Dr. Mark Trozzi Targeted for Speaking the Truth
Grant Stinchfield calls out CPSO for unfair review processes as Dr. McCullough served as key expert witness
Hard hitting news anchor Grant Stinchfield called out the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for unfair review procedures in the case of Dr. Mark Trozzi, an emergency physician with an excellent clinical track record
The College spent hours trying to discredit Dr. McCullough in the witness chair and would not put a single substantive question to Dr. McCullough about Dr. Trozzi’s clinical practice or care of COVID-19 patients.
The CPSO closed out their last day of of the trial while Trozzi has been suspended from practice for 6 months.
The College has intentionally delayed proceedings to cause huge fines, greater loss of income, and destroy Dr. Trozzi’s ability to keep his career on track.
This investigation should have taken a few days at the first instance of an issue raised by CPSO.
Please watch this 10-minute interview where Stinchfield has Dr. McCullough give some key updates on autopsies of COVID-19 vaccine victims and much more.
To see the video, click here substack.com
Header image: Rate MD’s
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
The authority approves the physicians to practice by confirming their competence. Now it tells them they are not competent. Does not it tell something grossly out of line? Physicians fighting physicians – as to who is right?
Should not an independent mediator (independent of medical expertise) be resolving this issue? Perhaps a chemist, as the issue involve related to chemical substances.
Reply
herb
| #
The fact is ALL physicians who speak truth are targeted . Everybody knows the jab’s are slow acting lethal injections., employees and numerous whistleblowers from the CDC , WHO, NIH , FDA etc.. have confirmed the jabs are 100% depopulation shots purposely designed to kill within a 10 year time frame .
The below article will remove all doubt .
What Dr. Paul Alexander Was Told Privately About the VVV’s in 2020
https://www.europereloaded.com/what-dr-paul-alexander-was-told-privately-about-the-vvvs/
Reply
Lorraine
| #
Thank you Herb. I had just read the article by Dr. Alexander this morning and hoped it would be seen by a wide audience. The blindfold is off and many unsuspecting people are shocked by what has been revealed.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks, Herb, for sharing the link.
PSI published my article describing the fraudulent approval of the vaccine before its role out. “FDA’s ‘False, Unscientific & Deceitful’ Review Of Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine” (Dec 2020). https://principia-scientific.com/fdas-false-unscientific-deceitful-review-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine/
The assessment was based on a scientific analysis of the material provided and the hearing on the expert advisory committee.
People should use caution in accepting assessments from medical/pharmaceutical experts about medicine development and their evaluations. These professionals are not trained as scientists or researchers, making disastrous errors in developing and assessing therapeutics; vaccines are one of those examples. (https://bioanalyticx.com/advisory-committees-including-for-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-competent/).
Reply
CATHLEEN
| #
The discrediting, suspension, and persecution of brave doctors/scientists have been going on for decades. Dr. Raymond Royal Rife, who created the most powerful microscopes in history, isolated the causitive viruses of cancer and 40 other major diseases and created a phenomenal, non-invasive cure. He also proved and discovered that all living organisms vibrate at a specific rate and that certain radio frequencies that sick people he exposed them to reversed polio, tuberculosis, and cancers. Dr.Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a micro-dissector, and a micro-manipulator.
When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he was the most gifted, versatile, scientific mind in human history.
Unfortunately, the greatest medical genius of our time had all records discretted and suffered a terrible fate by the medical community. He was betrayed, persecuted and his concepts suppressed by medical peers, his incredible work and research was destroyed by the US government. This was in the 1920’s. In the 1950’s, John Crane attempted a revival of Rife’s concepts and for his efforts, Crane was imprisoned.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@ “ … who created the most powerful microscopes in history, isolated the causitive viruses of cancer and 40 other major diseases … ”
“isolated” really? but
@ “ … his incredible work and research was destroyed by the US government.”
I am sorry, is it an attempt to support a non-existing virus “view/theory”? That is not good!
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Doctor Quereshi.
I am sure you are aware of the contributions Doctor Raymond Royal Rife made to the development of the microscope.
Is the occasional generosity of spirit too higher price to pay?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Do I have to know about the discovery and operation of a microscope to comment on the “isolation” of a virus or anything else? Microscopes help in seeing things which not visible to the naked eye. They do not know or tell the nature or function of what one sees.
I am not questioning the invention or work of the inventor. I am seeking support for the claim about “isolating the virus.” Does anyone has it from the early nineties to date? Please share. Thanks.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Saeed,
I don’t have the time for it now, but I have it on my to-do-list — that is, to “Isolate and reproduce” the notes/observation from this inventor.
Dr. R R Rife had apparently observed several forms or, rather repeating chains of forms, of organic microscopic particles which he characterised as pertaining to particular diseases.
I know, he says she says — but if one considers the intensity of almost hysteric denial from the then “health authorities” e.g., pharma and medical associations, one could not leave this alone…
Good luck hunting — I would love to share my findings here as well.
Cheers, JaKo
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi JaKo:
Thank you for your comment. Please consider posting what is accessible to you. I am interested in knowing how “he” had done the studies (linking particles to diseases). There has to be a true “isolation” step in there if he could link particles to disease. If you could share that, it would be a great help. Thanks.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
You just (or recently) asked Matt “Do I have to know about the discovery and operation of a microscope to comment on the “isolation” of a virus or anything else? Microscopes help in seeing things which not visible to the naked eye.”
