The Green Party's 'Unprofessional' 'Bully'
Dr. Anne-Marie Zajdlik's History Raises Concerns About Political Aspirations
During An Election, Character Carries More Weight Than Campaign Promises
Canada is in the middle of a snap election. It is a weakened country with a massively divided population thanks to politically-fueled hatred and division that reached fever-pitch levels during the declared COVID-19 pandemic. The vote on April 28th has major implications.
When considering who to vote for, promises stated on the campaign trail are, for most candidates, a poor indicator of their future performance in parliament; talk is cheap. Instead, evaluating a person’s historical ‘walk’, in the form of their demonstrated character, is more reliable.
When a person has an established history of behaviours that would be deleterious should they get elected into our federal parliament, this should be disclosed. Enter Dr. Anne-Marie Zajdlik, a candidate for Canada’s Green Party in the Guelph riding.
Online Character Assassinations Directed at Genuine Subject Matter Experts
During the declared COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Zajdlik became notorious for her antics in social media. She incessantly spewed rhetoric and resorted to applying negative labels to those whose opinions did not align with her own. Her posts often spread demonstrable misinformation, while lacking rationale and scientific rigor when summarily dismissing concerns raised by real experts. Worse, she seemed to delight in attempted character assassinations by defaming genuine subject matter experts as she strayed well outside her lane of knowledge.
It turned out that I was one of her favourite targets. Personally, I never delved into Dr. Zajdlik’s sordid world of social media. However, I also could not fully escape it because many members of the public who were outraged at her behaviour regularly informed me about her posts. Zajdlik’s utter lack of professionalism, profound immaturity, and propensity for spreading misinformation was embarrassing. I can confirm that she has never apologized to me, despite many of the concerns that I raised about COVID-19 having been proven many times over in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Influencing Public Health Policies While Promoting Censorship of Experts
Dr. Zajdlik had substantial influence over regional pandemic policies. She was friends with local medical officer of health, Dr. Nicola Mercer, and served on Mercer’s advisory committee. She supported censorship of experts with views that differed from the mainstream narrative, which has now proven to be based, at least in part, on lies and inaccurate data, with simultaneous lack of disclosure of information that was essential for proper informed consent.
I will never forget attending an online town hall meeting with Drs. Zajdlik and Mercer about COVID-19 policies and how they completely ignored my questions and those of several of my concerned colleagues, while cherry-picking narrative-promoting questions that were submitted later. Indeed, my colleagues and I tested this by submitting an ‘easy question’ towards the end, that was readily addressed before they ‘ran out of time’ for any additional questions.
It is important to note that Guelph instituted some of the most draconian policies in the country, including one that appeared in only a handful of school districts across all of Canada. It was an ‘isolated quarantine’ policy for school children that was to be implemented should any classmate receive a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. The policy failed to follow proper science and was nothing short of child abuse. The Toronto Sun published my concerns about it here. A local paper also reported it here.
A Physician and Informed Consent
Dr. Anne-Marie Zajdlik is a physician. I had some of her patients approach me at the height of the ‘COVID craziness’ to express concerns about how coercive she was being and how discouraged they were that she was attacking experts like me instead of engaging in reasonable discussions to learn about legitimate concerns. A particularly notable concern I heard from her patients was whether Zajdlik was providing proper informed consent for pregnant and breastfeeding women when pushing them to get COVID-19 shots.
The Supreme Court of Canada says the standard for informed consent is to be measured by what a reasonably thinking pregnant or breastfeeding woman would have expected to hear before consenting to receiving a COVID-19 shot.
Dr. Zajdlik, did you know that long after you pushed COVID-19 shots on pregnant and breastfeeding women, Health Canada stated the following in their response to Federal Order Paper Question 2163?…
“None of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted RCTs in pregnant/lactating women for regulatory evaluation. The Product Monographs included statements about the uncertainties related to pregnancy and lactation.“
“As indicated in the specific Product Monographs, it is noted that the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in pregnant women have not yet been established. No indication for use in pregnant or lactating women was sought by the vaccine sponsors or authorized by Health Canada.“
“Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women.“
…what about the manufacturers stating in their product monographs that “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY during pregnancy”, “No data are available yet regarding the use of COMIRNATY during breast-feeding“, and “A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded“?
…or, did you rely on the following product insert that accompanied the vials to inform these women?…
Do you think women would have wanted to know these things as part of the decision-making process? I could have ensured you were aware of these uncertainties within Health Canada had you allowed me to have a conversation with you.
