Joanne of Arc's blog

By Joanne of Arc (Quebec Life Coalition) - Photo: Documentary "CHSLD - Je me souviens"/Joanne of Arc/Adobe Stock

Dr. Robert Béliveau is a retired family physician. He is one of the experts who participated in Sylvain Laforest's documentary "CHSLD - Je me souviens" [Long Term Care Homes– I Remember]. This documentary, which has been circulating on social media networks since September 30, was made to pay tribute to the 6 700 victims of Long Term Care Homes in Quebec, who were seriously affected from spring 2020 to spring 2021.

The purpose of this production is, above all, to remember that it is our duty, both collectively and individually, to uphold the dignity and sanctity of all human life. One of the topics that was discussed in the documentary was the mandatory vaccination of seniors in Long Term Care Homes, even against their will.

In the medical community, opinions were and remain divided on this subject. On the other hand, Dr. Béliveau clearly states his position in the documentary.

"The first thing we have to realize is that we are currently in a system that is completely corrupt [...] It doesn’t mean that all doctors are corrupt. You have to take responsibility and not let yourself be blindly dictated to by others who have conflicts of interest. The NIH, the CDC, Health Canada, they are infiltrated by Big Pharmas. There should be total independence and Pharmas should not be involved at all. There are still doctors who see things clearly. "

Dr. Béliveau also agreed to speak with Quebec Life Coalition at the private screening of the documentary that took place in Montreal. The following is our interview.

Joanne for QLC: What was your main motivation for participating in this documentary?

Dr. Béliveau: My motivation is very simple; I am a retired family physician. I have the opportunity to express myself a little more freely than my colleagues who are not retired, in a context where speech is currently threatened, because there is no longer any freedom of speech. Also, I have always been concerned for others, it is at the center of my life. I have children and grandchildren and I want to leave them a world in which it will be good to live. At the moment, I don't think we are going in the right direction. When rights become privileges that must be guaranteed with a vaccination status, we are not going in the right direction.

Joanne for QLC: Certainly, society is not going in the right direction and is becoming more divided than ever before. You also mentioned a splitting of ties that has occurred for you during this time of health crisis. Can you tell me a little more about that?

Dr. Béliveau: In my case, there were a few friendships where a real distance occured. Malicious words were shared that were related to the violence and intolerance that was coming from above. All non-vaccinated were seen as those who were preventing the resolution of the crisis. As if everything would be solved if everyone were able to obey and submit to what "our experts" imposed (rather than proposed). But this is a total illusion.

Joanne for QLC: The documentary presented us with many shocking facts, such as mandatory vaccinations, followed by the fact that autopsies were banned in Long Term Care Homes during this period... How do you explain this to people?

Dr. Béliveau: You'd have to ask the people who banned it. When things are banned, like a contract that remains confidential with pharmaceutical companies, it is clearly because there is something to hide and they are afraid of what they might find during an autopsy. The autopsy will reveal things, because we can see under the microscope the damage that it can cause to the heart, the brain, all the organs, etc. This could induce concerns in the population that one did not want to provoke to promote a better acceptance of this vaccine solution by the population. I don't see any other explanation than that.

Joanne for QLC: [I'm playing devil's advocate] Was the reason for the ban on autopsies to not facilitate the spread of the virus?

Dr. Béliveau: Usually a respiratory virus is transmitted because someone coughs. I have never seen a dead person cough, so... [he laughs] a virus doesn't live inside a dead body.

Joanne for QLC: This confirms that there is something weird going on here...

Joanne for QLC: Let me continue. What is your opinion today on the vaccine as a retired family physician?

Dr. Béliveau: I knew from the start that this substance that was passed off as a vaccine was a gene therapy that had never been manufactured or marketed for humans. Then, someone took advantage of a golden opportunity to put these products on the market.

Dr. David Martin looks at the patents on the market and assesses their potential commercial validity and is particularly familiar with those that relate to the value of mRNA technologies for the pharmaceutical industry. And these patents have been around for over 20 years. So when you've been doing studies for 20 years and nothing has come to the market, it's because there were barriers to market, either inefficacy or significant side effects. So when all of these constraints were lifted due to a "health emergency", the adoption of this technology was pushed forward, to the point of being necessary to preserve one's employment or one’s basic rights.

Joanne for QLC: What do you think about the management of the health crisis?

Dr. Béliveau: I think it was the political management that led to the crisis. And this crisis was fed by PCR tests. The PCR tests were done with 45 cycles of amplification while the WHO has said that at more than 24, the risk of false positives is much too high. These are tests that don't give us the right information. Then they continued to ask people to get tested, which preserved and maintained the fear in the population. Then all they wanted to do was to generate fear, because when people are afraid, they seek protection. And the only protection that was promoted and imposed was: the mRNA injection.

