was one of the casualties of the vaccine policies. And so my background, though, I come out of kind of a weird, bizarre mix of medical background. So I started out. I started the heart valve transplant program for Western Canada at the U of A hospital. And then I moved in and did some occupational health and safety. What do you mean you started it?

Sorry, what do you mean you started? I was hired to start the transplant program for heart valves. So I would recover the heart valves, process them, cryogenically freeze them. So I had to determine all those cryogenic freeze protocols and do a lot of research on that. And then provide them to the cardiothoracic surgeons for transplant. I'm going to, I want to take one step before that. Where are you from? And what did you go to school for then?

Yeah. So I have a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences and a minor in psychology. And during my last year of university, I was doing a summer research project doing cryopreservation of cells for transplantation. And so then that lab that I was doing the research for was affiliated with the tissue bank. And I thought, well, if I can handle working on dead people, probably not a lot of people can. So I went out to see what that was involved, you know, what tissue recovery. and procurement was, what was that process, right? It's not something you talk about very often.

And so I thought it was fascinating, very scientific, and, you know, a big part of the reward of the system is talking to these amazing families who are so willing to give at such a time of loss. And so that started me on that pathway. So I did it during the last year of my university, and then I was hired full-time. I'm coming out of university to start that Hurt Pelf program.

Okay. Why? That seems, maybe I'm wrong on this. I guess I'm, that sounds like really fascinating. I'm like, I'm trying to wrap my brain around exactly what you're trying to tell me there. And I don't know what this is a dense podcaster,

I'm like, that, I don't know. I guess I just didn't see or how that all works. you know, like I'm trying to put together cryogenically freezing heart valves. Is that like my brain is hearing the right thing? I'm sure all the audience is going, yes, Sean, you're hearing the right thing. But that is what you're saying, correct?

Yeah, so we, so when a family donate, sometimes they don't qualify for organ donation, but then there's tissue donation that can occur for quite a time after somebody's deceased. And so I would recover the hearts for transplant as well as other tissues, bone, skin, eyes, veins, all types of cartilage types of issues for transplant. And so then I would process the heart and remove the valves, surgically recover the valves out and prepare them so that they're just ready for transplant. And then I would freeze them. So they be stored at minus 140 degrees in liquid nitrogen.

I don't know why that's so cool, but it sounds like really fascinating. Okay. Sorry. I'm like, I didn't realize, you know, I thought we're going one way. I told her, I literally told Natasha before we started this, folks, I'm like, my brain I'll do what it does because I'm like, I'm going to hear it. something, I'll be like, what? Anywho, how do you get into then investigation? Like, you know, you're doing something that I feel like is, I don't know, maybe groundbreaking, maybe not. Maybe

this is just old news. Uh, you know, you're, you're surgically removing and crowd. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I can go, I get stuck on this point forever. How do you get into investigation then? Like, is that something you wanted to do? Or is this something that, you know, because of some of your skills, they're like, maybe you should try this. Or were you tired of freezing things? Like, why do you get into investigation? How does that come to be? Yeah, no, later on in life, kind of after I had my kids, I went, there was a position open in a casual role at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Kind of went, well, I've got the skill set. And I went in and and became an investigator for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

There aren't too many people that want to work on deceased people or talk to their families. Like, it's not an easy role. And I had spent a lot of time volunteering kind of in that gap between before my kids were born and stuff where I was a volunteer for the Victim Services Unit as a crisis intervention worker for the Emmettom Police Service. So, you know, I brought all those skills into being an investigator for the medical examiner's office. And as I was doing that, I also had my own company, kind of a, since we're doing weird things, I had my own renovation company. So, you know, I'd joke with people that I'll decorate around your blood splatters, you know, was always my fun line.

A nice morbid joke, right? You only get that when you work with dead people. You're like, yeah, you know, like we just, you know, you look at things a little bit differently. Okay. And then I moved into, I loved doing investigations and I wanted to move into that full time. So then I did some additional training.

And I went into regulatory investigations first for the College of Paramedics and then into the College of Registered Nurses. So that's kind of my investigative pathway. You know, in the middle of COVID then, or maybe even I would say as COVID went on, probably the summer 2021, you know, when everybody's getting vaccinated, and then the discussion not on popular media, I guess on popular media, but the discussion on maybe legacy media was never around anything of the harms of the vaccine. But certainly that was brewing really, really quickly.

Was that something that, you know, like immediately you were drawn to and was like, well, I'm in a position. This is what we do. I don't know. Walk me through this. Well, because I was in that regulatory governance side of health care, right from the onset, you know, the system failures were quite evident. because, you know, in the pandemic, the health regulators have a responsibility to ensure that the public isn't panicking, that they are well-informed and that they're well-informed practitioners. So they have this job to protect the public. And it was really quick to see that the colleges, not just mine, but all of them, were kind of in the lockstep with the government messaging and whatever HHS and Alberta Health Services,

And that was a huge red flag for me because, number one, if it was truly a deadly pandemic and people were dropping all over the place, most likely, you know, it's impossible or it's possible that if people were dying at home, that I would be pulled back into that investigative room for death investigators. There aren't very many of them. But, you know, you sit there and go, okay, so that didn't happen right away. Well, what are we dealing with? And so then you watch the governance failure of these colleges to direct their workers to ensure there's informed consent, to ensure that they're being respectful and treating families with dignity to make sure they're not turning people away at the door just because they can't mask. You can't decline medical services to somebody. Yet there was the direction to the frontline workers was not reflecting that the college was intervening in allowing that to happen. And that was really concerning for me.

I brought a lot of those issues forward in that regulatory world and they just fell on deaf ears. So, yeah. That had to have been, well, I mean, it was strange for all of us, but I assume that was a touch strange. like falling on deaf ears and like the fact that nobody like I don't know maybe you'd seen that earlier in your career and you're like oh this here we go again or was this something new no we we saw some of this with when the SARS pandemic went through and what happened in SARS is that the physicians spoke out very early with especially in the United States where they were saying look we're just not seeing what happened with H1N1 that's the SARS one that I'm referring to and so the

Sorry, Natasha, what year are you talking, roughly? Oh, boy. Oh, sorry, I'm drawn a blank. Like 2010? Does that sound about right? I think that's about right, yeah. And the physicians were, you know, at that time, they were voicing their concerns about what they were seeing. They had raced out a vaccine that was being tested in the U.S. and wasn't doing well.

And so these physicians were actually speaking out. They weren't silent. So it was almost like a lessons learned for this pandemic that the first thing you have to do is control the health care professionals. You know, if you really want to look back at what's happening, you just go, wow. It's maybe that was a lessons learned for them or something that they need to control the health regulators better. Yeah. Yeah, it's not the first time I've heard of H1N1, correct? Of what went on.

But like I remember, I personally remember zero about it. I don't remember a single thing. I don't remember a single news story. Obviously, it was a different time in my life. I was just, you know, I was getting close to graduating college. So I wasn't worried about nothing. But it's funny. I've had people in that got that vaccine, that literally got the H1N1 when it was coming

through, I believe it was 2010, I could be off by a year or two folks, but roughly that time frame. And when you say this, lessons learned, that's a scary thought. But in saying that, like, what we walked through, you know, you're like, where are all the doctors? Where are all the media? Where is all the on and on and on? And you're pointing out very clearly that, you know, if you look back on it, this is one of the things they probably learned and you're probably bang on. Yeah. And, you know, the interesting part about it is after H1N1. is that across the board, health regulators, medical examiners offices, government agencies, that's where they set up the pandemic plans.

You know, they developed these very extensive pandemic plans for implementation in the event that there was another pandemic. And those weren't followed at all. You know, Lieutenant Colonel Redmond has spoken to this at length about that. I'm not following the existing pandemic plans and how emergency management is supposed to work during that. And so when I saw that breakdown and then I saw documents coming out from, say, like the Alberta Health Services Scientific Advisory Committees, which I encourage people to go look at all of the thousands of documents on their site, because if you go back to the beginning and sort them from the front, you really can show the narrative.

that was coming through from that group. And that was the go-to source for the health regulators, for a lot of the industry. And, you know, when they put out this document that was called attitudes and adherence to COVID measures, and that was in September of 2020, and I read that document, I actually sent it through not only my workplace,

but I must have sent it to, you know, hundreds and hundreds of people to circulate it out. because it talks about targeting very specific groups of individuals to gain voluntary compliance and to then get them to push other community members. And they were targeting seniors, they were targeting women that had kids, you know, kind of very specific groups with that behavioral nudge philosophy that went into this whole process. So that's actually a massive document. I encourage you, Sean, I'll send you the link to it because when people read that.

