Hospital Kills Vaccine Free Child and Parents Found Guilty For The Death!

Hospital Kills Vaccine Free Child and Parents Found Guilty For The Death!

By David Stephen

Over the past 15 years, David Stephan have been actively involved in the field of natural medicine through the organization of Truehope, which largely focuses on restoring mental health. As part of his involvement with Truehope, David has found himself at the forefront of many activist movements that has prevented Health Canada and the pharmaceutical industry from stripping Canadians rights to effective, scientifically validated natural treatments that fall outside of the mainstream allopathic model.

After the tragic passing of his son, Ezekiel, in early 2012, David and his wife Collet found themselves engaged in another battle for freedom. After a well orchestrated coverup took place to shift the cause of Ezekiel’s death from being medical misadventure over to it being blamed on them, they were charged with “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” which could result in up to 5 years in jail. As part of the court proceedings, the crown prosecution attempted to set a new precedent in law surrounding criminal liability being established for non-vaccinators. As such, David and Collet found themselves overnight becoming an active part of the vaccine choice movement.

In 2016, during his own trial which was the first of its kind in Canada, David became aware of other criminal proceedings that originated out of the same hospital with some of the same doctors, that ultimately appeared to be very similar in nature to his own situation. David had the opportunity to recently cover the court proceedings in their entirety and report on them via live streaming. What was further identified in the Jeromie and Jennifer Clark trial is that there is an emerging pattern of profiling and engaging in criminal charges against parents with wholistic beliefs for the purpose of maintaining and increasing, not only vaccine schedule compliance, but overall medical system compliance. Ultimately what came out in the court proceedings was crystal clear evidence that the hospital killed 14 month old John Wyatt Clark, but the parents were found guilty and now face up to 30 years in prison for it. This is quite likely the most groundbreaking case in the history of Canada for establishing medical tyranny.

Video Transcript

Up to 30 years in jail, after 30 years, is what Jeromie and Jennifer Clark face. Now, this isn’t just a travesty for Jeromie and Jennifer Clark. This is a travesty for the entire nation of Canada. This precedent will have a negative impact on everybody in Canada and the media has represented it in such a way that people literally cheer as their rights are being stripped from them. I’m going to go into it a little more in-depth as to how this is going to have a major impact on everybody and how this perhaps is the most historic case in the history of Canada for ensuring medical system compliance, and that’s where it’s all about.

That’s exactly what this case was from the very get-go all the way throughout the whole entire court proceedings. I’m going to get into detail there so that people realize that this isn’t just about Jeromie and Jennifer Clark, this is about them. This is about their children, their grandchildren, the rights that they’ll have. This is going to have a substantial negative impact on everybody, everybody who decides to empower themselves, and search out to natural modalities for their health and wellbeing.

Now, before I get into it, I’m going to do a full story from start to finish to give you an idea as to how it is that we got to where we are today. We’re on Thursday evening. There ended up being a guilty verdict on both failing to provide necessaries of life, and criminal negligence resulting in death, which is up to 30 years in jail. Before getting there, I’ve seen a lot of stuff floating around online calling me into question, calling up my motives, saying I’m biased. Well, I’ll be straight up, I am biased.

I have a very, very strong bias against corruption, against deception, against lies, and against the removal of our fundamental liberties and freedoms. I have an absolute bias, so yes. Am I biased? We all are. It’s whether we recognize it or not, it’s a whole another thing. I recognize my biases and I live by it. I am biased and perhaps maybe one of the best ways that I could put this out there that people can understand where I’m coming from and what motivates me, is the other morning, I had a bit of an epiphany.

As I lay in bed, the sun comes up, blinds were open, the sun shining into the room, and I didn’t have to be anywhere that morning, and I’m just lying there. I’m thinking and I’m lying there and about a half hour goes by. I’m awake. I’m alive. I’m well but it comes to the realization that I hadn’t done anything yet that day, that even though I was awake and many of you are going to get the metaphor that I’m trying to illustrate here, I’m awake, and yet I didn’t do anything productive that day.

The epiphany comes to me that there comes a time when being awake simply is not enough, but for the love of God and humanity, and for the sake of upholding liberty and justice, we are called to rise up and to take a firm stand for the truth. That time is now. It is not enough to simply be awake. We must do something as it was spoken of. Let’s not just be hearers of the word but doers of the word as well. We are called to action. We are called to take a stand regardless of what the consequences may be.

