Skip to content

Shift from Individual Fiduciary Duty to Collective Risk Framework

Day 3 · 0:19:12 · Deanna McLeod · Dean Allison · Myriam Bohémier

  • ⚖️ Emergency orders forced Colleges of Physicians to prioritize common-good COVID policy over individual patient risk-benefit and informed consent.
  • 🤝 Public-private partnerships and industry-led task forces let pharma direct recommendations while fear became the key vaccine-selling tool.
  • 🔓 The protective clinician layer between companies and patients was effectively removed.

McLeod explains how legal changes reoriented doctors away from personal patient duty.

← Expert Witness Deanna McLeod Sworn and Introduced | Pfizer Trial Data: Risks Outweigh Benefits →

Transcript

Deanna McLeod · 0:19:12

So the reason why I'm here and I'm not a doctor is because all of my clinical colleagues have been censored. I'm not 100% sure whether everybody here knows, but physicians are, you know, in the grand scheme of things, the protective layer between the pharmaceutical companies and the patient. A pharmaceutical company's greatest desire is to directly influence patients because they don't have a lot of the time the ability to be able to discern whether something is good for them or bad for them. And so they rely on their clinician, and the clinician has a fiduciary duty to make sure that something is good for the patient, which is the left-hand side of the slide. During the pandemic, Once the emergency legal frameworks were set in place, the Chief Medical Officer of Health was able to issue interim orders, and one of the interim orders that she issued was that the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons had to follow the COVID policy, and they had to realign themselves and make it so that they are now working for the common good, not for the patient.

Deanna McLeod · 0:20:27

And what this does is it shifts the risk-benefit framework from an individual risk-benefit framework where you look at the individual patient and you say, is this better for them or worse for them? And you allow them to make a choice of informed consent. And it puts it in a collective framework where basically the Chief Medical Officer of Health says, as long as more people are being helped than harmed, this is good for us. And so what that means is that the casualties— the more, the more people are being harmed, more people are benefiting from being harmed— means that you can actually harm people in your COVID policy. And so this, this, this framework shifted, and I don't think very many people were really aware that we were. Now, when I looked through all of the public health documents, what they were doing is they were making risk-benefit statements based on a collective framework. So that overrides—.

Dean Allison · 0:21:25

Before you go to the next slide, can I just interject? Is so, yeah, the patient wasn't aware of this. So most of us, we have this history where we'd be going to our doctor and asking for advice, and our belief, which was true in the past, was that the doctor is going to be giving us advice based on the doctor's opinion on what would create the best health outcomes for us personally. But what you're saying is, is the legal framework changed so that doctors were put under a legal framework, not— so when you went and asked for COVID-19 vaccine to your doctor, should I get the COVID-19 vaccine? The doctor was now under a legal obligation to actually say, yes, you should get the COVID-19 vaccine Even if the doctor's opinion was, is that this was not good for you as an individual patient, but the patient wasn't ever told this, that patient still trusted the doctor, believing the doctor was giving advice in the best interest of the patient.

Myriam Bohémier · 0:22:29

Mm-hmm.

Deanna McLeod · 0:22:31

So I'm, I'm just going to be so amazingly— what this did is it basically removed the protective layer from patients and allowed pharmaceutical companies who were— if you look at, uh, if you ever follow the money, what you'll see is that there's public-private partnerships at absolutely every level of government. In fact, they're, they're supported at the international level. There were public-private partnerships at the governmental level. There was public-private partnerships. In fact, the COVID task force was led by industry people in Canada. So I don't even know if everybody understands that, but basically pharma was very much involved at a very high level at directing the recommendations. Just a quick aside, whenever COVID happened, I was very, very much surprised by the level of fear and propaganda that was going on. But fear is the number one ingredient for selling vaccines. You know, for most treatments, if you— a person has to have a condition and they're suffering from actual treatment, from actual illness, in order to be able to convince them that a product is beneficial for them.

Deanna McLeod · 0:23:42

But when you're selling a vaccine, basically what you do is you take a perfectly healthy person, you convince them that they're going to be very, very sick by scaring them, and that convinces them to have a vaccine. And vaccines are by far and away the most lucrative products that a pharmaceutical can have. So this is very, very big business. And so if they can capture public health and direct public health to sell their vaccines, then basically public health becomes the marketing arm, Canada becomes the distribution arm, and then if they can also circumvent safety testing, which is the most expensive element of a product development, then basically it's, it's a, an incredible win for pharmaceutical companies at a global level.