Michael Chossudovsky – May 13, 2023 – Quebec City, Quebec

Une excellente présentation du rôle de WHO, de la manipulation des données, de l’effondrement économique dû aux confinements et du rôle des médias dans l’instauration de la peur et du récit de la pandémie. Il aborde également les résultats observés à la suite de la vaccination.

* The above video is being streamed via Odysee. Check back often as we continue to update the complete list of links to all witness testimonies in both video and audio/podcast formats.


Louis Olivier Fontaine
Hello everyone. My name is Louis Olivier Fontaine. I’m a lawyer and I’m acting today as an attorney for the National Citizens Inquiry. And now for our next witness: we have the privilege of speaking with Professor Michel Chossudovsky. Professor, good morning.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Yes, hello.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
So to begin with a quick formality, I’m going to ask you to identify yourself by stating your first and last names, please.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
Now we’re going to take an oath. I’m going to ask you to make a solemn affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Say: “I do.”

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
I do.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
Very well. So I’ll start with a short presentation. You can tell me if everything I say is correct. Professor Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author of 13 books. He is also Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa. He is founder and director of the Montreal-based Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation [Centre for Research on Globalization]. He is also editor of Global Research. His latest book, available free in PDF format, is titled, The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État Against Humanity. And on the cover, the title continues: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression.

So with such a hard-hitting title, Professor, I’m going to ask you to elaborate and explain to us the research that led you to write this book-and to these, as I said, very hard-hitting conclusions. During our preliminary discussion, you proposed to summarize by explaining the four main pillars of the crisis as you see them. So may I suggest that you start your explanations with these four pillars.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
I’d like to thank the organizers for this initiative, which is absolutely fundamental. It’s also an opportunity to share opinions. I think we need to confront the lies at both the scientific and the political levels. We experience this crisis on an individual level, but we also experience it on a collective and global level because it’s a crisis that affects more than 190 countries where measures are being applied simultaneously. And there is a series of lies. I will start with the pandemic.

The PCR [polymerase chain reaction] test was used to measure the incidence of COVID. For the moment, I won’t revisit the legitimacy of the PCR test. But I should say that at the starting point, in January 2020-and I’ve been following this for the last few years-there was a WHO [World Health Organization] initiative supported by the World Economic Forum that was meeting in Davos, also in January. And on January 30, the Director General of the WHO made a historic declaration that we must remember.


He declared a global public health emergency of international concern. He gave his press conference: global emergency, 83 cases outside China, which are the COVID-19 cases confirmed by means of PCR.

The PCR is another problem. But 83 cases led to the declaration of a global emergency. This is a lie. This is the beginning of the lie. So here you have the data corresponding, you might say, to this first phase of the pandemic. And a few weeks later, there was a new press conference by the illustrious Director General of the WHO, Dr. Tedros. This was on February 20. What Tedros was saying was that the pandemic was imminent: “The windows are closing.” He made a very dramatic speech based on what? On 1,076 positive PCR cases, or positive COVID-19, out of a world population of around 6.4 billion outside China.

Once more, it’s an element of falsehood-a conflict of interest-because after his statement, the financial markets collapsed. It’s catalogued as the most serious financial crisis in history since 1929. So it’s the collapse of the stock markets on a planetary scale based on a fraudulent declaration by the Director General of the World Health Organization, who is also obviously in collusion with Bill Gates and company.

Now just to put it into perspective, it wasn’t 1,076 cases: it was 452 cases. Let me explain. If you look at the graph below, you have different categorizations of where these cases are located; and the majority are from people who got sick on the Diamond Princess because they were confined to their rooms and then given PCR testing. They were all sick; they were coughing. And anyway, the PCR test doesn’t detect the virus. You have to understand that. It’s fundamental. The PCR test doesn’t detect the virus; it detects genetic sequences. These genetic sequences can be attributed to other viruses such as other coronaviruses like the common cold, for example, or to seasonal flu. I’ll come back to this later, but I should also mention that the PCR test was discontinued by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] in the U.S. as of December 31, already with warnings saying they [the PCR results] were invalid.


Similarly, the WHO didn’t withdraw it but said, “If you’ve applied the PCR test as required with a magnification threshold greater than 35, you must redo the test.” And that was a year later, in January 2021. So the two key organizations in this debate were questioning this PCR test. At that time, I was not questioning it because these figures were so ridiculous that we came to the conclusion that there was no pandemic.