"We have lost the right to treat people with the tools at our disposal. Dr. Didier Raoult, a famous clinical microbiologist came forward at that time and proclaimed that there is something that works very well and it's called hydroxychloroquine." - Dr. Robert Béliveau

Dr. Didier Raoult - Photo: "CHSLD – Je me souviens"

Joanne for QLC: Why is it that there is no possible alternative to the vaccine, such as the use of hydroxychloroquine?

Dr. Béliveau: There are no drugs that have been considered useful or effective. Then, those that had claims to be useful were disqualified by poorly done studies that were published, among others, in the Lancet (a prestigious journal) and then withdrawn because it was a study that had been fabricated. This created a scandal that was called "Lancetgate", but the governments used this to say, "no to hydroxychloroquine". It is important to know that once a substance is judged to be effective, the marketing authorization conditional on a health emergency is withdrawn. Thus, they would have lost the right to market the famous vaccine; so they have organized themselves so that nothing, neither hydroxychloroquine nor ivermectin, would be used. Therefore, doctors were forbidden to prescribe these safe drugs. When there are huge profits to be made, money is more important than product safety. The rest is just manipulation of minds and hearts, propaganda like I have never seen. The professional orders have prevented all doctors from using all these products, except the vaccination.

Joanne for QLC: Can you say more about this last point?

Dr. Béliveau: There should always be a discussion between the patient and the physician, to talk about the balance of advantages and disadvantages, the precautionary principle, and our professional orders have instead imposed on us to follow the recommendations of Public Health to the letter. Why? Simply to be able to put this "vaccine" (which is not a vaccine) on the market. We thought this vaccine was our salvation, with absolutely incomplete tampered data, with biased studies that were not done on the populations that were most likely to benefit from it, namely the elderly and vulnerable.

Joanne for QLC: Can you say more about the poorly done studies?

Dr. Beliveau: When they did these preliminary studies, which are still ongoing, they chose extremely healthy people as subjects and excluded sick or elderly people. When the group [to be] studied should have been the one that had the most potential benefit, which was the elderly with comorbidities. Obviously, for the Pharmas, the objective is marketing, and the condition was to achieve a reduction of more than 50% in the diagnosis of Covid-19 in those vaccinated compared to those who received the placebo. It should be noted that in absolute numbers, it was less than 1% who received the injection. Another way to talk about it is that there had to be 119 people vaccinated for one to benefit. There are lots of things that have been poorly done. The New England Journal of Medicine published the article and the FDA accepted that. Health Canada has also agreed to it after evaluation by their committee. We still don't know the composition of what is injected and if it can modify the DNA in the medium and long term.

Dr. Béliveau in the documentary "CHSLD - Je me souviens"

Joanna for QLC: What does the code of ethics say about injecting new substances into our bodies, i.e. a new vaccine?

Dr. Béliveau: In our code of ethics, there is free and informed consent for ANY substance. People must know what they are being subjected to and that there are potential drawbacks. If you get a mammogram, there is a potential downside. We need to talk to people about that. Before you put people through any procedure or treatment, whether it is preventive or curative, you must give them the facts so they can make an informed decision.

Joanna for QLC: How is it that there has been such a division in the medical community on this issue?

Dr. Béliveau: Medicine is a soft science, a human being is complex. You have to know that, it's not an exact science. You have to let the person decide, he or she has to give approval. The doctor is there to provide information. When it comes to treatment, that's when there can be conflict between the doctor and the patient; the patient is the one who has the final say. There can be opinions and debate. It's healthy that there can be disagreement, and everyone can express their views and the doctor can say "oops, careful here, the danger seems greater than the benefit to this person". Medicine is a place for debate. We should not be stuck in a protocol, it is a practice guide. Here, what we are doing (with the vaccine) is to generalize and systematize without taking into account the risk for that specific individual.

Joanna for QLC: What do you think about mandatory vaccination in the education system?

Dr. Béliveau: I recently met a young girl who had to be double-vaccinated to be accepted into the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University. At her age, she has no risk of contracting the virus. We now know that vaccination does not prevent the virus from being contracted or transmitted. What's the point? If we really follow the science, I don't see why we would impose this vaccination. It is a useless vaccine, because it is not necessary for the person who is not at risk, and potentially harmful. The doctor is not there to impose, dictate, threaten, intimidate people. And he must refrain from harming, from making people sick. We know today that these injections are neither effective nor safe, and yet our medical schools still impose this. It makes no sense. We follow what public health dictates, blindly. Regardless of the person's values, their perception of usefulness or necessity.