You see, I’m living under the umbrella right now that everything I do or say can and will be used against me in the court of law. I’ve got my own trial coming up here for those of you who don’t know and it’s been said that I’m here supporting other baby killers because it’s regarding the passing of my own son in 2012 when the medical system killed him as well, and engaged in a major cover up, fantastic cover up. They’re absolute experts in their field of covering their tracks. I’ve got my own issues, and so for me to cover this case, it was a fearful thing.

I didn’t want to do it but I felt compelled to do it because I knew what was coming and I see what’s on the horizon, and the complete erosion of our fundamental freedoms, rights, and liberties, and if I don’t do something today, who’s going to do it for my children? Who is going to take a stand for my children if I don’t? I’m compelled to do so, so that when I go down to the grave at some point, I know that I have a clear conscience knowing that I took a stand for right.

Now, this isn’t just about me, and so I’ll leave off and I’ll get into the main reason for this video today but I just want to make it abundantly clear, that yes, I do have my biases, like people are trying to call me out on. It’s not the biases that they think it is and these aren’t biases that were just developed after the passing of my son. In fact, the day before the passing of my son, we were victorious and beginning to dismantle some legislation that eroded our rights here in Alberta, which put me on a list for sure.

If it wasn’t that, it was 10 years previous to now when I came out with one of the most viewed antidepressant videos online exposing the dangers of antidepressants and also at the same time I was taking a stand as part of an organization fighting off the legislation that was looking to remove your rights here in Canada to anything that was natural. It was called C-21. Some of you remember it. There was protests across every major or through every major city across Canada, so this is nothing new to me.

It’s just interesting that these circumstances fall on my lap, but those are my biases. Going into the issue surrounding Jeromie and Jennifer Clark and how we got to where we are today, I’m going to layout the whole case as quickly and as effectively as I can so that people can recognize regardless of whether you’ve been indoctrinated by the media or not, open your minds. You can recognize how this could apply to any Canadian and how in the medical system screws up that they can do a very, very clever cover up that throws you under the bus.

This will help you to be prepared that if you ever end up in a situation like this, that you don’t fall victim to what you think are altruistic motives on their end when it seems like they’re trying to help your child by getting all the information they can out of you, but really they’re just documenting it to use it and twist it against you afterwards. That’s exactly what happened with me. That’s exactly what happened with the Clarks. I’m going to go into this real quickly here.

It begins. You have a holistic family, a loving family, a family who cares about their wellbeing and about their children’s wellbeing, and they’re utilizing natural health supplements. They do home birth. They’re doing home schooling. They obviously have a very strong conviction to helping their children because the mother no longer is teaching school, she’s now teaching her children. She’s now a stay-at-home mom. She’s given up her career.

You have this family and they’re not vaccinating. Now, the vaccination issue, as you’ll see in the title, actually has no relevance to his passing even if the vaccines did work, which is highly debatable. You’ll see by the time that we’re done this how it actually has relevance to the overall case that’s before us today, and the removal of our rights, and how the courts are being weaponized to push through this vaccine mandate here in Canada. It’s not going to come the way that you think it is.

It’s not going to come through acts of parliament. It’s going to come through the court system, through criminalization of loving parents. You have this holistic family. They have three children, three sons, a seven-year-old, a three-year-old, and a 14-month-old. The 14-month-old has chronic eczema that they were dealing with from time to time. It would flare up generally when he would begin to teeth. In November of 2013, he begins to fall ill. He’s not so interested in eating as much anymore.

He’s still breastfeeding and eating some solids at that time so they replaced him of the lack of breast milk that he would’ve been getting with some coconut water, and so he’s not eating as much as he normally would. He’s starting to just seem a little bit … Well, not a little bit. He’s unwell, but not severely unwell. What happens is the parents become concerned about a day or two into it when he begins to get a little black spot on his toe, and they do a search online to see what could it be?

Gangrene comes up and so there’s a search there and that’s at about 6:21 in the evening of November 27th. November 28th, they take him into the hospital when they saw that the blackening was being spread and that he became cold and clammy. They take him into the hospital and it’s just one mess up after the next, but here’s what they identified. He gets into the hospital and he’s fully alert. He’s alert. He’s crying. They do a Glasgow Coma Scale reading on him, 15 on 15, so his neurological function is completely there.