I get the sense that you love, you know, you're like, it's a thousand page document. I can't wait to sink my teeth. You are a very unusual person in that way. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's always something behind it. So for me, when something's not aligning and a red flag's going up, as an investigator, I look and go, okay, what am I missing? what's happening around me, what documents are flowing, what can I find that maybe give some

perspective on what is occurring and why that's occurring. And so that's when I started to really dig into stuff was early on. In April of 2020, I was writing letters to the government concern with the tsunami of mental health issues that we're going to flow out from just those initial pandemic measures and the harm on our youth and just things that are, we are not equipped to deal with and we don't have enough mental health resources, good mental health resources, like people trained in that to be able to handle the outflow of that harm on our population. And those, of course, all went unanswered.

You know, when you're talking, I'm, I'm, I'll probably butcher this, but I think you said, you know, when, when things don't add up or red flags happen, that's when you start looking for the, I don't know, the documents that kind of can explain what you're seeing. What were the first documents you stumbled on then early on that started to really make sense? Is that back to this, you know, the, I don't know, you said thousand page document. Is that the first thing? Like you're like, oh, here it is. Here's the playbook.

This is what's going on. Or was there other things that started to make sense? Like what sticks out your mind of when I started investigating? Man, this is something right here. Well, I think, you know, prior to anything even happening in our country, you're watching the videos coming out in mainstream media. You know, first of all, I've never been able to carry a full-size adult as a death investigator where it's just myself and another small woman.

And so those were some of the images coming out of China where it's like, you know, two small women carry. this large this full size adult body it just doesn't happen to carry what's allegedly dead weight that way you you just can't it's too hard and so there was a lot so so sorry to butt in but so immediately you're watching a video I find it fascinating how different people are wired and how they can look at something so simple and go that doesn't make sense and and for me I go back to the Coots the the guns all lined up and everything and I've had

multiple people. As soon as they saw it, they're like, well, something's off there because XYZ. And I'm like, oh, never, like, how would I know that if I, you know, like, unless I've got a background in XYZ? For you, watching a grown man who's allegedly dead be carted out by two women, you go, that makes zero sense. Like, there's just so many things there that doesn't make sense. To you, that sticks out right away. Right away, not even on a, it's not even that they were carrying on a stretcher. They're just carrying a body wrapped up in a bag. So it definitely doesn't make sense because you can't do that. You know, it just, it doesn't work.

And so imagery from that kind of made me start to question right from the beginning, but still go, okay, well, wait a minute. We don't know what we're dealing with. So fair enough. I was, okay, what are we dealing with here? A lot of people were sick in my workplace, January, February of 2020. And so, you know, I just went, ah, what maybe, maybe something is coming in. I was, I was skeptical, but still, you know, cautious with what was outflowing.

And then I think one of the kicker documents for me was the only bulletin ever issued by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Alberta during the pandemic. And that was March 30, March 30th of 2020. And that document outlined how funeral homes and others were supposed to deal with a deceased person allegedly infected infected with COVID. And it referred to the normal body handling procedures. So just what you would use as normal precautions. And for me, I went, okay, well, this is allegedly a respiratory virus. But then why are hospitals and why are care facilities and long-term care?

homes not allowing family members to sit and grieve after their loved one has died. Because that message was not just sent out to funeral homes. Alberta Health Services even developed their own policy that stated the same thing, that a deceased person, even if infected with COVID, was a Schedule 3, which is normal body handling. So those were all significant flags for me at that point. Like, why would you cause that type of harm? You know, for a healthcare profession, I've talked to a lot of families. And it is absolutely, it doesn't matter where you stood on COVID.

It doesn't matter. If you take away a family's ability to grieve the death of someone, no matter what they have died from, that is trauma. You can never take away from that family. That is closure that they never get. And the fact that health care professionals did not allow people to. to sit with their loved ones, I think is an absolutely grotesque abuse in the system. When you brought up this concern, what did your superiors say? Nothing.

Nothing. I didn't even get a response back. I, you know, like, you know, I just sit there and go, okay, well, I was just a lowly investigator. You know, we sit in our offices at home because our offices were shut down. You know, you can't bring things forward in any, in any real way other than an email and those emails just, you know, didn't even garner a response from most of them. So, yeah. Who was the, I feel like I should know this, but I'm drawing a blank on it right now. Who was the chief medical examiner of Alberta? Interesting. At the beginning of the pandemic, that position was sitting open. So the deputy chiefs were in charge at that time. the position had been...

When you say deputy chiefs, you mean like people within AHS were kind of just like... No. No. No. The medical examiner's office is run under the Justice and Solicitor General Office. So they are, or Justice Office now. So they're not a branch of the Alberta Health Services at all. They're a branch of the Justice Ministry.

And that's done because they are supposed to be. they are supposed to be oversight for health and be able to scrutinize everything that's going on in that system. I'm breaking your brain a little bit here, I see. I just want to make sure that I understand this correct. So the chief medical examiner is not a part of AHS or it is a part of AHS but they didn't have the position filled. No, they are not a part of Alberta Health Services at all. They are hired by the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is a branch on that organizational chart from the Ministry of Justice. So that's...

And who sits at the top of the Ministry of Justice? Currently, that is Mickey Amory. That's our current Justice Minister. Correct. So UCP. Yeah. UCP, that's correct. Okay. All right. I'm just trying, I apologize to the listeners.

If this is like old news, you knew all this, and I'm the slow guy to, you know, I just want to make sure that I'm getting this in my brain correct, and probably for some listeners as well. So the chief medical examiner is not a part of the H.S. It's an oversight of HHS to make sure things are done correctly. and, you know, okay, I'm following. And that is put in place by the chief justice or justice minister, apologies, which is Nikki Amory. Has that been the case for Nikki Amory's been there for a while?

Or how long, like is this COVID or is he new? He's new. So it was Tyler Shandrow. There's been, I think, three or four since Mickey. So it started as Schweitzer. then Chandra, then Madhu, then Amory, I believe is the flow there. It's the flow. Yeah.

So there's been a flow since the beginning. And yeah, the position of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is to, so they administer the Fatality Inquiries Act, where they have the ability and the responsibility to investigate any death that has occurred in the province. And so, you know, their absence. I'm having, once again, I'm cutting in, I apologize, but I'm having like this epiphany, and I don't know why it's taken almost four years. But Roger Hockinson, once upon a time, was sitting in this studio and was like,

yelling at me, but he was yelling into the mic, about how they weren't investigating, you know, deaths. And I was like, I just, my brain didn't. So everyone's listening to me having an epiphany right now. And I'm almost like, why didn't I, why didn't this click? You know, why didn't it just click? And you just said things. I'm like, oh, now I get why Roger Hodginson was saying those things. It's only taken three years, folks.