I’ll proceed to the third [pillar]. So it caused a financial crisis. For those of you who know a bit about economics: when you have foreknowledge of what Tedros is going to say-insider information-when you also have foreknowledge of where you can manipulate information, then you can make billions on the stock market. And that’s exactly what happened. I’d now like to turn to the month of March. It was on March 11 that the WHO officially declared the pandemic. Once again, there was a stock market crash-Black Thursday.

There were 44,279 positive cases catalogued as of March 11. These are cumulative cases. In other words, if people are recovering, well, they’re no longer active cases, but they represent cumulative cases counting from the start of the crisis in January. And 44,279 cases were catalogued by the WHO to justify draconian measures. In English, this was called lockdown; in French, it’s confinement. And this occurred on a planetary scale.

So we have to ask the question: How is it that 190 governments implemented this simultaneously-albeit with intervals-and in such a way as to essentially paralyze their economies? Because when you lock down the workforce and freeze the workplace, what happens? I can ask my first-year students that. With all the workers at home and the workplace frozen, it’s obvious: It’s a global and social economic crisis that affects the foundations of civil society from one day to the next. And we’ve experienced it.

And then there’s the masking. It’s social distancing. We were unable to gather together. We were unable to debate. This decision was based on stupid numbers. These are the numbers. Read carefully what’s on the screen now: 125 confirmed cases in Canada on March 9. Is this the basis for declaring a national and global pandemic, accompanied by a campaign of fear and intimidation and draconian measures to paralyze not only the economy, but civil society as a whole?

So as an economist, I’ll tell you what my interpretation is because I have several chapters in the book that deal with the economic dimension. But I have to say that I don’t know a single one of my colleagues who has examined the issues at stake in this crisis. They said, “Oh no, it was the virus that caused the economic collapse.” Frankly, it’s very convenient to blame this crisis on the virus, okay? But we must say: the collapse was a product of engineering. And the collapse, the lockdown of the workforce, and the work freeze-we know very well what’s going on.


First of all, it’s bankruptcy processes at the level of production entities, but it’s also impoverishment on a planetary scale. I followed this economic and social crisis in several countries. I contacted people in India and China.

In India, lockdown was decreed, while 45 per cent of the urban workforce was made homeless. These were migrant workers from different regions who travel to Delhi, Mumbai, and so on. They were told, “Go back to your villages.” They died. There was no transport. Look at the incidences of famine in all parts of the world- not just in the so-called Global South. I tried to document the famines. The data is generally incomplete but what I can say is that this lockdown is an economic and social crisis. And probably the most serious in human history because it was generalized to 190 countries.

It’s not necessarily a matter of creditors from the [International] Monetary Fund, for example, interfering and saying, “Ah, you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do that.” But look at the economic landscape around you: the fact is that SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises], restaurants, and stores were going bankrupt, and it’s not over. And that’s where we come to the next steps. Governments have given handouts, as you say: subsidies for different sectors. This is essentially to silence them and to sustain them during a very complex phase.

But the legitimacy of this pandemic was not even confirmed by the PCR test from the very beginning. So that’s 125 cases in Canada on March 9. That’s 44,279 cases worldwide for a population outside of China of 6.4 billion. It’s the height of ridiculousness.

And then I have to say one thing: the mortality and morbidity figures have been manipulated from the start. This brings me to something that’s very important in the Quebec context. This is a directive from the Ministry of Health. Read it carefully. The probable cause of death in Quebec is COVID-19, test or no test; no autopsy allowed. I would like to ask the health workers if this really means anything. This directive was sent out in April 2020 when there were virtually no cases of COVID-19 in Quebec and Canada. Well, if there were any, there was certainly no underlying mortality because- Well, anyway, look at the WHO definition of COVID-19: it’s something similar to the seasonal flu-they’re the ones who say this-and there can be complications for a certain percentage [of the population], on the order of 10 to 20 per cent.


But anyway, they say probable cause of death-you don’t die from COVID-19; you die from the vaccine, yes-but probable cause of death is COVID-19, test or no test, no autopsy allowed. That’s a tad bit of a governmental diagnosis, François Legault. But for now, I’ll proceed to the Canadian press’s interpretation.