This is how he presents to the hospital. Then, they begin to treat him and what they began to treat him for was hyponatremia, which was low salt levels or low sodium levels in his blood, which can have a negative impact on one’s overall function. If your body or if you develop it slowly, your body adjusts, but you still will have issues. Hypothermia, which is what he came in with, being cold and clammy, was one of those symptoms, as well as some lethargy or lack of interest. He comes in with clear signs of chronic hyponatremia as well as the blackening around his toes, which can be interpreted to hyponatremia.

It can be attributed to poor circulation, which it would be caused by thrombosis. This is a basis that the doctors are working off of initially. In fact, at one point, the one doctor took out a look to see if there’s a hair tourniquet that was cutting off, hair that was wrapped around, cutting off circulation to his toes so that … Because it appeared to be a circulation issue solely, not an infectious issue, not malnutrition like they said after the fact. He gets into the hospital and they decided to correct the hyponatremia.

They tried to correct it really, really quickly. They called it aggressive saline resuscitation, and with that aggressive saline resuscitation, what they did is at 4:05, he had now been in the hospital for … Or in the Alberta Children’s Hospital for 14 minutes. They had to drill an intraosseous line into his bone to get the fluids in. They had attempted to do so at the hospital across the way before and it blew out. They failed in doing that. They did it at the Alberta Children’s Hospital.

At 4:05, they begin pumping him full of saline fluids. Now, they pumped him full of 200 milliliters of saline fluids. Now, let’s do some quick math here. A young child will typically have about 80 milliliters of blood per kilogram of body weight and he was around nine kilograms, so you do the math there, and you got 70 or about 700 milliliters of blood in his body, right? I believe my math is right. You have about 700 milliliters of that because this is going to play into it even though this is largely overlooked at first.

At 4:07, two minutes later, a doctor gives him another bolus of saline fluid, of 400 milliliters. Now, within two minutes, he’s gotten 600 milliliters of fluid into his body. Now, let’s set the saline issue off to the side. That amount of fluids right there would’ve killed almost any normal person but it doesn’t end there. It continues on. At 4:15, they do a blood gas reading and they identify that they just took his sodium level from 108 millimoles per liter up to 115 millimoles per liter in 12 minutes.

It doesn’t seem like that much, especially you see how the normal range for sodium is 135 to 145, right? He’s not even up to the normal level but there’s a danger in this, especially if the brain has had the opportunity to adjust over a few days. What happens when you overly rapidly correct it, you’ll end up doing some severe, severe brain damage that generally will result in death. The recommended safe rate of correcting hyponatremia is 0.5 millimoles per liter increase per hour, per liter of blood.

They just increased it seven in 12 minutes. You do the math and it was what, 70 or just over 70 times too fast, which causes a condition, like I said before, osmotic demyelination syndrome. You end up with a shrinkage of these neuron cells at such a rate that it demyelinates them, can actually create axonal shearing to end up with these cells are just death. Now, in any other area of the body, you might get away with that, but when we’re talking about the area that’s most affected which is the pons area of the brainstem, which controls all of your vitals, as well as the brainstem controlling the flow of information from the brain to the body, you got an issue.

Not only did they increased his fluids, because they continued on. At 4:17, they gave him more … Or 4:18 now after they discovered that that blood gas reading that should’ve raised a major flag, at 4:18, they give him another bolus of sodium bicarbonate, which would have increased his sodium levels again from there at 4:20, 15 minutes after they begin to do all of their treatments. Fifteen minutes after he had presented fully stable and fully well cognitively, neurological function was all there.

Fifteen minutes after, he goes into a seizure and he declined substantially. All of his vitals are just code black and they continued to give him more fluid. Rather than stopping that after they realized or should’ve realized that that amount of sodium alone just created this major issue, what do they do? They give another bolus of concentrated saline at this point. After about 32 minutes, they had more than doubled the amount of fluids in his body, which would’ve killed anybody, and they had increased his sodium at such a rate that it would’ve killed anybody.