COVID Crankiness Was Part of an Established Pattern of Disconcerting Behaviour
Disconcertingly, Dr. Zajdlik’s inappropriate approach to engaging with professionals during the declared pandemic was not new. It has been brought to my attention that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) identified equally serious breaches of professional conduct a couple of years prior. Specifically, this is what the CPSO’s ruling against Zajdlik stated:
“The MI [Medical Inspector] noted the fact that three of the charts reviewed belonged to Dr. Dr. [sic] Zajdlik’s children. The Committee found that this violated the College’s policy on treating one’s family members. The policy, Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members, or Others Close to Them, sets out that physicians must only treat family members for minor conditions or in an emergency situation and then only when another qualified health care professional is not available to provide care. Even if no other physician was available at the time to attend to the children’s medical needs, it seemed clear to the Committee that Dr. Zajdlik was actively involved in her children’s care (e.g. issuing prescriptions, writing referrals, requesting consultations, ordering investigations), and did not just provide isolated care for only minor conditions or in emergency situations. Since Dr. Zajdlik stated that she understands the College’s policy on treating family members, the Committee felt this reflected a disregard for the policy and was a serious error in judgment.”
As well as…
“The originating information included e‐mails which Dr. Zajdlik had sent to physician colleagues. In the Committee’s view, the tone of Dr. Zajdlik’s e‐mails is both bullying and threatening and demonstrated a lack of professionalism in communicating with colleagues on Dr. Zajdlik’s part. Further, one of the charts the MI reviewed reflected unprofessional behaviour with a patient. Of further concern, is that this is not Dr. Zajdlik’s first complaint regarding her professionalism. The Committee noted that it has already cautioned her in person for unprofessional behaviour.“
And…
“The MI noted that some of the charts reviewed contained information regarding other patients. In the Committee’s view, the charts that the MI identified with other patients’ information in them create a significant risk that patients’ health information may be inappropriately shared, since the patients to whom the charts belong are entitled to access their medical records and, were they to do so, they would be privy to the personal health information of other patients. In the Committee’s opinion, this reflected a significant lapse in judgment on Dr. Zajdlik’s part.“
Consequently,…
“On April 18, 2018, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the Committee) ordered Dr. Zajdlik to complete a specified continuing education and remediation program (SCERP). The SCERP requires Dr. Zajdlik to:
Attend and successfully complete the next available PROBE [Professional, Problem-Based Ethics]: Ethics and Boundaries Education Program
Successfully complete individual instruction on ethics, professionalism and communication“
The official documentation is publicly available under the “Public Notifications” tab at this link.
Failed Reformation Attempt
Dr. Zajdlik’s inappropriate behaviours during the declared COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate that the effort to reform her tendencies to bully and threaten and to restore professionalism failed. I wouldn’t be too concerned if the negative behaviours were a ‘one-off’, but there is now an established pattern. Who wants to risk strike three occurring while holding parliamentary powers?
Deceit on the Campaign Trail
Last week, two volunteers working for Dr. Zajdlik’s campaign came to my home. I was not there but my wife was. She was tired and trying to rest, so she did not answer the door when the volunteers knocked; but she saw them on our porch. Dr. Zajdlik was apparently not with them. So, I was disturbed when I learned the facts about this campaign flyer that was left in our mailbox…
…it states, “Sorry I missed you!” and is hand-signed (or so I am led to assume) by Dr. Zajdlik. When I first came home I told my wife that I was impressed that the candidate had attempted a conversation and hand-delivered the note. I was upset to learn instead that it was likely a form of deceit. If this was not hand-delivered, then it is misleading at least some people into thinking that she is attempting to make personal visits when she is not.
Six Questions for Green Party Candidate, Dr. Anne-Marie Zajdlik:
Anne-Marie, I genuinely want to give you an opportunity to justify why I and local readers of this article should consider voting for you despite your consistent history of concerning attitudes and behaviours towards professionals that disagree with you. I believe it is possible for people to change, but the onus is on those people to provide convincing evidence of such change. So,…
Should you get elected, how can you assure voters that you won’t use parliamentary powers to amplify your bullying and threats?
An elected official needs to fairly and objectively represent all constituents. How do you propose to do this for constituents that you have bullied and defamed?
How can you convince people that you would be the consummate professional in parliamentary service?
Do you support free speech, especially as it relates to open scholarly debate about novel scientific and medical crises? If so, how can you convince voters that your historical promotion of censorship will not be a problem moving forward?
As a physician, do you support the concept of informed consent? If so, when it came to the COVID-19 shots, do you think that a reasonably thinking pregnant or breastfeeding woman would have wanted to know that [summarize facts]?
Why are you leaving notes at people’s homes that imply you were there when you weren’t; and why should you be trusted with the position of Member of Parliament?
I invite you to answer these questions in the comments section, which is read by many constituents in the Guelph riding.
[Note: this will be sent to the candidate to give them a fair opportunity to address the concerns and questions.]
Bomber article! Thank you for laying out the facts. Character does count; it’s the ONLY count
Dr Roger Harrington DDS
Great article and reminder! We should NEVER forget those bad actors during the covid PLANdemic- and they were MANY in Canada. I am still waiting for some to hang up there! Nuremberg 2.0. WHY? oh, why aren't they punished as they should, all those pushers of the bioweapon vax, the politicians, the Tams, the Bonnie Henrys etc... There are now close to 2 thousand scientific articles on the adverse effects of the bioweapon vax! What more do we need? If a physician pushed the vax on pregnant women, she/he is a CRIMINAL. Period.