I believe that this date came just one week after the government directive was issued. And then overnight, at the beginning of April, 44.9 per cent of deaths in Quebec were attributed to COVID-19! The leading cause of death in Quebec: COVID-19! Look at the graph. I think it was La Presse that published it. They didn’t even ask themselves where this kind of analysis came from. And nobody saw that it was a lie, but it is the pinnacle of lies: 44.9 per cent when in reality, just a few weeks earlier, there were practically no cases. We’re not talking here about recorded deaths in Quebec or in Canada.

So that’s the beginning of this fundamental crisis affecting us. And I conclude that there has never been a pandemic. And those people who refer to the virus should ask themselves: the PCR test doesn’t detect viruses-especially if you do it at a magnification threshold of 35, at which point you see absolutely nothing-and the results of this PCR test are invalid, and this is recognized at the official level by the WHO and the CDC.

But there’s another element. Initially, it was called 2019-nCoV. That’s right, the name of the virus was 2019-nCoV which, it turns out, is exactly the same name that was used in the [Event] 201 simulation that was held in October, which included participants from intelligence services, health executives, virologists, et cetera. And they ran a simulation of a pandemic two/three months before the actual event. And by the way, many people were at that Event 201, including the director of China’s CDC, George Gao Fu.

Well, firstly, it’s called 2019 nCoV-the “n” stands for “new coronavirus”-and later, it was changed to SARS-CoV-2. The name of the virus changed completely. Where did this SARS-CoV-2 come from? Has anyone asked? But I’ll tell you- And it invalidates virtually every statement made by the governments from the start.

SARS-CoV-2 is modelled on the SARS virus of 2003.


And the Berlin Institute of Virology, which was commissioned by the Gates Foundation, recommended this to the WHO and it was done. The WHO declared, “We haven’t isolated the new virus, but we do have a virus that’s virtually identical, and we’re going to use that as a term of reference.” That’s right. And then they took the 2003 SARS-1 virus as a point of reference and inserted it into the PCR test. So when you get a PCR test, although they’re genetic sequences, they’re genetic sequences that relate to a virus dating back to 2003.

And I wonder why and how they were able to say that the new one was similar to the one from 2003 while at the same time saying: “We’ve never done an isolation.” You can read all about it in the Drosten Report from the Berlin Institute of Virology. It was very generously paid for by Gates, and then it was integrated. There are patenting issues. I can’t say anything precise about it, but it’s certain there’s fraud behind it, that SARS-CoV-2 is there for a particular reason related to intellectual property, and so on.

Please note that all statements about variants, whether Delta or Omicron, et cetera, are based on PCR test results. And the PCR test can’t detect either the virus or the variants, so all these statements-as far as I’m concerned-are totally false. They’re part of the fear campaign. So I think first of all, of course, that there’s a trajectory, but what’s absolutely fundamental is that this PCR test is what we would call a “smoking gun.”

And the number of positive cases is increasing because we’ve ordered billions of tests from China, and so on. We have all the equipment but, in fact, China is collaborating at the level of the pharmaceutical companies-the Chinese “Big Pharma”-because they are able to produce. Take the case of Canada: we’ve bought 290 million antigen and home-antigen tests for a population of 38 million. That’s about seven antigen tests per person. Inevitably, this leads to an increase in testing, et cetera. I won’t go into the details of this but it’s important to realize: initially, the statistics were falsified, the fear campaign was pushed, and also this virus is undetectable with a PCR test-impossible. I should mention that the inventor of the test died mysteriously in August 2019 but the causes of his death remain unknown.

But there’s a new development. I’ve already talked about the economic crisis and the third pillar. I won’t go into detail but the economic and social consequences are on an unprecedented scale. It’s not strictly a public health crisis and I think doctors should appreciate that. There’s a lot at stake.


I must say that what concerns me as an economist-and I’ve been working with doctors for the last 30 or 40 years-is that when someone loses their job, is isolated, or driven to starvation as a result of global lockdown measures, it inevitably has repercussions on mortality and morbidity. That’s clear. And therefore, it’s not just the virus that causes this or that consequence. It’s the fact that, for example, people are isolated; they’re wearing masks; they’re not allowed to talk to their neighbors. And what does that create? Mortality, morbidity, and mental health [issues].