There’s two clear causations of death and it was crystal clear in the courts, and the jury got it. In fact, even the crown prosecution’s own witnesses couldn’t combat this information coming forth to them, and so they were caught for being basically liars, because what they were trying to adhere to was, or substantiate, was that he died from an overwhelming sepsis infection or staphylococcal infection, becoming septicemia going throughout the blood, creating … Going to stage two septicemia or sepsis, which at that point you have a major inflammation.

Then, it all leads to stage three, which is now you have major, major inflammation that’s now causing the shutdown of the organs. Yet, none of the symptoms were there for that inflammation. They didn’t actually begin to treat him for this supposedly staph infection until 4:26, a few minutes after they just basically killed him with that overaggressive saline resuscitation and overaggressive amount of fluids being pumped into his system that would’ve diluted the blood to such a point that it would’ve actually created hypoxic injury.

There wouldn’t have been enough delivery of oxygen to all of the various areas of the body in the cells. Okay, so this could happen to anybody. It could and it does, but the question is we ask, why were these parents profiled? Why was it turned on them? I mean, there’s a lot more cover up that takes place than we all realize. There is, but why then did the doctors go and proactively pursue police action and child and protective service action against these parents, so that when 21 hours later when this child can’t even be supported by life support anymore?

Is pulled off of life support that the parents leave immediately in police custody and the children leave, the other two children leave in child and protective service custody? How is it that it gets to that point? Well, there seems to be a profile that’s taking place and I will be doing other videos on that, that substantiated, that shows that there’s a major collusion or conspiracy taking place, and that there are some common players that keep on popping up in the various cases like myself and his that has to do with a vaccine, and the whole medical industry rubbing down at everybody’s throats, ensuring that their business is substantiated and viable.

Because that’s really what this is all about. It’s about big business. This isn’t about because the government loves children. If they did, they wouldn’t be advocating for abortions. They wouldn’t be advocating or you wouldn’t see the agenda for euthanasia coming out. You wouldn’t see that stuff if they actually cared about human life, but they don’t, and so this is agenda-driven. This is all being heard before the courts, and then Dr. Anny Sauvageau, the former chief medical examiner of Alberta, comes into the case for the defense and testifies exactly the effect that that oversalination would have on that child or any human being for that sake, and how that sheer amount of fluids would’ve killed him.

This clear-cut evidence comes forward to the jury that goes completely against and dismantles the false theories that the crown was coming forward with. When I say false theories, here’s what they had to base the staphylococcal aureus infection off of as well as the malnourishment that they solely used to try to discredit the parents and to use it against them, malnourishment. If I had a malnourished child, that’d mean I’m a bad parent, right? It means I’m obviously negligent. Here’s what they used.

The only thing to validate the malnourishment was when the medical examiner, who’s now the chief medical examiner of Alberta, your top authority here in Alberta for causations of death, she took blood from little John Wyatt Clark three days after he had died and tested it for vitamin levels. She couldn’t get his ink writing because the blood had been too degraded, but what she did get was a very poor vitamin D and vitamin A rating.

Then, she said, “He was malnourished and that’s what’s caused the eczema, which the eczema allowed for the staph infection to come in.” What they based the staph infection off of was not the 4:00 blood culture that they took upon him first coming into Alberta Children’s Hospital, that if it was an overwhelming infection, clearly, there would’ve been an overwhelming amount of evidence to substantiate that.

It wasn’t that because after five days, that blood didn’t culture any bacteria whatsoever. It was the 5:00 rating that they had taken that after being in the hospital for nearly two hours, one of the most common bacterias that people seem to get infected with when they visit the hospitals shows up, shows up on that blood culture, and it was admitted by the chief medical examiner of Alberta who did the autopsy on him that that could have been all it was, was that it was contamination.

Yet, we get to a guilty verdict. I’m going to go into that because the evidence for anybody sitting in the courtroom except for the media. They’ll never admit it. There’s clearly an agenda here and I’ll touch on the media in a bit here and the agenda that they’re playing out with this and getting or deceiving the public so the public literally, like I said before, cheer as their rights are stripped away from them.

They cheer. They think it’s the best thing that Jennifer and Jeromie Clark were convicted so how do we get to the guilty verdict? The Crown in their last summation to the jury attempts to deceive, attempts to use all sorts of tactics, lying, trickery, that stuff which is normal. Yet, their role, the Crown’s role is to uphold justice and so what they should’ve done if they were actually living up to what they’re supposed to be about.