My apologies continue. No, that's all right. Well, that is a big part of it. So hospital autopsies got stopped for the most part. They were still doing some, but they weren't doing as many as they normally would. and there are Alberta Provincial Lab and Alberta Health Services documents that show, you know, when they started, when they stopped. And then the nursing homes, you know, there's lots of times that we would not investigate a death out of a long-term care facility. And that's where about 80,

what was it, 85 or 89% of the deaths during COVID occurred in long-term care facilities. Number one, that should alone have launched some type of review of the nursing homes by the medical examiner's office or at least some oversight. Whether that was done or not, I haven't seen any evidence. They also have the ability to launch a fatality inquiry into the deaths in long-term care facilities. It's one thing I've been putting forward to government officials that should occur is that there should be a review of all. of those deaths because they didn't, they didn't get reviewed. And that's because a physician, a primary care physician is allowed to sign a death certificate for somebody who dies in care or in the hospital who are under their treatment that have multiple comorbidities or might

have underlying health issues. They would be allowed to sign that death certificates. That's not unusual. That's what happens all the time. And so there isn't necessarily the oversight, but during a pandemic, there is supposed to be oversight. You're supposed to be tracking that. And you would be tracking it. And maybe they did do it. They're just not communicating it, which is an interesting, that would be an interesting thing in itself to see what was actually done at that office. And being an, I was an investigator there for a little over eight years casual, but still doing a lot of investigations because of very few of us. And the oversight from that office is so important to pick up on, you know,

even picking up on infections in care facilities sometimes. You know, you might get an E. coli or some type of outbreak that gets missed. And if you have large numbers, sometimes it flags. Wait a minute, I'm getting a lot of calls from this care facility. why what's going on there. Yeah. So that's, anyways,

we kind of got off. No, no, no, I'm just, you know, I'm laughing, like,

just, Natasha doesn't know me from a hole in the wall, folks. To me, I, I was just, some days I can be really dense,

you know, and I don't know why certain things don't click, but, you know, it makes perfect sense, right? The chief medical examiner is there

in order to pick up on trends, probably, concerning and then go well why is that and then go investigate and it's in one of the most morbid cases which is death and you just go okay here's a trend what's going on here let's see if we can't figure this out then you have covid and instead of them looking into this growing concern uh well and actually i'm sorry this is where i need your help i assume instead of them looking into this growing concern of multiple things. One is where the excess deaths are happening in the elderly. The next one would be, you know, people are terrified. The vaccine is killing people.

You would think, you would think that'd be an easy thing or maybe not easy is not the right word, but that'd be an easy thing to go search out whether you could find an answer right away. That's a different story. But you'd think that'd be something that a government would be tasking like real fast. Like we need to figure this out. Now, you can fill in the blanks for me because maybe I'm wrong. No. You know, where are they? Has been my question.

Where are they? Where's the office of the chief medical examiner in what is allegedly the most deadly pandemic? Where are our death experts? Where they go, they hiding under a rock? That's their job. Their job is to, if nothing else. is release statements from their office of oversight and of reassurance to the public. And all these things that their office is tasked with in monitoring deaths.

So excess death from lockdown measures. We had, you know, significant suicide rate increase. We had, you know, we had deaths for other causes that have increased. And that office still is silent. I sit there. I'm critical of it because I know how important their role is in ensuring that the public is informed when there's an issue and holding government and other agencies to account. So where have they been? That's their job. Have you found any answers out on that? No, I've asked many people. Lots of them squirm a little with the question. But I'm like, you need to go ask that.

the now sitting chief medical examiner, you know, where's the statements? Where, why are you not addressing excess death numbers? Why are you not coming out with either talking about vaccine injury or talking about not seeing it? You know, maybe it isn't that. But that office being silent is facilitating all types of information out in the public that may or may not be accurate. Who knows? Yeah, when excess deaths are up, when what is it, is it the number one cause of death is unknown?

Am I right on that or is that changed? I think it's still, it's either number one or close to. But you know, that's another thing. Unknown or unknown cause and unknown manner of death was so rare. And I would be calling families with those death certificates. And trust me, those forensic pathologists, that is the worst case scenario for most of them, is to have a death certificate where they don't have a cause and a manner. They will exhaust every possible angle and avenue of investigation to try to determine if there was

something that caused that person's death. So those were very rare for us to have to call a family on and say, look, we just couldn't find anything and explain that to them. So, you know, to all of a sudden have a spike in the numbers, and we're not talking a small spike. I think I haven't checked recently on those sets of numbers. But, you know, we're in the thousands and thousands of deaths that are labeled as unknown. And that's not just preliminary death certificates. So what people don't understand is that when somebody dies and there's an ongoing investigation, they'll issue out a preliminary death certificate that goes to vital statistics.

And it can take up to two years depending on what types of testing or histology or other things that they're looking into. So it can't take a very long time to resolve some of those death certificates. That's not uncommon in Canada just because of the... the backlog in some of our systems. So, you know, to have those sitting as, but they sit as preliminary, they don't usually show up as unknown. Those are final death certificates that are saying unknown cause.

And I've never seen that before. I assume to an investigator, that's like, like, I don't know, I can't think of the word. Like, I just assume like excitement like, oh man, there's a problem that needs to be solved. in my wheelhouse, like they don't know and there's that many? Like, let me go check. Now it's just willful blindness, I assume. Yeah, or they're just not releasing what that information is. That could be possible too.

Yeah, but when you do, they're not releasing the information, what answer do you come up with? Like, why would they do that? Why would, if Natasha was in there, we're not going to release the data. You know, we know the reason, but we're not going to release it. Why would that be? Why would you do that? You know, it would only be speculation on my part, but some type of protection for the system.

Because the system put out the measures that would have caused that harm. So they go, the reason we have all these excess deaths and their causes unknown is because of us. And if we release this, we're all going to hang high. Or they don't want to panic the public. You know, there's so many factors that can play into that, but I've never seen it before. They don't want to panic the public, and yet they panic the public for two and a half years and just locked everything down. It's like it makes sense, except it makes zero sense. Yeah.

And, you know, the biggest part of what we're seeing now is that everybody sees harm in what was done. It doesn't matter whether it was measures or shutdowns or anything or chemicals or masking or the vaccine. You're seeing harm. And it's harm at the hand. of direction that came down from our government, our health authorities, officials, so-called experts that are never named, you know, like this barrage of people that now we're looking at and going, we need some accountability and we need some transparency around what's happened. And we know that these agencies are not doing their job because

they're not looking into this. They're not providing details. They're withholding. and it's taking forever to get disclosures. You know, the, the process is at a stall. And it's probably, and looking at it because I've done process now, a massive disclosure, it's because the information that we're going to get is going to tell us that they knew it was going to cause harm. That they knew this in advance. They anticipated the harms and they didn't do their due diligence

on other areas. So they were just using direction from certain offices, certain people. And you cannot do that. Let's talk about disclosure. Yeah. You know, you talk about when you finally get it, what it's going to show. Yeah. What did it show you?

I mean, I assume it's let's just, let's just lightly crack open, bust down, whatever you want to, however, where you want to go. You got disclosure. Walk me through the process of getting, yeah, I'm getting it, sure. And then what you found and who you found it on and everything else. Okay. So, you know, I guess first step is the, the Eminton Police Service sworn members and civilian members were trying to get transparency and pandemic response documents from their employer. They were trying to get the union to act.

They were trying every avenue. And this is right from the beginning. When that was stalling and they were all, they had vaccine injured members. They had some alleged deaths due to mandates within the workplace. All of a sudden, there was this push. And they pushed the union even harder to try to investigate, get transparency, look into this, start their own investigation.

Didn't happen. So these members went and did a freedom of information request. And they requested everything in relation. to the COVID-19 pandemic response for the Emmington Police Service. And then they found me and I revised the, so this is in August of 2023, and I updated their Freedom of Information Requests to be more encompassing. And we put that in and waited. And so they went back to the union because the cost of this was going to be,

was estimated around $7,000. And so they were hoping to see. if the union again would back the disclosure, which they didn't. And so the members decided on their own to pay out of pocket if those disclosure records came forward. So they paid $4,500 in the end to get the documents from the Eminton Police Service. And we got those October 31st and December 12th, and we got 8,717 pages of, meeting minutes, directives, supporting documents.

We got intergovernment agency meeting minutes, a lot of communication, HHS documents. We got international level documents that show communication through all the way up to international chiefs of police. So there is, it was just a wealth of information. And it was unfortunately demonstrating the open breaking of, you know, provincial, federal, international laws.

