By Russ Cooper ——Bio and Archives--October 23, 2026
He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit. Proverbs 12:17
Expert testimony tabled during the Allison Inquiry was a gut punch to any Canadian who still believes in their own, public-facing institutions. What else to think as witnesses like Dr. Jessica Rose laid out indisputable data, some of which was provided by Covid-19 mNRA “vaccine” manufacturers themselves, that detailed severe side effects that were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theory and left unaddressed.
This very telling shelving of critical health information, by both manufactures and government regulators, was expanded upon in a dedicated “In Hot” interview that yours truly had with Dr. Rose. For the good doctor, it wasn’t just a matter of failing to report safety signals associated with the mNRA injections, it was also a matter of placing “secret” security classifications on information related to the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program (VIAP) (formerly the Vaccine Injury Support Program, or VISP). Then there was the tucking away of Canadian data related to vaccine adverse effects into a government vault for 15 years!
Dr. Jessica Rose joined C3RF for an “In Hot” interview to discuss the data, as it has been allowed to be known, on the adverse effects of mandated Covid-19 shots. She is well placed to do so given her doctorate in computational biology and her long-term studies on the adverse side effects of mRNA “vaccines”. In this interview she details her research findings on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as she did during her recent appearance at the Allison Inquiry on 09 Sep 2026, to reveal a startling, if not sinister, picture. This is a conversation with a brave professional that goes where your own governments wish you wouldn’t.
View! C3RF “In Hot” interview with Dr. Jessica Rose
Whatever the government is hiding it must be very serious. “Secret” classifications, in this case likely assigned in accordance with Canadian Treasury Board guidelines, require that the information protected, if disclosed, would “cause serious injury to the national interest”. One wonders how information related to a vaccine compensation program that is funded through the public purse could hurt the national interest so. Have the authorities who assigned such a classification on such information confused the national interest with the interests of a particular political party? And when it comes to locking away “vaccine” adverse event data for 15 years, are these same authorities protecting a national interest or just themselves from some sort of liability? Or from unwanted questions? Or maybe from being challenged in the next pandemic when they try to use the same public health protocols that proved to be an “abject failure” the first time they were employed in 2020?
The problem with keeping vaccine-related data and files out of the hands of everyday Canadians is that it negates the right of these same citizens to make an “informed consent” as to their use or non-use. The right to such information, particularly when it comes to experimental products like the mNRA injections, precedes the advent of Section 7 of our own Charter that promises “a right to life, liberty and security of the person”. Indeed, it arises from the Nazi atrocities committed in World War II against a variety of identifiable groups as found in the Nuremberg Trials of 1946. A horror-struck world, Canada included, would go on to sign the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to be followed by the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964. This latter declaration, ratified by Canada in 1975, commits to the “free and informed consent of Canadians participating in research activities such as the widespread administration of experimental Wuhan virus vaccines”. It goes without saying that Canada’s dismissive handling of Covid-19 vaccine data and files is irreconcilable with its Charter and international treaty obligations.
Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered? Jeremiah 8:22
Attempts to cover up inconvenient information related to the Wuhan virus pandemic, and the vaccines developed at “warp speed”, extend well beyond security classifications and vaults to include speech itself. At the core of such efforts is the preposterous sculpting of language. And so we saw, in the days leading up to the Wuhan virus crisis, a re-definition of the term “pandemic” and even “herd immunity” to make it easier to foist experimental mRNA “vaccines” on a misinformed public. In the case of “pandemic”, the term was redefined on the heels of a 2009 influenza outbreak from an event comprised of “enormous numbers of death and illness” to one in which a “new virus appears against which the human population has no immunity”. “Herd immunity”, on the other hand, was shamelessly reconfigured in the early days of the Wuhan virus crisis in 2020 to contradict concepts that were foundational to the science of immunology and “taught in 9th grade cell biology for probably 80 years”. This audacious and Orwellian shapeshifting of language was promulgated by none other than the World Health Organization (WHO).
The proof is in the pudding when it comes to the WHO’s complicity in rigging a globally mandated vaccination program. It would do away completely with any notion that natural or herd immunity was a thing that kept modern societies from reverting to medieval “hair on fire” solutions. The morphing of the concept of herd immunity is made clear in screen shots from the June and November 2020 issues of a WHO publication. In the former, “herd immunity” was the “indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection”. Compare this with a screen shot from the same publication in November of that same year that states, “’Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached”. The WHO’s diabolical mutation of the concept of herd immunity would prove fatal for Alberta resident Annette Lewis.