You have written that you have seen viruses with a microscopic image before. Just what are you seeing? I as this question because I just saw an image on the front and back covers of a chemistry textbook published in 1976 which has been in MY library for several decades. About the cover I just read “The photomicrograph that appears on the cover Showa an organic reaction in process–the formation of a polyester.”
As a chemist I understander that this polyester is being formed from a specific ‘ester’ molecule which cannot “be seen by the most powerful microscope image. And I also read “The micrograph was made Dr. Roman Vishniac.” When I googled him I found he, a photographer, is famous for the photomicrographs he has produced. of ‘living matter’.
So I ask what to the viruses actually seen with a powerful microscope look like?
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
@ “You have written that you have seen viruses with a microscopic image before. Just what are you seeing?”
Where did I say that? I do not recall that. Please, share the link or reference. I will be happy to clarify (the misunderstanding). Thanks.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
I did not quote the statement to which you refer (no quotation marks), I duduced ((to derive by reason) from your continuing claim there is no civic virus because the virus has not be seen (observed). Because you seem to accept there is human disease (such as the common cold) which is caused by a ‘virus’, I leaped to the conclusion tha cold viruses needed to have been observed.
For some reason the publisher of Galileo’s book ‘Two New lSciences’ wrote in his preface to the reader (as translated to English from Italian) by Crew and de Salvio): “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
As I study my Webster’s, which I was required to purchase in 1959 for my university English composition I find a common problem commonly do not accurately define the words we use. With the result we create confusion
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks, Jerry:
@ “I leaped to the conclusion …”
Sorry, you leaped to a conclusion that is not mine. So, my view remains that the virus has not been isolated.
I will leave it there.
Have a nice day.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
My question is: As a person familiar with medical issues, why haven’t you promoted the possible treatment of ‘whatever’ disease with the same vigor you continually refer to this ISOLATION ISSUE?
Have a good day
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
That is a good question, Jerry.
However, the issue is that I did not see any disease. I described this aspect in detail in my book (Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon). For example, I provide one of the half dozen examples of how (falsely) the disease and pandemic was declared. Please pay attention to the last paragraph. There was no evidence of a disease or a widespread one as promoted.
“Case-1, Report (from the USA, First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Summary: A 35-year-old man recently returned from China presented to a clinic in Washington State with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. The patient visited the hospital voluntarily after hearing of a health alert over an alleged novel coronavirus outbreak in China, apparently with similar symptoms to his own.
The medical examination indicated: body temperature (37.2°C); blood pressure 134/87 mm Hg; oxygen saturation 96%; chest radiography showed no abnormalities. CDC staff decided to test the patient for 2019-nCoV (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2) based on current CDC “persons under investigation” case definitions. The patient was discharged from the hospital but was later called back as his PCR test returned a positive reading.
Treatment during this time was largely supportive. The patient received, as needed, 650 mg of acetaminophen every 4 hours and 600 mg of ibuprofen every 6 hours. He also received 600 mg of guaifenesin for his continued cough and approximately 6 liters of normal saline over the first six days of hospitalization.
In view of the potential for hospital-acquired pneumonia, treatment with vancomycin (a 1750-mg loading dose followed by 1g administered intravenously every 8 hours) and cefepime (administered intravenously every 8 hours) was begun.
The CDC asserted that the patient’s nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via rRT-PCR assay. The stool and both respiratory specimens also tested positive by rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, whereas the serum remained negative.
Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analog prodrug) was begun on the evening of day 7, and no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion. Vancomycin was discontinued on the evening of day 7, and cefepime was discontinued the following day.
On hospital day 8 (illness day 12), the patient’s clinical condition improved. Supplemental oxygen was discontinued, and his oxygen saturation values improved to 94-96% while he was breathing ambient air. The previous bilateral lower-lobe rales were no longer present. His appetite improved, and he was asymptomatic despite intermittent dry cough and rhinorrhea. He was afebrile, and all symptoms had resolved except his cough, which was decreasing in severity.
It is unclear why the patient was subjected to an rRT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 when he exhibited what would normally be diagnosed as the mild flu and would therefore be treatable with antibiotics. Nevertheless, because the rRT-PCR test came out positive, the assumption that the patient had SARS-CoV-2 prevailed.
A single-patient observation with otherwise regular flu or pneumonia symptoms and was considered treated successfully formed the basis of the arrival of the deadly disease comparable to the 1918 influenza pandemic. How logical and scientific is that?”
Reply
Steve Bashir
| #
Hi Dr. Qureshii. It seems that people have fallen victim to the illusion created by the authorities and media based on the PCR test, that there were millions of people, symptomatic and asymptomatic, who had this alleged new disease called Covid 19. When in reality, there was no new disease. Since the PCR test does. not test for the virus. But a genetic fragment that is associated with a theoretical virus, that has never been found. So, the cases are all false. And the symptomatic people are just those who had the regular flu-like illnesses. Absolutely nothing new. Is that a correct assessment in your professional view?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Steve:
Yes, you are correct. It was an illusion – science does not support any of the claims.