And so you're looking at these documents going, wow, we've got O H&S violations. We have privacy laws being broken nonstop. We have criminal things that need to go for a criminal referral in here. And so these, and not just for us, for the general public, there is information about, interagency meetings where there's discussions with government, with public health, with the chiefs of police, openly discussing how they're going to gain voluntary compliance for the public health orders when the Crown Prosecutors, Special Crown Prosecutor assigned to them was saying that these are not enforceable and that they wouldn't withstand in court. So, you know, there's,

there is a lot of harm demonstrated in those that freedom of information request. It's almost like it confirms your worst nightmare, right? Everybody thought this was going on and then when you when you see it you're like proofs in the pudding, I guess, you know, like it's just it's just sitting there and you go. Yeah, and they withheld documents. So imagine what they withheld. there's big time gaps where they were deciding on on rolling out the vaccine to to their membership and those documents were still fighting to get those email chains and and those but yes and that's the hardest part for the members they are they were so abused in the system and people don't realize

they're like oh we were all abused oh the level of of institutional abuse onto people who are sworn police members was nothing I've ever seen before. How so? How so, Natasha, when you say something like that, what could you elaborate for me? So it's, I think the first part of it started when the people in charge and the occupational health and safety departments were completely dismissive of anybody coming forward and saying, even at the beginning, saying, you know, we, that's not proper PPE for a biological hazard.

I, you know, some of these guys specialized as bio-weapons specialists in the military previously. So they're kind of experts in that field. And they're like, this is what we would need to protect ourselves if there is a deadly pandemic coming in and being dismissed for bringing that forward saying, well, if you wear that, that's going to scare the public. And then the dismissive. actions of leadership when they brought concerns forward about masking. They were, as it progressed through, when the vaccine stuff started to roll around and there

was a lot more conflict on measures in the workplace, well, it was the, you're an anti-masker, you're an anti-vaxxer, to the point in parades prior to a shift where members were saying, well, the unvax should be locked in concrete cells and should not get medical care. And if you can imagine sitting in a parade room and having the mob fire up and start chanting this back and forth as you're sitting there as an employee and then you have to go out on a gun call and rely on those people to have your back. There's demotions. People lost their jobs. People were. Yeah, I mean, the level of harm just ripples through.

I mean, people were identified at work and had their desks violated or decorated as anti-faxers. And, you know, they had to eat in a shame room. So they weren't allowed. You could ride eight hours with your partner in a car all shift, but you couldn't go eat lunch with them. they couldn't use the gym all of a sudden that their co-workers could use. You couldn't have training that was considered non-mandatory. You couldn't work extra overtime. There's all these punitive actions.

And, you know, these members are still experiencing this as they push for transparency. They can't speak. They don't have a voice because if they speak out, they would be immediately disciplined. take me back um you said something there and i i just want to make sure that i heard it correct and that is that they're sitting in a room talking about unvax being put in uh my camera what you said steel concrete prison something along that lines when you say that um uh you're you're summarizing a whole bunch of different things but that one i'm like well let's hold up for a second that specifically, what did it say?

Like, what did the meeting minutes say about that conversation? That is not in meeting minutes. That was direct from members who were sitting in that room. So on top of the FOIP, I also talked, I spent 100 hours plus speaking with members about their, what happened. Yeah, what happened during COVID. I mean, when the, when the convoy was rolling. They could not have the Canadian flag on their vehicle. Yet people could have Ukrainian flags and all sorts of flags on their vehicles.

They were told by EPS leadership that they needed to remove the Canadian flag. And they said, no, I'm, you know, lots of them are veterans. They said, no way. I fought for my country. I've, you know, this is, I'm not taking that off of my vehicle. And then they were forced to park outside of the, the, the protection. compound for their vehicles. So there's an officer safety issue that that came up.

You know, they get secure facilities for their vehicles for a reason. I mean, some of these guys are investigating organized crimes, gangs, all sorts of stuff. Their vehicles are in a monitored, locked lot. They don't park on the street. They were forced to park on the street. But if they're unvaxed, they were forced to park on a street. No, with the flag, Canadian flag. Because of the Canadian flag, they were forced to park on the street.

Yeah. Yeah. In some stations, yeah. So this is the, you know, people go while, oh, they're police, they should be out there doing their job and stuff. But the trauma that they have had from their workplace is pretty extreme already. And they're fighting on the inside. They're fighting to try to get a voice. They're fighting hard to push back against this.

They didn't follow orders when they told people, hey, those are unlawful orders. I'm not going out to enforce public health orders onto a business. You know, they would decline those, and they weren't forced to do it. So the supervisors would just go ask somebody else. And, you know, those, because they knew, these are not lawful orders. Now, I had a, you know, I'm reminded of Officer James. People will recall if you go way back when. I had a Calgary policeman that we called Officer James.

He never disclosed his name. We never had any video of it. And he came and sat in the studio and just talked about what he was seeing in the police service, right? Like he was just young guy and very unnerved. And, you know, sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my brain around things, you know, that isn't pertinent exactly to my life. But the one thing about law enforcement is like they're supposed to be there to hold us accountable and lock away the bad guys and everything else. And what you're pointing out is, you know, when it was in regards to a choice made via the vaccine, they were steered one way.

And then when it came to different flags, they were steered another way. And not only were they steered, but they were shunned if they didn't go along to get along. and I don't know, I find that quite wild, you know, like to hear that. In the police service, I don't know, it's wild. I don't know if I got any other words, then to just hear it firsthand is pretty wild. And yet I had Officer James in here, and he talked about, like you pointed out, going on a call to a dangerous whatever situation and looking around going like, these guys really got my back.

And I know that's an insidious thought to put out there. but when you're treated the way you pointed out, you can see how easily it would creep in. Yeah. Yeah, and it's really harmful. The morale was already low prior to COVID. There's, I mean, policing's had its issues. There's, you know, it's those paramilitary organizations, no matter what they are, have, have issues with, with the kind of the culture in the workplace and, and other challenges. This just brought it all out into the forefront where, you know, and the next time, what's the next topic that hits? I mean, take out COVID and insert something else into that discussion. And it might be that it affects your coworker and not you, but it's still the same mentality. It's still that institutional harm. An institutional harm is facilitated even more because the process is usually set to silence the victims and the whistleblowers,

which is what was very clearly demonstrated in this case because people were disciplined for and went through professional standards branch investigations. They were put on unpaid leaves. They had discipline for standing up and saying, no, I don't want to give you my personal medical information. They were fired. Some of them were outright fired for it or forced. They call it forced retirement.

Oh, so that's so much better than being fired. And they had no grounds. You know, the freedom of information requests, they always do a final letter out. And in one of their, in the final letter that we got, you know, I'll read this directly because it says a lot. It says both the pandemic committee and the Human Resources Legal Department have confirmed that there's no correspondence, regarding the forced disclosure of confidential medical information or outlining the grounds allowing the employer to supersede medical privacy, health information,

PIPA, FOIP, and labor laws to request medical information. So, you know, this is, that's important. You know, the police service is supposed to operate on its own at arm's length of political influence because they are supposed to enforce the law beyond the politics of it. And instead, they were stomping on people's legal rights. They were stomping on employees

and firing employees if they didn't give their personal medical information. Completely, completely unlawful. In fact, the chief of police, and you'll love this one, at the onset of COVID. So this was March 18th, 2020. Eminton Police Service did not even have a positive case until March 25th, and it was travel-related. So we're March 18th of 2020.

And the Chief of Police, who was the current sitting president of the Alberta Chiefs of Police Association, he put a letter forward to the then Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. And in there, he said that because they were requesting priority notification for testing from the government. And he says in here, we also request the province introduces an interim mechanism whereby Alberta Health Services can confirm or deny whether an individual has been tested or has tested positive for COVID-19 after being in close proximity to a police officer or other frontline responders. We wish to firmly state that privacy cannot trump global safety, and there's no better time than now to end this. That's your statement from a chief of police who's supposed to uphold the law. And he's requesting that your privacy rights be forfeited. And not only did they write a ministerial order that allowed the police to do that for,

anybody who intentionally may have like spit or coughed on a police officer, the organization took it to a whole different level and we got these documents where they were requesting COVID test results from subjects or detainees who were believed to have tried to, you know, cough or spit on somebody. And these forms, so they got the approval to get test results for those people. But what they just did in their protocol is they circulated them. So when they got these test results, which have the detainees name, address, date of birth, phone number, all their demographics, the incident, what happened, has their medical test results on it. All of that, those were circulated to third parties. They were circulated out to the Executive Director of Alberta Justice and Solicitor General.