It mattered not that an unvaccinated Annette Lewis had natural immunity to the Wuhan virus when she was unceremoniously dumped from Alberta’s transplant list in 2021. She had been on the list since 2018 after being diagnosed with a terminal illness but the Alberta medical community, in line with misinformation issued by organizations like the WHO, would cite her vaccination status as a risk to herself and others in the transplant list pipeline. But was it true that vaccines prevented transmission or follow-on infection better than a natural immunity? A little bit of digging over the 2021-to-2023 timeframe in which her court cases took place would have revealed that the vaccines neither prevented transmission nor infection and that natural immunity was just as effective as the vaccines in reducing the risk of serious illness from Covid-19.
Instead, the medical community would accept the codswallop emanating from the WHO without so much as a peep even as it turned away a growing body of hands-on countervailing evidence from its own professionals. “Do no harm” had been consigned to the trash bins of history as had a proper definition of herd immunity. And Ms. Lewis would pay with her life.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12
Ms. Lewis would take her case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada which would bounce her request for review. All the way up the judicial chain she would be told that her case did not engage the Charter as it involved “clinical treatment decisions, in particular for doctors establishing preconditions for organ transplants.” One should not be surprised that our judiciaries place obstacles in the way of using our supreme law to protect the rights of individual citizens. After all, they have been affording governments a “margin of appreciation” when it comes to the latter’s reliance on WHO narratives to support their vaccine policies. Take the case that challenged Manitoba’s lockdown policies in 2021 when testimony from world renowned medical experts was turned aside to prevent the “second guessing of public health officials”. In effect, our courts have lined up solidly behind the WHO narratives and “modelling based on questionable assumptions” that Canadian governments have chosen to deify. The Charter would be circumvented as required in aid of such storylines.
The fact that courts could flimflam a citizen out of her “fundamental” Charter rights, including the one that guarantees “freedom of conscience”, should, in and of itself, be subject to challenge in the Lewis case. After all, how can the courts argue vaccine policies have nothing to do with a person’s Charter right to be protected from government overreach when it was that same government that “ordered the vaccines, imported them, created new regulations to authorize them, and then took significant measures to convince and coerce every Canadian to take multiple doses.” Wasn’t the government in a tremendous conflict of interest when it came to the experimental Wuhan virus vaccines? And was it a bridge too far to assume that pliant provincial governments would not use the medical services and personnel under their control to make policies that aligned with the political needs of a frenzied, partnered federal government? Given such potential conflicts up and down a socialized medical system, could governments really be considered to be at arm’s length in the case of Ms. Lewis?
By skirting the need to bring the Charter to bear on the individual rights issues raised by emergency measures, Canadian courts can be seen to be thumbing their noses at related legislation. At the federal level, for example, we see the Emergencies Act itself stipulating that “whereas the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” And in the case of all related provincial legislation we see a stated deference to the supremacy of the Charter. In the case of Ontario, for example, it is noted that needed measures will be carried out in “a manner that is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The problem with this nose-thumbing is that it ignores any need to “demonstrably justify” the infringement of a citizen’s civil liberties through a Section 1 analysis. An analysis that was so obviously required in the case of Annette Lewis. Accordingly, at the end of the day, we find ourselves in a Canada whose medical institutions are irreconcilable with informed consent, whose doctors are irreconcilable with “do no harm” and whose courts are irreconcilable with the concept of individual rights and freedoms. How long will Canadians put up with such discordances?
Your patronage makes a world of difference in the ability of C3RF to educate, advocate and act in service of preserving the individual and fundamental rights of all Canadians. Please consider clicking here to support C3RF today. And while you're considering making a difference, please follow C3RF on Facebook, on Twitter, on Gab, on Gettr and on our web site and share with friends our great content and a realistic outlook on the continuing battle for Charter rights in Canada. You can also view our social media archive here and view our videos here as well as on YouTube, on Rumble and on Odysee.
Major Russ Cooper (Ret'd)
President and CEO, C3RF
View Comments
Major Russ Cooper (Ret’d), Founding Member, Board Chair, President and CEO of Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms (C3RF).
Russ Cooper is retired from both the Royal Canadian Air Force and Air Canada. In his military career, he was a decorated CF18 combat pilot and served in several staff positions as a Director of major capital acquisition projects. In the civilian aviation sector, he complimented service as an international airliner pilot with national responsibilities in the field of post 9/11 civil aviation security. He is published internationally in this latter area.
Now fully retired from his follow-on career as a Human Factors Engineer and a Transport Canada Flight Test Pilot delegate, he is pursuing an abiding interest in the preservation of fundamental Canadian Charter rights. This latter pursuit has been prompted by his sense that these rights, hard-won by the sacrifice of Canadians past, are under attack and on the verge of being lost.