Vaccine or euthanasia? - Photo: Adobe Stock

Joanna for QLC: What is a more balanced way to approach this vaccine dilemma?

Dr. Béliveau: You have to accept the debate. I say, there is no consensus in medicine. Because "consensus" leads to censorship, it leads to obligation and then to imposition, whereas we should always preserve the right to free and informed consent. Then if we don't know yet, because we have no hindsight, we have to say so. If we don't know the side effects, because we're in the experimental phase, we say that too. Most people don't even know that. They think it's been accepted, approved, as it's always done, so everything's fine.

You have to keep in mind that normally it takes about 10 to 12 years to get a vaccine to market. This is the normal process to ensure that there are no significant side effects and we have completely bypassed this. Watch out!

Joanna for QLC: What is usually checked in these marketing studies for a vaccine?

Dr. Béliveau: In Phase I studies, they first look at the biodistribution of the product in mice and other animals, where the substance gets into the body. Then, its impact on pregnancy, on the foetus. Does the substance cross the placental barrier or not? the blood-brain barrier? etc. If the danger seems acceptable, we can start the evaluation in a small population of healthy people (phase II). Then, if all goes well, the group is enlarged and, in the case of vaccination, in tens of thousands of people (phase III) and finally, the beneficial effects and also the side effects are evaluated in phase IV. These studies are laborious, rigorous and last between 10 and 12 years. But there was only one biodistribution study done in Japan about 12 years ago, translated by Byram Bridle who is a researcher at the University of Guelph in Ontario. Then it was not re-evaluated afterwards, the company did not think it was necessary.

So when you inject this stuff, does it stay in the shoulder or does it go to the lymph nodes in the armpit or does it go throughout the body or to specific organs? We now know that the Spike protein that is produced by our body following the injection is distributed throughout the body. It can go through, go to the brain, the ovaries, the testicles, the heart, the liver, etc. And this protein is toxic. That's why it can have side effects on the nervous system, on the heart, on the ovaries and testicles, on the liver, there are many organs involved... and on the blood vessels of course. It can lead to thrombosis, embolisms, a whole cascade of side effects that can occur.

"the last moments, the last days of life, are sacred" - Dr. Béliveau - Photo: Adobe Stock

Joanna for QLC: What do you think about vaccinating the children?

Dr. Béliveau: It's a CATASTROPHE. A crime. That's what I think. Especially since we are in the tail end of the pandemic. Most children have already been in contact with the virus, so they have already become naturally immune. Nature is always easier to copy than to surpass. It is better than science. There is a blind trust in science, as if science was superior to God the Father, the creator and nature. We are putting children at risk by vaccinating them when most of them are not at risk from the Corona-19 virus. For me, this is criminal. Parents need to know that when they decide to vaccinate their children, that their children may have fertility problems in 5, 10 or 20 years. They could be very frustrated and angry with their parents; even if the parents made a decision with the best of intentions and following the guidelines. Parents need to know that they are playing Russian roulette.

Joanna for QLC: I imagine that the same effects can be present in young adults who get vaccinated?

Dr. Béliveau: The same thing, plus they risk myocarditis or pericarditis, but they were forced to get the vaccine so they could play sports with their friends. To me, this is a terrible violence on the mental and physical health of our young people. I consider it criminal.

Joanna for QLC: To conclude our interview, what is the most important message of the documentary?

Dr. Béliveau: For me, it is that we must treat people humanely, and respectfully, which has not been done. All moments of life are precious, and the last moments, the last days of life, are sacred. Regardless of the person's condition. We must give the persons who are nearing the end of their life the right to have their family caregivers to accompany them, to be present in these moments. These are unique moments, when we say goodbye, ask for forgiveness, reconcile, thank each other, cry, laugh, sing and we must close the link. It is inconceivable to be deprived of these moments. There are perhaps essential words that could have been said, or a caress that could have soothed, a kiss, a hug that is the first and last language. The end of life must be humanized, not medicalized. It has always been a sacred moment for me, and it must remain a sacred moment.

Besides, the risk was not that high, both for the dying and the caregivers, but, again and again, it is fear that has imposed itself and dictated all the rules and constraints that have been imposed. The fear of dying, the fear of suffering, the fear of transmitting the disease has deprived many of our seniors of these moments of intimacy with their loved ones in these last and so intense emotions. Dying in anguish, absence, isolation, thirst and abandonment must never be tolerated again. Death must be sweet, peaceful and surrounded by love.