They were circulated out to the Executive Director of Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police. The pandemic response command team general inbox email, a deputy chief, the occupational health and safety section into their general inbox at the Eminton Police Service. This is substantial privacy violation for whoever that detainee or subject that was requested. And on there was, there's meeting minutes in here where there was some confusion about filling out this Alberta law enforcement request form. And one of the chiefs of police was not necessarily very happy. And he said that the boxes for the members should be. just pre-checked off so that the members don't have to think about whether or not that individual gets tested or they get their test results. Pre-checking the boxes for a police officer who's

supposed to assess that for themselves, that is absolutely a complete violation of that subject's privacy and medical privacy. I want to rewind on you just a bit. I'm trying not to talk not to hop in and stop you from China, because I'm finding what you're saying to be very fascinating is probably the wrong word, but I'm going to choose it anyways. You said that I believe in March of 2020, Chief of Police in Eminton, said something along the lines of privacy can't supersede the global well-being.

Did I hear that correct? Yeah, we wish to firmly state that privacy cannot trump global safety. Trump, that's right. Yeah, there's no better time than now to end this. That's right out of his. To end privacy. Yeah, end privacy. And they didn't even know what was coming down the line.

This is March 15th. Who is the Emmington Chief of Police at this time, or is it still the same guy? It's still the same individual. It's Dale McThee. March of 2020. Yeah, March of 2020. Did we know Jack Squire? at that point? No. Like we didn't know jack squat. Well, you know, somebody did because in these

documents, we received a complete, and I'm talking almost 200 pages from Alberta Health Services that it's a document. It's standard operating procedures. Detailed. Absolutely tremendous detail. And frank, you know, just to be honest with them, there is an update that's. been done to them, but still, I've developed procedures within the health system. It takes a long time. These were dated the end of January 2020. So they had been updating it to have for release in March. Is, am I reading your thoughts, correct? No, they, the original documents were produced January, end of January 2020.

They had done an update in March of 2021 on them. And so, Metch, of what we have is slightly revised, but they had a whole COVID pandemic standard operating procedure ready to go in January of 2020. So are you, I'm confused here. Are you saying from your background what they had built in January of 2020 was a new? And the fact that was new and before the pandemic and everything else is wild because you understand how long it takes to build such a document. and then tack on that we didn't start shutting everything down for another two months or, you know,

if it's end of January, another month. All those things combined, that's what's wild about it. Yeah. Yeah, you know, and they would have had pandemic protocols from H1N1. Like I said, they were developed. Well, Redmond had a protocol for Alberta, correct? Yeah, there's protocol. And this is something completely different.

This isn't partly Redmond's document, and they just stopped. updated it and you're saying this is completely separate, completely brand new. And what's wild about it is you're going, it's ridiculously detailed and it's thorough. And you're going, I built this before. You just don't do this over a cup of coffee. I'm going to rattle off a document. You're saying this takes preparation. And then to be that detailed, you could see how specific they were. Oh, yes. Yeah. And it's included in the FOIP documents. People are free to go look at it. It's so detailed and it goes into even child care settings. And I mean, it is the amount of detail.

And even if you're going to just revise an existing standard operating procedures. So if they had a pandemic plan and they simply revised it, which this does not have a revision date, it has a development date of January and a first implementation date. H.S. is pretty good about doing their policies. It lists every time it's been updated. So this this was taken, even if you took it and you just were adding COVID in versus, you know, into the language of it, that would take a lot of time plus approvals. Yet, yet the first copy of this was sent out and available at the end of January 2020. When you, when you have your, your investigator's mind, look at this, right? and you're twisting and turning, you're going,

huh, something here doesn't add up. What do you make of that, that? Like, when you look straight at that, what is your, like, where do you go next, Natasha? That makes me question. How far in advance was Alberta Health Services told that we had an incoming pandemic, and who told them that?

But you've never been able to figure out, like through FOIPs and all that, you've never been able to get anything that remotely says, oh, this is where the advice came from. I haven't gone down that pathway, to be honest, because since the release of my analysis document, I have been, you know, full on pursuing kind of the recommendations in there. That is on my list to do, to chase that. But, you know, it's just kind of sitting off to the side for a minute while I try to get some these recommendations put through to unshackle our police officers and give them, yeah.

100%. Yeah. Now you just have my brain, you know, like I just look at that and you go, you know, like in a former life, you know, or if maybe certain choices had been made differently, let's say, I think being a private investigator would have been really interesting because I like solving problems, right? It's like very enjoyable, you know, and journalists. certainly is putting pieces together and making it try and make sense.

And I'm sure I'm going to, you know, text line is probably going ballistic as this goes on because, you know, people are, you know, that's what the listeners did. That's what so many people do. They kept digging and digging and digging and digging. And when they find something really like, holy crap, you got to listen to this or bring this person on, henceforth Natasha coming on, is because the listeners deem something to be really important. and I find it, you know, I'd heard the, you know, Colonel Redmond, I'd heard all the, you know, he developed this document, they never used it, they threw it away, and I was probably told this over and over again, folks, that, you know, exactly what you're saying, except I don't know if I ever, once again, added in 2 plus 2, which is, it was developed in January, months before, you're saying, listen, we do this, I've done this, this doesn't happen overnight, okay, so it wasn't developed in January. It was finished in January. And then you're like, but no, but it'd have to go through regulatory approval

to get it to that point. So now it's like, well, how many steps back do you have to go? How far back does it have to go? And then you go somewhere along the line, somebody was in communication with somebody to be like, hey, this is coming down the pipe. You might wanna redo this. And somebody had to go, yeah, we got a document.

Like I'm the guy, once upon a time, I had to build a safety manual for a trucking company, okay? I'm maybe Natasha is different maybe she's like oh I can't well I can just oh it's so much fun I look at that what is the easiest way I can do this can I just like copy and paste the trucking company onto the front page and we can just say check because if we can do that boom done um so maybe that person is like that and that manual was developed by we'll call it the world economic forum and just handed to him and said here's your new thing okay thanks boom and it's put it in place is there anything that gives you any thought like that was done or is this more deep and nefarious than that?

I would say that these, the planning documents were done well in advance. Yeah, that's my personal. My personal opinion is that this when you read through it, sorry, sorry, when you read through it though, because you're, you seem to me to be very thorough. So when you read through it, I assume you've read through, I'm not going to say all of it, but maybe you can say you've read through all of it. Have you read through all of it? Have you read through all of it? Yeah, pretty much. Okay. You are a special individual. When you read through it, do you get the sense that it was, and maybe you can't tell this. Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'm just like, can you get the sense that, now this was written by a Canadian or in Albertan because it's very specific to Alberta. Or is it kind of like,

you're like, when I read it, it feels very cookie cutter, and they just implemented Alberta in certain spots and you're like this could be this document could be used anywhere in the world and it's just boom here's a document fill in uh alberta and you're off to the races no it looks like it would be an alberta health services produced document it's very detailed with the specifics of our our system operates but you have to remember that um they have they have these teams that are you know, often funded by NGOs or other types of funding that comes down from the federal government and stuff like that that, you know, they can reach out to for some of those projects. So it's not always that they're written in-house, but they might be directed from in-house,

or they brought those policy writers onto staff just to handle it. But it does look like it's a locally written document, not some things. template. I've seen some of the templated kind of stuff floating around and it's, yeah, this doesn't align with that. Yeah, this would be an Alberta health services produced, which is actually more concerning because that means it took a lot of time and money. So they've been spending, you know, government assigned money on doing this. Well, money, time. And that means they knew what was coming down the pipe for a very long time, which I know, listen, like, I can just hear some of the people yelling at the radio or, you know, discussing in their car. It's just, you know, like, for the longest

time, Natasha, I played this, like, denial game maybe in my head. Like, nobody really knew, you know, and I've gotten over that, but I, I, uh, Phisman, Phisman, Fisman's, Fismans brought, Fisman's, yeah, um, I'm, I'm spacing on her name right now. That's terrible. I interviewed her. I know who you're talking about Wadell, Wattel, whatel? Regina, Regina Wattiel, right? I think that's right. I'm looking for her book because I know it's sitting here somewhere. Anyways, you know, I ran through, like, I've talked to a lot of people.