I’ve tried to document mental health as well-so drug-related deaths, alcoholism, and so on. We already had these figures in 2020 but they gradually became distorted and we no longer know exactly what’s going on. I’d now like to move on to the third stage.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
Professor, allow me to interrupt you. You talk a lot about the economic consequences and I’d like to ask you a question. You certainly have colleagues who are economists: What has been the reaction of your economist colleagues? Because what you’re telling us today before the Inquiry is enormous and I’d like to know what they think, according to your knowledge, if you have this knowledge.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
I have people in my profession whom I respect enormously. But I haven’t seen a single economist who has said that lockdowns-which were presented as a solution to the pandemic; shutting down the world economy isn’t a solution- So anyway, I haven’t seen a single economist who has really addressed the issue, so far as I know. As such, the profession itself will deal with the crisis in the aftermath. The fact that financial analysts have said, “Ah, it’s the virus that caused the stock markets to crash,” is nonsense. I know how stock markets work. Firstly, they’re manipulated, and the enrichment that was triggered in the wake of this lockdown is documented. It’s in the book. But there are studies done by an institute in Washington that have documented the impacts on the concentration of wealth, on the multi-billionaires, et cetera. It’s clear that this crisis favours the financial class. There’s no doubt about it.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
For people who don’t have this knowledge of the markets, of the stock market, could you provide just a few more specifics on how someone with this prior knowledge would achieve the enrichment you’re talking about, just to be a little more concrete?

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Well okay, without getting into the intricacies of these transactions, let’s just say that Bill Gates had prior knowledge of what Tedros was going to say-and I’m sure it’s probably him who told [Tedros] what to say-and he has 60 per cent of his assets on the New York Stock Exchange, and the derivatives market is known, so you speculate. But those who make money from speculation are those who have prior knowledge; we use the term “insider information” or “prior knowledge.” He had prior knowledge of what Tedros was going to say: that’s clear.

That day, he made a fortune. But it’s not just him: it’s the whole apparatus. And so you have institutions like BlackRock, which is dominated by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and so on. Well, they’re involved in these financial operations. In derivatives trading, for example, we talk about “naked short-selling,” okay? It’s a technical term.


For those of you who lost money on the stock markets on February 20, you will know. It’s clear. If you had prior knowledge of what Tedros was going to say-which was based on a 1,076-case imbecility: “the windows are closing, we’re very close to disaster,” et cetera-you would have made a fortune!

Louis Olivier Fontaine
This is what is known as short-selling, if I understood correctly?

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Yes. There are very sophisticated mechanisms and no regulation. And that was the product of changes made at the end of the Clinton administration in 1999. Major reforms were made to the banking system allowing large financial institutions to integrate speculative operations with commercial operations. In short, there’s a whole debate about this, but I have to say that, for sure, my colleagues haven’t pointed it out. They come up with the imbecility of saying: “Ah, it’s the virus that caused the stock market crash.” That’s a fraudulent statement; it’s propaganda and it’s false. I said that because- Well, maybe I’m wrong too, I don’t know.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
Professor, what do you think would be the likely explanation for your colleagues’ silence, if I were to ask you to speculate on probable causes?

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Well, listen, economics is a field with all kinds of contradictions in terms of comprehension. You could say that a market mechanism exists, it certainly does, but so do the actions of the players and that’s how I’ve always analyzed it. For example, people who actively comprehend financial issues are much more likely to say, “No, it was so-and-so who caused the disaster.”

I’ve been studying these financial operations for a number of years: For example how, in Asian countries, the so-called Asian crisis led to the collapse of national currencies- But that’s a bit off topic. What I can say is that the lockdown itself was certainly not a solution to a pandemic that did not exist. But neither was it a solution if you suppose that it [the pandemic] did exist. It became existent with the fear campaign, et cetera. So in a way, in facing a pandemic, it becomes necessary to ensure that the economy is not affected because it is the very foundation of our resources, et cetera.

Right now in Montreal, we can look at the infrastructure situation: the entire urban landscape is being altered, farmers are going bankrupt, and so on. All this started on March 11, 2020. It’s a part of our lives and something that preceded the vaccine. I’ll try not to be too long, but this is the next stage in this crisis: the vaccine is presented as a solution. It’s presented as a solution to a pandemic that never happened.

You may argue with me but, in my view, there are two smoking guns. One is the PCR test that doesn’t validate. I’m not questioning the existence of the virus; I’m saying it [the PCR test] doesn’t detect the virus: it detects anything at all.