What they should’ve done is they should’ve said, “You know what? We had it wrong. The evidence is abundantly clear here. We’re sorry Jeromie and Jennifer Clark, we’re dropping the charges.” Mid trial, that’s what they should’ve done. Instead, it’s about a win. It’s about an agenda. We’re ramming this thing through, hell or high water and they did it but I don’t think that they just did it.

There’s something else going on here. They engage in this trickery to the point where when the jury leaves after hearing the Crown and they’re going to leave. The next thing is they’re going to back in two days later. They’re going to hear the judge give his final instructions and then they’re going to deliberate. The jury had to be brought back in so that the Crown could correct some of the stuff that was so deceptive, that was so misleading that they had a chance to correct that before leaving that with the jury and what it was is that there was a bunch of pictures taken after the passing of little John Wyatt Clark.

A bunch of pictures taken of him that show that he looked really, really bad. By that point, the black continued to spread throughout his leg which by the way, I didn’t cover. There was evidence of thrombosis which is a thrombus is a fibrous clot that will prevent blood flow, prevent blood flow. You end up with necrosis, dying of different areas. There was evidence of that in the CT scan and they never examined it further to substantiate that that wasn’t the fact that caused the blackening of his toes.

Instead, they said, “No, no, no. It had to be that staph infection.” Even though there was no odor, even though there was nothing abundantly showing that it was by an infection. They said, “No, no. It had to be that.” It had to be that otherwise, the death would have to be solely laid upon the feet of those doctors who acted recklessly in that situation, and so the Crown engages in this trickery, showing this pictures of little John Wyatt Clark.

What they said is that, they made the connection that that was basically the way that he presented. Hey, good afternoon. That’s the way that he presented to the hospital which would be extremely misleading to the jury when they’re making their ruling, when they’re going to say whether it’s guilty or not guilty because if a child showed up or was in my care or anybody else’s care looking like that then clearly, they would’ve had to have been negligent.

It wasn’t noted that that condition continued to escalate and get far worse and clearly, after being dead for a little while there, he would’ve looked extremely bad and so the Crown had to correct that. Everybody in the courtroom is looking at us and they’re saying, “The jury’s got it. The jury has got it.” Many times during the Crown’s last summations, the jury was inattentive.

At one point, I observed one of the jurors who just put down his notepad, cross his arms, sat back and just sat there and just basically shook his head. They saw the deception that was taking place, and so when we fast forward to two days later and the judge is giving his clear instructions. Now, I’ve got no criticism to the judge in this which is a surprise as many of you have probably seen a lot of my writings in the past.

I haven’t taken too nicely to some judges as I’ve seen either complete, how would I put it? Incompetence or corruption, one of the two in them, and so but with this one, I’ve got no criticism because he saw the case for what it was and I believe he had compassion. He saw how these parents had been put through the wringer likely for an agenda so he gave clear, crystal clear instructions to the jury notifying them that they basically, without saying it, that going through it, he basically notified that they had.

If this is a case, if there’s a different causation of death, they have to acquit the Clarks and the evidence was abundantly clear. There was a different causation of death. There goes criminal negligence resulting in death gone. He gives his clear instructions and the jury goes to deliberate but then what? What happens? I don’t know what happens. I have a bit better insight than probably anybody else in the matter and here’s why.

Not anybody. There would’ve been the individual who escorts the jurors but I was sitting by myself on the 12th floor of the courthouse that evening, behind the security desk with my computer out, catching up on some stuff that I was falling behind, mainly Facebook messages and all that. It’s about probably 7:30, maybe 7:15, something like that and all of a sudden, the jury comes out, the majority of them, about eight, maybe eight to 10 of the jury come out and as they’re walking past the desk, I’m the only one there.

Of course, they’re going to glance over to acknowledge somebody that’s there and what I saw as all of them walked by is that they could hardly make eye contact and they were dodgy and the impression that I got, having children and having been a child myself and being guilty at times, what I observed was that these individuals were like what you’d observe in a child when a child has either done something or is about to do something wrong.

There was something off and I wrote it off initially just thinking okay, no, no, no. Okay, they’re probably going home for the night or something. It doesn’t make sense that I thought they’re supposed to be here till 8:30 but they’re probably going home for the night. They waited for the elevator. They went down the elevator and I was thinking because maybe they’re just wore out or something.