I mean, you're going to be episode 636, I think, right? Like, there's been a lot of conversations at, a lot on this topic. And it took Regina, along with a few others, where I'm like, man, there was some people that knew immediately. I was clueless, you know, like I was caught up in everything else. But this is like kind of a whole new level, what you're telling me, because like, you know, just, I'll probably do a poor job of summarizing this, and you can hop in at any point. But the document shows they clearly knew this was coming well before it happened. And the document also proves that AHS was given information.

well before it happened. And then if you tack into what you're saying with the police chief and everything else, it's like there's just so many moving parts here that conspired to literally do harm to the public and overlook it, not just to do it, but just to be like, but it's for the betterment of humanity. Right? Like, like, what did you say? Privacy can't supersede Trump global well-being or whatever. You're like, what?

Like, who would, who's saying that? And so I guess I look at this and I'm just, I'm just kind of beside myself today because I'm like, here's another one of these things that just adds in how much forethought went into this and how underprepared I'm speaking of myself. now, Sean Newman was for what was about to happen in the world. And a whole bunch of other people I might add in. Yeah. Yeah, these organizations that, um, that were supposed to uphold the law and that we were entrusting, um, in our society. You know, I haven't had trusting government for a long time or

the health system. You work, you work on dead people and you learn not to trust the health system pretty fast. When you say that, what do you mean? Like, you start working on dead people, okay? What is it that,

you know, in the first, forgive me, is it 10 bodies? Is it 10 cases? I don't know how you put it, but it doesn't matter. How many did it take?

And then why do you say that? Like, what was it that stood out, apologies, about examining these files, these cases, these human beings that have passed on, however you want to put it?

What was it that you're like, I can't, yeah, I just can't. It gave you a healthy dose of skepticism. Yeah, you know, that would have been in my early 20s when I first started working on dead people. And you would see, we called them medical misadventures. So, you know, like medical, you know, where the patient wasn't treated properly, the physician didn't know what they were doing or they made a, you know, an error and nurse, doctor, whoever, where a medical practitioner, you know, people give their blind trust to them because they're in this position of authority when we should always question what they're doing because, you know,

they don't know everything. They're not specialized in any doctor that says they know everything. You know, that should be your first red flag because they just don't. There's no possibility that any of us know everything, even in our own specific fields. So, you know, the, you would see the arrogance in some of the physicians, especially when I was doing investigative follow-up on cases because their arrogance would come through and that they couldn't acknowledge the mistake. And that's dangerous. You know, it's one thing. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody.

Doesn't matter who you are. But acknowledgement of it is professionally what you should do. And it's the, you know, it really degrades the profession when you have people that take advantage of people being ignorant to their own health and their own health care and not showing them the courtesy when they ask questions. And that happened a lot during COVID where people would ask a physician and essentially they were demeaned or were told not to question them or, you know, we know what's best for you. Well, it's always your right. It's always your job. It's your body. You're supposed to always ask questions.

And I'm fortunate. I have an amazing doctor who will book like a long time period with me because she always has lots of questions for me and we sit and chat. And she's like, it's fantastic because she's like lots of times I don't know. And then I have to go look it up. And she's one of those doctors that goes and looks it up. But she, you know, not everybody's like that. And you have to, as a professional, acknowledge limitations and say, wait a minute, I need to double check that or I don't have a full enough understanding.

And when doctors don't do that, that's what I was seeing is that, you know, often those people would end up dead. Also, as a death investigator, you saw the extensive problems with prescription medication. I mean, there are places that I would go in to do a scene investigation. I walk out with three or four bags of prescription medications. Often they were controlled substances on one of the lists, and you're just sitting there going, well, no wonder, you know, these people are dying and their bodies are breaking down when you're walking out with bags of medication that their physicians are prescribing.

So there's a lot wrong with the system, and everybody thinks we need to toss more money and stuff. No, we need to start holding people accountable and holding the system accountable for the things in it that continue to make people sick and harm people. You think that's possible? I do think it's possible, but the desire is not there. So the possibility. Desire from who, from the politicians? Because when you look at who, if I go back to where we started this conversation, the desire to do that would have.

to start with, I'm assuming, Chief Medical Examiner and a few others like that. Am I wrong in that? Or are you thinking somebody else for desire? I think the desire needs to start at the top of the regulatory governance for whatever you're dealing with. And so there has to be accountability at that top and the desire to look at the professions below that they regulate and say, we're going to hold you to that standard and apply it evenly. and expect professionalism out of people because, you know, regulatory governance and those non-elected positions. So we're not talking to our elected officials. It's easy to circulate through those guys, but they don't make most of the decisions, our elected officials.

They don't. It's the non-elected people that sit below them that push all the decisions, the policy development, the directives. Those are developed below our sitting politicians in most cases and pushed as a recommendation upward. So there has to be some accountability in the system for the people who have pushed decisions that have allowed all of this to outflow onto the population because that's who's writing the policy.

It's not the person sitting in the minister's chair. And yes, they have the ability to write a ministerial order that gives some direction. But, you know, let's be real. Those positions, if you get a whole backlash from the people below you, chances are you're going to be bumped out of that position as a minister pretty quick. Political pressure. Yeah. So there has to be accountability in those other public positions for their fiduciary phase.

They have obligations as in the public sector. Public sector officials sitting in those non-elected positions hold a public office. They should be scrutinized and they're not. Yeah, I think we're, I think of a lot of us of learning that the bureaucracy that hides behind. Maybe it even doesn't hide. It hides in plain sight behind elected officials. Yeah. And then it's, well, what do you do about it?

Right? And how do you get it to change? That is a giant question. It is a giant question. And you know, some of the things that need to be reformed first would be some of the oversight offices that failed. You know, like you need accountability in those oversight offices. So where was the ombudsman who was supposed to hold the colleges accountable?

Where was the privacy commissioner who should have been ensuring that people's privacy was being protected? Where was the Office of the Chief Medical Exxanitor? Where was occupational health and safety? They're the experts in masks. They're the experts in implementation of chemical usage, of any requirements in the work site. But all these offices were completely silent. Well, we saw the same thing happen. across the board.

And that was if you spoke out against the direction, you found yourself not working anymore, or ostracized, or nobody paid attention to you, or you're written off. It all happened almost uniformly across the board, right? If you had an expertise in mass, in whatever profession you wanted, if you pointed out the flaws of what people were doing,

they weren't like, oh, you're so right, we should change. It was like, nope, out you go the door, right? I mean, that has been the story, well, that's probably been the biggest, well, I don't know, it's the biggest story. It's been one of the biggest themes of the pandemic, right? Yeah. Is the fact that if you pointed out any holes in it, out the door you went. Yeah, but if those offices came out from the highest level of those offices and spoke and said,

no, in your workplace, your obligation is to. to conduct a hazard assessment to determine the hazard for your workplace in relation to COVID. Because everybody just adopted the public health measures. But that office didn't come out and say, you have to do this. You have to ensure that you follow the OH&S requirements because those laws were never suspended. And I know employers that did that, they did their hazard assessments. And then when public health came and knocked on their door because they either got a complaint or they were a targeted business because they saw they were open.

They said, no, no, we did our hazard assessment. Here it is. We've assessed no hazards on our work site and we're not requiring masking in our worksite and we're not requiring anything. And the public officials had to go away. So that office, those offices speaking up was, I mean, they were intentionally silenced. Who gave that directive? That's what I'd like to know. where did that directive come from? Because some of those offices only answer to the legislature and to the lieutenant governor. It shouldn't be, well, I'll say it probably is harder than I think to find out. But you know, like with freedom of information and, you know, and like just putting pressure on,

it should be an easy. And I should probably put pretty easy answer to find out, right? Obviously not that easy. but at the same time, the answer should be really easy, right? One document, you're like, oh, there it is. Right? Yeah. That would be fascinating, Natasha.

You get those documents. You know, like, wouldn't that be fun to just walk through it and be like, oh, there it is. Here's the email chain. Boom, boom, boom, boom. Yeah. And, you know, those, like, this freedom of information request that these guys fought to get is so substantial. and it reflects kind of what was going on across Canada and the conversations that were going on.