And secondly, the vaccine has absolutely nothing to do with the virus. It’s mRNA: it’s a vaccine that modifies the genetic make-up, which has consequences. I won’t go into the medical details but I’d like to point out a number of things on this subject. This is also the second smoking gun.

December 2020 was the launch of the vaccine. The Pfizer company undertook an internal study, a confidential report with a sampling of about forty-something thousand in different countries; and they looked at the period between the middle of December and the end of February. And please note that in most cases, the effects of the vaccine are felt much later, not immediately.

Pfizer’s report was confidential. It was shared with government bodies and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in the United States. But if you look at this report-and many doctors and medical officials have looked at this report in detail-1,200 adverse effects are categorized therein. There are mortality and morbidity rates associated with the incidence that they collected during a relatively short period-between December 15, let’s say, and February 28. That’s what they indicate in the report.

And they now have a report that has been made public thanks to a legal procedure in the United States, namely the Freedom of Information Act. It has been made public. It’s never been mentioned in the media and it seems that many doctors don’t know about it. But in short, for me, this report is what you might call “from the horse’s mouth,” and it provides documentation in a coherent and scientific way. There’s subcontracting there but it’s the Pfizer report, so they can’t say, “Oh no, it’s peer-reviewed” or “it’s not quite that” or “they’re conspirators.” No, it’s their report.

So here you have the accounting: it’s just an extract from a graph. We have it in several of our texts on Global Research and the Centre for Research on Globalization. If you look at this report in detail, you’ll come to the conclusion that-based on the numbers between the middle of December 2020 and February 28, 2021, certainly-all the data is there to state this vaccine is dangerous and leads to mortality.


And insofar as it’s applied on a planetary scale, it is inevitably a crime against humanity. There’s no other way to put it.

But I’d like to make the distinction that by February 28, 2021, Pfizer had a document in its possession demonstrating that this vaccine was certainly not a solution against the alleged virus. Rather, through the adverse effects and underlying mortality, it constituted a drug that was dangerous and deadly. I call it the “killer vaccine.” It’s a killer vaccine, and that is a label based on Pfizer’s report. So in early March, Pfizer knew the results of this confidential report and should have said, “We won’t go ahead with marketing because our own data tell us that this is going to have mortality and morbidity consequences.” In other words, up until February 28, it’s involuntary manslaughter. But when this vaccine is imposed on the whole of humanity, it becomes a crime. It’s the transition from manslaughter to murder from a legal standpoint.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
So Professor Chossudovsky, those are your conclusions. That’s your interpretation of this report, if I’ve understood correctly.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Yes. I’m not a medical doctor but I can certainly read; and I’m in contact with a lot of doctors and scientists and we catalog individual cases. We know because we live in communities; we know that so-and-so has been affected. But think about it.

The next step in my reflection is twofold. One is that Pfizer has just released its annual report for 2022 and they made, after paying all the-well, they have to fund all kinds of people-but they made $100 billion in profit in one year. One hundred billion dollars profit in one year! And then if we look at the consequences of this vaccine, you could say that the killer vaccine allowed them to make an absolutely phenomenal amount of money. First of all, it’s a crime against humanity. It’s profit-driven, so it’s all about making money.

And I have to speak because no government and no media in Canada or elsewhere has had the courage to point out that Pfizer had criminal, not civil, action against them. Lawyers are very aware of what a civil class action is but when it’s criminal, in the U.S., it involves the Department of Justice. And similarly in Canada, it would be His Majesty’s government, so I’m talking about King Charles.


So it was a Department of Justice action against Pfizer. And there was also a provisional clause in there. They weren’t put in jail but were told that for four years, “We’ll be watching you.” But in reality, it was Pfizer that was watching the American state entities.

So first, we have a company that is aware of the impact of its vaccine because it conducted this confidential study. The confidential study should be on François Legault’s desk or Trudeau’s desk by now, but in any case, they should know about it. So anyway, and I’ll end on this: When we extrapolate all the individual cases we receive, that we’re aware of-mainly in Quebec, in Canada, but we have friends everywhere-and they tell us, “There’s so-and-so who died unexpectedly.” We’re currently looking at Dr. William Makis’ reports on an almost daily basis as well as those of Dr. McCullough. They report these cases: pilots, health care workers, all sectors of the population, infants. This graph shows the number of vaccine doses over a period ending in September 2021. Now, I’ve extrapolated this graph. By March 2023, 14 billion doses had been administered worldwide for a world population of 8 billion which means an average of 1.75 doses per person.