Maybe there’s something else going on. They’re just wore out and about 20 minutes later, a reporter comes up to the 12th floor and says, “The verdict’s in.” They were notified of it and I saw. Crap, here we go. I’m trying to suppress them like no, it can’t be. It can’t be. It can’t be. There’s no way. No way. Not with all the evidence. This case was absolutely so crystal clear and so it just couldn’t make sense that this was what’s going to happen.

Sure enough. We get in and I’m observing the judge and I’m observing the jury and it was really interesting to see the jury because I know in our case, when the jury came out and deliberated, six out of 12 of the jurors were crying and they were extremely emotional about it and you could tell. They didn’t want to give the verdict. In our case, it was peculiar and that’s what got overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada because the jurors were backed into a corner where they had no choice but to find us guilty.

What I saw here was really interesting. All the jurors even though I had observed them for three weeks previous, they had a completely different countenance about them and they were just stone cold, all of them. It’s like they’re almost trying to be angry about it. It was really, really interesting but they all had the same basic impression because they had the foreman stand up and give the guilty verdict for criminal negligence for both Jeromie and Jennifer.

Then, the same for failing to provide necessaries of life. As the foreman gave it, the judge looked visibly appalled. Now, I got to observe him and his demeanor over the past three weeks as well, and so what I saw was completely different from what I had seen in times previous, and the little guy went down. Here, let me help get your bike there, buddy. What I saw was the judge having a hard time containing himself, composing himself, as he continued to address the jurors, and he even, he did something that I don’t believe happened in our court case, and he asked each specific juror, just to ensure.

“Do you agree? Number one, number two, number three?” They all had to say, “Agreed, agreed.” I can’t wrap my head around it. I still can’t wrap my head around it. I’ve got my speculations as to what took place with the jurors. I know that there was some different influencing. Obviously, the jurors throughout the entirety of the case were introduced to prejudicial information like, well, they didn’t vaccinate.

They didn’t vaccinate. That kept on coming out throughout the case. In fact, at one point, it appeared that they tried to make it part of the agenda or part of the case as to failing to provide the necessaries of life in regard to not providing vaccinations, when they had an infectious disease doctor up and they asked him, if by not vaccinating, if that impaired little John’s ability to fight off all infections, and the doctor just slam dunked and said, “No. In this case, it had no impact. You need to understand, there’s no vaccine for staph infection or Staphylococcus aureus bacteria.”

There is no vaccine so it couldn’t have any impact, and so it completely blew that one right out of the water that they were trying to establish the vaccines as a necessary of life, which by the way, in our own case, we were just put on notice as well that they’re looking to move forward with vaccine evidence again in our case, but they made note of it probably based off of one of my last videos that I did about that I’m trying to make it into a necessary of life, that it’s not for the purpose of establishing it as a necessary of life even though they mentioned that it should’ve been part of what was necessary in regard to what we should have been observing in Ezekiel.

Anyways, the vaccine information kept on coming up as well as the thought that they were home birthers, that little John Wyatt Clark hadn’t been to a doctor before. They’re bringing up all this character evidence and so maybe that influenced the jury to find them guilty. Maybe it was based on upholding their own beliefs. Possibly, possibly. It’s a little bit of a stretch though and then second to that was the outside peer pressure that those jurors were likely feeling based on what the media was doing in misrepresenting this case to a huge degree.

Go take a look at any of the mainstream media articles on it. You’re not going to get at all the story that you just got here. Not at all. In fact, what they’re hailing the doctors as is as heroes right now that they were the heroes in this case. The Crown prosecution is saying it. CBC was basically alluding to it before. Now, we need to understand. You got the Crown prosecution and then you got CBC, I’ve taken major issue with CBC, Crown owned.

You need to understand that. They are Crown owned and you got the Crown prosecution trying to get a conviction. You need to understand that CBC is biased as well but in the wrong way. They’re biased as to try to ensure conviction and to ensure that their agenda, that this overreaching agenda has its way. Maybe the jurors were influenced from outside peer pressure because they got to go back to work with all these co-workers who were saying, basically lynch them. Lynch them.