And there's documents, like I said, in there from other agencies, international police agencies, all types of stuff. But it's so important to push and get these. You know, other places are not releasing them. And one of the things is because they don't want eyes on what they did. They don't want the public knowing what those conversations were because they're not good and they wrote them all down. So whatever protection they were offered or whatever that conversation was where they implemented this is they felt confident enough to put everything on paper. And that's actually disturbing.

And what even goes more disturbing is when I've met with some government officials, they go, how did you get disclosure? And I'm like, well, you know, they push for it. They're like, nobody's getting disclosure. So that type of statement coming at me from multiple government officials is quite concerning because that means they know that information is being suppressed. They know that people are not getting free of information. They know that these aren't being released. I mean, I'm still-

Because every day that marches on, the more damning the information becomes. That's right. You know, I'm waiting for one. In these documents, there was this program that's not on the books for the city of Emmettin. It was called Masked Up. It's using AI facial scanning technology to scan people's faces as they walk by on the street to see whether or not they're compliant for masks. And then it sends a message to a digital billboard giving them a comment, whether, you know,

they're compliant with masks, not quite compliant. or if they weren't wearing one at all, and it's behavioral nudge technology. And so after I saw that in there, I immediately submitted my own freedom of information request. I know it's a whole. And I'm still, so that was November. And I'm still.

This is in the middle of, this is in the middle of COVID. They're going to put out. They're going to spend money on facial recognition technology to see if you're wearing a mask. That's right. Yeah. And so there's this research.

So I've been waiting for these documents, Sean. I'm waiting for them. And as soon as I have them, you know, people know, because they're just tied up with internal consultation. So legal's holding on to them at this point. But I'm like, they need to disclose them. You know, and when I send in a note saying, hey, give me a status update on this, you know,

I just sent one in. I'm like, that's it. I'm done. I'm filing now with the privacy commissioner and they can review the file as to why it's not being released. And I requested everything. Funding, approvals, you know, the stats, the reporting, the deployment, everything. You know what the cool thing? As dark as this is. Yeah. I think it was, was it Brett Weinstein, folks. I think it was Brett. And I think it was on Tucker Carlson. And I couldn't agree. What he said was, they made a big mistake. And the big mistake is now people such as you and others are all kind of joining forces, right? I'm running into a ton of people. I'm like, holy crap. I'm glad Natasha's on our side. I'm glad that Natasha is a pit bull and is like, nope, we're going to get them. Nope, we're going to get them.

Nope, the law says. Nope, we're going to get them. And everybody's starting to run into each other and be like, holy man, have you seen what they're doing over there. And it's, it's like it's united a whole group of people. And it seems like, I might argue, the best sort of people to, you know, as once again, Brett Weinstein would say, to go against Goliath, which is our system. Because that's, that's what's holding this all up is like, you know, they were so confident in what they were doing. In the insanity that was going on, It's all just sitting there, but now they're realizing it, but they got to go up against people such as yourself,

and there's a whole list of characters that are all going and doing similar things and pushing and pulling and reporting and talking about it. And it's just, it's wild to me that at some point, you know, just following your train of thought and what you stumble on, that they thought facial recognition for wearing a mask was something they should explore. that is pretty insane to me. Yeah, and they presented this to the police service like it was a good idea. That's even more disturbing. They did a presentation to the chiefs of police on this. And the comment, the only comment in the meeting minutes was, well, you know, do you think there would be some ethical issues around this?

Yeah. It's like, do you think? Do you think? Well, and the thing is, like, it, I interviewed, oh my goodness, a paramedic. I can see her in my brain, but I can't think of her name. And she, when I interviewed her, she'd just come out of Quebec. Like she lives in Eminton or that area.

And she'd just come out of Quebec. And that was when Quebec was going into houses and pulling people out if they had too many in their house. Right. So like what you're saying, although shocking and like should probably make anyone's jaw drop, I'm like, I don't know. I feel like a freedom information in Quebec could be fascinating in a dark, morbid way because of like what their cops were doing, right? Going in and pulling people out of houses. I mean, here in this area, we had the snitch line where you could snitch on your neighbor if you thought they were having too many people in their house.

I mean, there was no level of insanity that did not get hit during COVID. And I guess what probably the most shocking thing is about it, it's just how it was pretty normal and that's what the documents show. And people thought they were in their own weird way protecting civilization from the individual. You know, like it's this crazy ideology and your documents are just exposing it or just, it's just bleeding out of all of them, I think. Yeah. Yeah, it openly shows that they knew what they were doing and that they also know.

it was breaking the law. You know, these are not people that are above knowing the law. They know it very well. They have to function in it all the time. So like the current police, chief of police, right? Are these documents, do they just show like he is going to be out of a job soon? Or is that not the way this works? I have no idea how that part works.

It's a little bit of a little bit of a challenge to address some of it. And yeah, we'll see what pathway it ends up taking. I mean, we have people who are very ill, who are police officers and civilians out of Ambiton Police Service. We have some alleged deaths. We have a lot of worker injury. A lot of the police forces across Canada. And now I'm in contact because I've done this document for police members.

I now have contact with an awful lot of police members who had the same thing or worse. in their police departments and I mean tons of vaccine injury. You know, the RCMP even had some of their most fit people. They had one of their most fit people dropped out on a treadmill. You know, the harm done and the level of potential incapacitation of our police force is something that, you know, is concerning. because where are we in a few years, if people actually are getting sick from taking the shots and these were forced onto our police services.

Are they still having to take the shots? No, no. Most measures ended in 2022, which is, you know, varies on which workplace when it was lifted. But, you know, you just, you know what was actually really concerning, Sean, is that Emmington in 2023, our police service hosted on site. So this is fall of 2023. They knew this request was being processed. They knew there were COVID injury files. They were compensating people at work on long-term and short-term leave for vaccine injuries. So they knew about all of this. And they knew about the harm prior to the shots even rolling out. But that's a whole different story. But they then hosted in January or sorry in October, November in the fall of 2023, they hosted COVID clinics

on Emmettin Police Service property, influenza COVID clinics. And they, so instead of stepping back and saying, hey, we shouldn't do that. We've got vaccine injured people. If they want it, they can go to a pharmacy and take it themselves. Instead of saying that, they stepped up their game. They hold, they held it on site. that should that should disturb everyone i know it's disturbing you i can tell by your face you're thinking of that going whoa wait a minute i just yeah we're having a discussion yeah um a group of men and it came up about um one of the guys's neighbors daughters sounds like uh has been having some serious health problems. And now they've been going to the states to try and get help and on and on

it's costing a lot of money. Anyways, you know, they go through it and it comes all the way back to the first shot. That's what they've traced it to. They're like, listen, we've ran, you know, we've ran pretty much everything. We thought it was a couple different things. But like, we just can't deny it anymore. It all stems back from your first shot. That's what it looks like. And, you know, to me, that isn't a shocking discussion to have. And to paint a picture for everyone, I'm sitting around, and, you know, I'm going to guess there's two unvaccinated and there's probably eight vaccinated, right? Roughly, I don't think any of these guys are still getting it. But at the same time, I have no idea.

Just, you know, so to me, this isn't shocking to hear, but it is shocking to hear it with the, you know, in the circle. I'm like, oh, man, and it was like, nobody heard anything and it just kind of, we just kind of went on. And I was like, everybody just heard that a doctor said it stems from the shot. Like that should be worth talking about. Yeah. I mean, I talk about it on here lots. And I know the audience listening, you know, they've obviously talked about it lots. And like we all, as shocking as it is, would I find more.

troubling is when you bring up the, well, in the fall, they just said, wow, we'll just, we'll just put a vaccine clinic right here. We're going to encourage it. It's like, it comes back to this conversation I just had where when you get shocking information that should stir on, yeah, man, like, I got it and I get, you know, and on and I don't know, I don't know how the conversation should go, but I know it shouldn't just glaze over it. It's not like we should just, oh, and the Emmett's an lawyer's play tonight. And, uh, we're carry on. It's like, it's like we, it's like nobody's ear, everybody's ears turned off for, for three minutes and then we carried on. I was just like shocked. And so I guess it's troubling.