It’s a question of finding out or analyzing what this implies at a global level [in terms of] the impact on mortality and morbidity. And here-and I’ll end on this point-we now have another trend because of the vast sums of money involved. The distinguished President of the European Commission, Madame von der Leyen, formerly Germany’s Finance Minister, is now negotiating 4.5 billion doses for the European Union! 4.5 billion doses for the European Union for around 450 million people, so we multiply by ten: that’s ten per person. It’s never-ending.

And then, of course, there’s the debate on the pandemic protocol that will be debated at the WHO in the next few weeks to establish a mandatory vaccine system, and so on. But I’d like to leave the “what’s the future” question for later because this crisis isn’t over yet.

The fifth pillar is debt. There is excessive debt at all levels of society and on a global scale, and creditors are essentially able to dictate national policy.


There’s the question of the welfare state, health services, privatization and societal projects, and the move towards a state that would appear to be totalitarian on a national and international scale.

So there you have it. My book is available for free as a PDF. I’m sorry, it’s in English. It’s been translated into Japanese. The Japanese translated it and released it last April. And I hope to release it in French soon, but I’m having a lot of trouble. I haven’t had any offers from publishing houses because they don’t like the content. But that’s another subject for debate. But I’m offering it as evidence for the Inquiry.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
Thank you very much, Professor. I’d now like to give the floor to the commissioners, who may have some questions for you.

Commissioner Massie
Thank you very much for your testimony. I had a question about the graph you presented, which I had missed: at the start of the pandemic, that COVID was the leading cause of death in Quebec, accounting for 44 per cent of cases. My question for you is this: This graph was based on figures that aggregated mortality on what basis? Daily, monthly, annualized? What do we know?

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Look, coming back to the Ministry of Health directive. It’s based on lies, okay? Probable cause of death: COVID, no test required, no autopsy allowed. So what is it? They say, “The person died of COVID.” Anyway, it’s not- A death from COVID: how do you establish that? You have to make a medical diagnosis. You can’t just say “probable cause, blah, blah, blah,” okay? This directive comes from the Ministry of Health, ask them.

But it’s clear that from one day to the next, it can’t be 44.9 per cent. In one week, the mortality rate went from zero to 44.9 per cent [COVID deaths]. I didn’t invent this, La Presse did. Where do these figures come from? They come from a lie told by the Ministry of Health. Now I’m going to tell you that in the United States-because I looked at the United States situation-they say “underlying.” I’m going to say this in English because these are medical terms: “the underlying cause of death, COVID-19, more often than not.” This is the directive given to doctors and institutions. So these figures are totally invented. They’re totally made up. Overnight, 44.9 per cent of [deaths in] the Quebec population dies of COVID?

Well, of course, it’s temporal. It’s not going to stay like that forever, but at the time they published it- And ask La Presse: La Presse got the data from the Ministry of Health.

Commissioner Massie
Thank you for your clarification. Any questions, Janice? You can probably translate it yourself since you’re completely bilingual.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Okay, it’s fine. I’m an Anglophone.

Commissioner Kaikkonen
[In English] Okay, it’s a big translation.


It’s been repeatedly stated during testimony that liberal democracy cannot survive if the law is weaponized against its citizens to persecute citizens with dissenting voices and dissenting views, but what you have described goes a little bit further. It reminds me of the story of Doctor Faustus, when those in privileged places of power made a deal with the devil-or could have made a deal with the devil in this case. But in this case, exasperated by corruption, incompetence, and greed. I’d like to believe-and I may be naive in this-that there is a place where this country can come together to restore constitutional foundations under the supremacy of God and rule of law. And you have stated it is not finished, so that’s kind of my concerning point. Have you given any thought as to how hard-working citizens in this country can engage in peaceful civil disobedience that can reverse what many see as being destructive for our country going forward?

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
As I understand it, in the final analysis, this crisis isn’t over. And the question is: How do we act to reverse the process? If I have to answer that question, first of all, freedom of expression is absolutely fundamental- freedom of debate, as we’re doing here. There are certainly different visions, as we’ve seen. But I also think that truth is absolutely a fundamental instrument, that is, truth that is corroborated, not opinions about truth.