Lynch the Clarks based on what the media did, that maybe that was part of it. It’s still a stretch though. There’s something, something really, really off with all of this because I got to observe those jurors for the entirety of the three weeks. I got to observe the judge for the entirety of the three weeks and analyze him. The judge was clearly appalled at their decision and I hope that based on the fact that he probably, maybe it’s not that, that he would have probably acquitted the Clarks after all these contrary evidence came out that was actually scientifically validated whereas everything that the Crown and their witnesses were coming out with was conjecture in regard to overwhelming staph infection complicated by malnourishment.

It was all conjecture and so the judge would have likely acquitted them so what I’m going to hopefully speculate that will happen is that that judge who was also in charge of sentencing likely won’t give them anything near those 30 years of jail time that they may have just qualified for. Hopefully, he goes as far as to engage in a suspended sentence meaning that nothing takes place.

Hopefully, that’s what we can hope and pray for but we got to get the truth out there because this is largely being driven by the public demand, by what the media is doing to the public in deceiving them to the point where they have a major interest in this case going through it. They think they do and finding these parents guilty.

That’s basically how we get to where we are but we need to remember. One, this could happen to any of us. It could. Many times, when we read the media, and I’ve seen a lot of people who believe in holistic health saying this about myself saying, “It’s parents like these that give everybody else a bad name in regard to the alternative health field.” It’s not.

It’s parents like these that are pretty much the norm but the deception is so rampant that it deceives us all and it creates a division. We all understand that united, we stand and divided, we fall and that’s exactly what they’re trying to do here is that they are rooting your rights, my rights and many, many people are cheering for it saying, “We’re not like the Clarks. We’re not like the Stephens. Send them to jail. Send them to jail.”

Meanwhile, we don’t realize that we are the same as you and you are the same as us and that we are all in this battle together and that this agenda is to ensure a medical system compliance to enforce that medical tyranny that is coming upon us and like I said before, it’s going to be how we see the vaccine mandates happen in Canada through criminal prosecutions, not through acts of parliament. Why? We’re protected currently under the constitution of Canada that prevents them from being able to engage in most heinous acts of forcing their wares upon us.

We’re protected fortunately but only for a time because as it becomes case law, all they’re going to do is continue to prosecute parents that don’t vaccinate even though their child may have died in a very similar manner as to what somebody else’s child died and yet, all they’re doing is profiling and ramming these cases through and it’s happening over the Alberta Children’s Hospital. It’s happening basically through the University of Calgary is where the epicenter of this agenda is really coming from in Canada and so that’s the issue that we have today and that’s how vaccines play into this issue is that they’re not relevant at all even if they worked in the death of little John Wyatt Clark.

They’re relevant in the fact that they’re being brought up in court and that they’re trying to establish them as a necessary of life even though they make the claim in recent documentation to myself that that’s not where they’re going which is contrary to what they verbalized to my lawyer back in 2014 when they said, “We’re looking to set a precedent with this case wherein we can hold parents criminally liable if they don’t vaccinate and anything bad happens to their child.”

We need to be aware. We need to take a stand. We’re not hearers of the word only but doers of the word. We need to take that firm stand for truth. We need to rise up. The time is now. In fact, it was yesterday. It was last year. It was 20 years ago. It was a generation before us that didn’t realize what was going on as our rights were being sold. If my great grandparent rose up today, woke up today from death, they’d be absolutely livid seeing the day that we live in where we lock the rights where our rights have been systematically removed through deceptive tactics compared to what they grew up with.

It is time that we take that firm stand that we unite, that we spread the truth. It’s the only way that we will be free. It has been said and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Let us spread the truth. Let us get it out there. Let us take a firm stand. Let us not be afraid of the consequences. Let us not fear for our own lives. It is time to stand. It is time to do the right thing for the love of God and for the love of humanity, for the love of our children and our grandchildren and all those who will precede us.

It is time to stand up against this injustice and to uphold our God-given enable rights and freedoms. It is time to take that firm stand. God bless you all. I’m going to continue on regardless of the circumstances, regardless of how this negatively impacts my court case, regardless of whether or not this sets a precedent or sets a tone that makes it easier for them to throw me in jail.

I’m going to continue to speak and if I end up in jail, I will continue to speak. I’ll just have a lot more time to do it through writing. I’m out. God bless you all. Until next time.