And what you're talking about is troubling because it's like, are people that evil or, or do they just, it's a couple of years or it's like, man, I made some wrong choice. And it's hard to come to grips with what went on. But then why would you have a vaccine clinic on grounds? You know, like that makes it makes a guy's head hurt it's troubling i guess is why i'm sitting there in pause yeah and you know that what you're talking about and i've experienced it a lot and not just related to covid but dealing with people who've had traumatic events and um and so it's it's often what happens with a person's brain when they experience trauma is that they compartmentalize that trauma and it's too hard to deal with and eventually

one day. And that's why I tell people to be really gentle with others that you go, but they just keep glazing over. They won't listen to me. And I keep yelling at them or trauma. But you can't keep traumatizing them because that's their brain's only way to process the information. And until they're ready to then address all of the emotion that's going to come and, and realization of, you know, potential self-harm that they've done by taking those, you can't push it because that is a trauma reaction in somebody's head. You have to remember. The trauma reaction is what I noticed. Yeah, that's what you noticed because people aren't there yet until they're like obviously the person telling the story was there because they were able to talk about it. But the others weren't ready to listen.

And so they shut off because for them to hear that part right now would be too traumatic. It would actually cause so much harm. And yeah, we have to remember these are people who have been victimized by that propaganda, warfare type of psychological messaging that was it was pounded into their heads in four to six week intervals with the change of the topic, slight change, protect your neighbor, protect yourself. We have to protect the elderly. You know, this is we're all in it together.

All of these things were messaging to program people's brain. And these psychologists, they know this. This is part of, you know, behavioral modification. And so to program somebody's brain and abuse them in that manner, that is abuse. That's psychological abuse on the population. And so for people to come out of that, you know, the abuse, you can put it in in a matter of a very short period of time, but to undo it is you have to do it very carefully so that you're not causing more harm.

So I tell people to be really gentle, and I get that we're all upset. We already had a lot of harm. I mean, I lost my career. It's funny, on this side, I'm like, I'm upset with the machine. Yeah. I'm upset with government. I'm upset with, right? But when it comes to the common person, actually I'm like, listen, we all dealt with this in our own unique ways.

I'm not saying there isn't that if you're upset with somebody, I'm not, I'm just going to where I'm at. We all dealt with it the best way we possibly knew. And when you understand everything you just said, which is the level of propaganda that we just pounded on us and the realization that this system doesn't have the best interest for me. It's a hard, it's a very troubling thing to accept. Even for a guy who didn't go along, there was a full month.

I talk about this lots with the book club. I'm interviewing all these people, Natasha. Yeah. And, you know, like the Peter McCulles of the world and, you know, Eric Payne and all these lovely people, Dr. Roger Hockinson, they're all saying all these things about how wild this is. And for a full month, I'm like, I think I'm just going to go get vaccinated. Like, I just can't take this anymore because the level of propaganda, like the level of

everything being directed at you, then having like society push on you, and then to speak openly and have people come on your show and on and on and on. So like I actually have a lot of sympathy for everyone. It just, I guess you're pointing out a very good thing that I just couldn't understand was I was really troubling to me that nobody will just pause, take a step back. but in fairness for a lot of people who came through COVID and didn't get the shot, we had to do that a long time ago. We had to wrestle with a lot of inner things of like,

we're really going to go this way? Am I really going to stand here? How am I going to deal with this? You're going to lose my job? What am I going to do? Am I really going to lose my job for this? Like, is this where I want to make my stand? Is this my line?

You know, am I going to lose people in my life or how am I going to navigate those things? and for me that when I put myself back through my my walk there's a lot of things there that took a long freaking time that I was very uncomfortable with that I argued with some of my closest friends on that were not comfortable conversations and if it wasn't for in my particular case a group of men around me and my wife I don't know what the heck happens well I do know what happens I get vaccinated and I just carry on with life and I probably am talking about something completely different today than where I'm at. Instead, you get this.

And so pointing that out, I appreciate that. That might have been the most, you know, there's been a few different helpful parts of today's show that Natasha has been very concise on, or you've just pointed out a few things that have really put a couple puzzle pieces maybe together for me. And when it comes to people dealing with it, yeah, there's a lot of, the problem is it hasn't ended, right? It just hasn't ended. The government is still doing things. And it makes me wonder, you know, when you talk about these nudged units and everything,

like, man, what was I being nudged on before this, that it's just locked in my brain? No, no, no, no. And you got to try and unwire that. Because, you know, if you did that on each one of us, there's probably things that we're holding on to. You can understand now why the person that went through COVID can't see what went on in COVID because we can't see what they were nudging us beforehand. Hope that makes sense. Yeah, you know, the perfect example of that that I use with people is the, you know,

those little speed signs that flash red. So if it's speed limit 60, if you're doing 61, they start to flash red, right? And they even have in some smaller communities where they have a happy face if you're going under this or the speed limit or under and a red phase and sat or angry phase if you're going over. Those are behavioral nudge units that people, have just accepted. I mean, if I see one flashing at me, I try to see what speed I can get on it, but I'm the opposite. But it's, but those are, that's nudge technology. And it's not that it's all necessarily for nefarious purposes, but you can see that this has been deployed for a long time. And they've been slowly putting this into our communities and into our cities, you know,

And it works to reduce injury or high-speed collisions. But again, it's behavioral. It's done to behaviorally modify the population. Man, this has been a whirlwind of almost two hours. Natasha, I appreciate you hopping on and doing this. Somehow I just don't think this will be the last time we talk. I could be completely wrong, folks. Maybe Natasha never Grace was a show ever again.

but somehow I just go, where are you sitting at today? Eminton? I'm in Emmington, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The next time we're going to do this, we're going to do it in studio. We're going to find a way to get you to Lloyd Minster, beautiful metropolis. Oh, yeah. And do it in person.

Either way, Natasha, thanks for doing this. And coming on for the listener, you know, if there's things I missed or things you've got questions on shoot me text, because one of the things we're going to try and do, we're going to try it out with Chuck Prodnick first is we're going to do on substack. We're going to do a Q&A with listeners where we bring on a guest, and then the audience can actually ask you questions and kind of like a Zoom call format. Because one of the things that I'm learning is my weakness is I go where my brain goes with. But there's some really smart people who listen to the show

that we're probably not love nothing more than the opportunity to grill you on a couple things. That could be a lot of fun too. We're going to try it with Chuck Prondack here coming up in May in a couple weeks, I think. Either way, Natasha, I'm rambling. Appreciate you coming on and doing this. give me time today. And I look forward to when you get that boy on artificial, you know, facial recognition, I would love to hear all about it.

Yeah, no, I thank you very much for having me on the show. And just one thing that I'd like to leave your listeners with is that, you know, we have amazing law enforcement in this country and they get a pretty bad rap, which is also part of the agenda and the push to really get people to distance themselves. but they do need our support. They are amazing people who care and stay in that abusive, horrific situation because they worry about who would step into their place.

And so most of them are sitting there, even though they may not want to be, because they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. And so I think that's really important for people to recognize that these people people are fighting for you inside. They just, they don't have a voice at all in the system. Well, I appreciate you get to be a voice for some of them.

Yeah. Where can people find your work or follow along? Is there a way, do you have social media, a website, anything like that, Natasha, that people can follow along? And if they wanted to help or anything like that, is there any answers on that side? You know what? I don't really do social media. I'm lots of us in the investigative world, don't. But, you know, if people do want to reach out, I'll give you a link to the, even just the summary, or if you want to post the whole link to the document. And I do have an email in there. If people want to reach out to me personally, they can. I get a lot of that after I've done a show. And it's excellent. I've connected with some amazing people.

Also, other people, like you said, doing FOIPS and getting, it's helped tremendously in building that. group of people who are actioning, really actioning stuff. So yeah, I'll send you that proton drive link and people can go if they want to read the documents. If they want to look through the FOIP documents, they're welcome to. And, and, um, well, what we'll do is we'll, uh, we'll, we'll post it in the show notes that way if you're like, uh, I want to go read a hundred page document or whatever it be. You can have at her folks. I would love nothing more. One of my faults is my eyes glaze over. and I'm like, this is going to be painful, even though I know how important it is. That's why we've got people like Natasha and others that we've ran into along the way that enjoy that.

And then we get to distill it here. So thank you, Natasha, for hopping on. And look forward to the next time we get to chat. Thank you very much, Sean.