But I believe that the first step is to understand that some of these decisions are criminal in nature. And it’s about civil society retaking possession of state institutions. We see this in various government bodies. I personally believe that demonstrations and protests are not the solution. Because instead of protesting, we should question. That is what matters. And you can have healthcare workers or pensioners in France holding demonstrations, but that doesn’t solve the problem.

What we need to do is question the legitimacy of the decision-makers: the legitimacy of those who made these decisions. Madame von der Leyen, for example. It’s also our own governments. I gave you the mortality figures that Quebec published, didn’t I? It’s obvious that this was to create a fear campaign. And so they attributed mortality to COVID-19. We can’t even do that kind of tabulation because we’re not able to differentiate with PCR testing. We can’t; it could be something else.

But right now, we have governments that are waging a campaign of fear. They’re forcing us to take the vaccine, so it’s not a matter of protesting. It’s not a question of constitutional law either. We’re beyond that. The vaccine must be stopped immediately. That has to be clear. And it has to be clear based on the data inside this Pfizer document. And we have all the data. In Europe, it’s the EMA [European Medicines Agency] and in the United States, it’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]. We have a huge number of documents: peer-reviewed studies, specific studies, et cetera, to say this vaccine is dangerous and must be stopped immediately.


And it’s not a question of saying, “We’re going to give people the right to accept it or reject it.” And furthermore, we have an economic and social shift that’s based on supporting the pharmaceutical industry rather than emphasizing maintenance of services, et cetera. Healthcare is clearly being privatized. The state is so indebted; and it’s indebted to creditors; and it’s indebted to Pfizer too because they operate together. So I think we necessarily need to target the legitimacy of the decision-makers. And protesting says, “We don’t agree with you but we don’t question your legitimacy.”

So the legitimacy of decision-makers-whether in government, high finance, or the pharmaceutical industry-is what needs to be targeted. And of course, everything behind this project-and here I’m speaking as an economist-is based on the concentration of economic power on an unprecedented scale. There is a concentration of economic power; and this financial and banking power is taking over the real economy. And that means that even big corporations like Air Canada are bankrupt and they will be taken over.

And we’re seeing the whole economic landscape now: SMEs being liquidated; a desire to consolidate farmers’ land; and there are other agendas in there but I won’t go into those complexities. But I think if we formulate it with an understanding of what’s at stake in this crisis, then we’re are able to confront them and to not accept their legitimacy.

We’re not going to say, “Monsieur Legault, could you do this and that?” No, we don’t accept their legitimacy because they’re such liars. Okay, I know this is controversial-but anyway, that’s my opinion.

Commissioner Kaikkonen
Thank you very much.

Louis Olivier Fontaine
So Professor Chossudovsky, on behalf of the Inquiry, I’d like to thank you very much for your testimony as an economist. You brought a unique perspective that, to my knowledge, had not been brought to the Inquiry’s attention. So we thank you very much and wish you every success in the future. Thank you very much.

Dr. Michel Chossudovsky
Thank you.


Final Review and Approval: Erin Thiessen, November 13, 2023.

The evidence offered in this transcript is a true and faithful record of witness testimony given during the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) hearings. The transcript was prepared by members of a team of volunteers using an “intelligent verbatim” transcription method, and further translated from the original French.

For further information on the transcription process, method, and team, see the NCI website: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/about-these-translations/


Une excellente présentation du rôle de WHO, de la manipulation des données, de l’effondrement économique dû aux confinements et du rôle des médias dans l’instauration de la peur et du récit de la pandémie. Il aborde également les résultats observés à la suite de la vaccination.

Suivre la CeNC sur nos chaînes de médias sociaux et nos podcasts:

Follow the NCI on Facebook
Follow the NCI on Twitter
Follow the NCI on TikTok
Follow the NCI on Rumble
Follow the NCI on YouTube
Follow the NCI on Facebook
Follow the NCI on TikTok
Follow the NCI on YouTube
Follow the NCI on Spotify
Follow the NCI on Tune-In Radio
Follow the NCI on Twitter
Follow the NCI on Rumble
Follow the NCI on Apple Podcasts
Follow the NCI on PodBean
Follow the NCI on iHeartRadio