Update on Dr. Mark Trozzi Case – Interview with Michael Alexander

Beat the censors, sign-up for our newsletter: https://firstfreedoms.ca/call_to_action_pages/stay_informed/

The case involving Dr. Mark Trozzi highlights ongoing tensions between public health policies and individual medical practice. The Tribunal's findings reflect a broader trend in which regulatory bodies may take strict actions against healthcare professionals who diverge from established public health narratives, particularly concerning COVID-19.

In November 2023, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Tribunal found that Dr. Mark Trozzi had been spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, with the potential to harm the public, by encouraging people to take ivermectin and claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines had not met appropriate standards of safety and efficacy. The Tribunal also ruled that Dr. Trozzi had failed to maintain the standard of practice by providing medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccinations. Additionally, it found that Dr. Trozzi had acted dishonorably by engaging in uncivil discourse.
On October 8, 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court heard the appeal. Dr. Trozzi’s lawyer, Michael Alexander, argued that the College Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence and had misrepresented other pertinent evidence. At the Tribunal hearing, Alexander submitted Dr. Trozzi’s two scientific reports on COVID-19 as evidence. However, the Court ruled that the reports had never been introduced into evidence and were, therefore, irrelevant.

As Alexander notes, the Trozzi decision aligns with recent cases involving doctors who dissent from the public COVID-19 narrative, confirming the following propositions:
1. Any health college may conduct an unlawful search and seizure of a member’s office without establishing reasonable and probable grounds, as required by the Health Professions Procedural Code;
2. Colleges may apply mere guideline and recommendation documents as if they have the force of law;
3. Any College discipline tribunal may ignore or manipulate material evidence;
4. Health professionals do not enjoy the fundamental right to express disagreements with government public health policies and recommendations.

These points underscore concerns about due process and the rights of medical professionals. The implications of such cases can lead to chilling effects on open discourse within the medical community, where dissenters might fear repercussions for voicing differing opinions based on their interpretations of scientific evidence.

These developments encourage ongoing dialogue about the balance between maintaining public health standards and protecting the autonomy and rights of healthcare providers. They raise questions about how regulatory bodies can ensure safety while respecting professional judgment and the necessity of diverse perspectives in the evolving landscape of medical knowledge.

Please note the views expressed by the individual(s) in this video are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views or principles of the First Freedoms Foundation.