Deanna McLeod
Day 3 · September 10, 2026 · 0:29:55
Key points Deanna McLeod, an immunology and cognitive-psychology graduate who founded an independent evidence-based medical research firm, presents original research using Ontario health data. She argues that pandemic emergency orders shifted physicians' duty from the individual patient to the collective, removing the protective layer between pharmaceutical companies and patients. She says the Pfizer six-month trial showed only a 4% absolute reduction in COVID cases but an 18% increase in side effects and nine cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine arm. She argues reactogenicity data show the product induces COVID-like illness that increases with each dose. She presents Ontario FOIA data indicating that, from Omicron onward, vaccinated and boosted populations had higher COVID case rates than the unvaccinated. She contends that counting people as vaccinated only 14 days after a dose hides short-term injuries and infections, misattributing them to the unvaccinated. She presents Ontario trend data showing increases in anaphylaxis, Bell's palsy, iron-deficiency anemia, oophoritis, and miscarriages following the vaccine rollout.
Speaker 3
0:00 So our first witness today is Deanna McLeod. 0:05 Deanna, welcome. 0:08 And Deanna, I'm going to ask you to take the Bible in your right hand. 0:17 Deanna McLeod, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Speaker 3
0:28 Now, I'm going to introduce you and I'm just going to borrow from one of your slides, but I've introduced you before. 0:35 So not wanting to take the wind out of your sails, but just for the inquiry's benefit, Deanna graduated from McMaster University with a degree in immunology and cognitive psychology. 0:47 She worked for close to a decade in pharmaceuticals, specializing in sales and marketing in oncology. 0:54 She founded an independent 0:57 medical research firm in 2000 to support clinicians in preparing objective evidence-based guidelines. 1:04 And I'll just expand on that. 1:07 So what Deanna's company does is anyone can go and hire them for unbiased research on medical issues. 1:16 So they're not connected to pharmaceutical companies, they're not connected to government. 1:20 You can go and hire them if you just want an unbiased assessment 1:26 of the research that's out there. 1:28 The firm has published more than 50 peer-reviewed guidelines, consensus statement and systematic reviews. 1:36 Over the last five years, the firm expanded to include COVID-19 public health measures, supporting an audit of Alberta's COVID-19 response. 1:44 And many people may not understand that there has been a government inquiry in Canada on COVID issues. 1:52 The Davidson Report in Alberta 1:55 And some of the recommendations in there, including vaccination of children, will shock people. 2:03 And how is it, again, that nobody knows that there was a government inquiry in Canada on COVID-19 because the mainstream media is not sharing it? 2:13 And then recently presented findings on cancer trends to the president's cancer panel in Washington. 2:22 So Deanna, you've come here and you're actually presenting, just so everyone knows, some original research using Ontario provincial health data. 2:32 And Deanna, we thank you for doing that research for this inquiry and we're inviting you to present. Speaker 1
2:38 Thank you. 2:40 All right. 2:43 I think we've gone through this. 2:46 Just a moment on this slide. 2:51 So we specialize in evidence-based medicine, which means that we read studies nonstop. 2:58 Any one of the reviews or systematic reviews or consensus statements or guidelines we work with, we work with probably about 50 to 75 clinical trials a paper. 3:08 We read them all, we summarize them, we analyze them. 3:12 And we go through a process with clinicians where we figure out what the data says and what we can do based on that data in order to make an evidence-based clinical policy or recommendation. 3:29 And so with the COVID analysis, my team basically did the reverse. 3:34 We looked at the COVID policy 3:36 and the recommendations that were made. 3:38 And we went back and we looked to see if they had sufficient amount of evidence to support the recommendations that they did. 3:46 And so I can't possibly present everything, but I've pulled, I think, a select bits from our research. 3:55 And Sean, you mentioned this already. 3:58 We're working with the Canadian, 4:02 Canadian Citizens Care Alliance, who were able to get us a lot of Ontario data via FOIA requests. 4:08 And a lot of what we're sharing today was done in partnership with them. 4:12 So I just want to thank everybody there for all of their efforts. 4:16 So the reason why I'm here and I'm not a doctor is because all of my clinical colleagues have been censored. 4:27 I'm not 100% sure whether everybody here knows, but 4:31 Physicians are, you know, in the grand scheme of things, the protective layer between the pharmaceutical companies and the patient. 4:41 A pharmaceutical company's greatest desire is to directly influence patients because they don't have, a lot of the time, the ability to be able to discern whether something is good for them or bad for them. 4:52 And so they rely on their clinician, and the clinician has a fiduciary duty to make sure 5:00 is good for the patient, which is the left-hand side of the slide. 5:03 During the pandemic, once the emergency legal frameworks were set in place, the chief medical officer of health was able to issue interim orders. 5:14 And one of the interim orders that she issued was that the colleges of physicians and surgeons had to follow the COVID policy 5:23 And they had to realign themselves and make it so that they are now working for the common good, not for the patient. 5:31 And what this does is it shifts the risk benefit framework from an individual risk benefit framework where you look at the individual patient and you say, is this better for them or worse for them? 5:40 And you allow them to make a choice of informed consent. 5:43 And it puts it in a collective framework where basically the chief medical officer of health says as long as more people are being 5:54 helped than harmed, this is good for us. 5:58 And so what that means is that the casualties, the more people are being harmed, more people are benefiting from being harmed means that you can actually harm people in your COVID policy. 6:10 And so this framework shifted. 6:13 And I don't think very many people were really aware that we were now, when I looked through all of the public health documents, what they were doing is they were making risk benefit statements based on a collective Speaker 3
6:28 So that overrides... Before you go to the next slide, can I just interject? 6:32 So the patient wasn't aware of this. 6:35 So most of us, we have this history where we'd be going to our doctor and asking for advice. 6:41 And our belief, which was true in the past, was that the doctor's going to be giving us advice based on the doctor's opinion on what would create the best health outcomes for us personally. 6:54 But what you're saying is, is the legal framework changed so that doctors were put under a legal framework, not so when you went and asked for COVID-19 vaccine, your doctor, should I get the COVID-19 vaccine? 7:08 The doctor was now under a legal obligation to actually say, yes, you should get the COVID-19 vaccine, even if the doctor's opinion was, is that this was not good for you as an individual patient, but 7:24 The patient wasn't ever told this. 7:26 The patient still trusted the doctor, believing the doctor was giving advice in the best interest of the patient. Speaker 1
7:37 So amazingly, what this did is it basically removed the protective layer from patients and allowed pharmaceutical companies... 7:46 who were, if you look at, if you ever follow the money, what you'll see is that there's public-private partnerships at absolutely every level of government. 7:54 In fact, they're supported. 7:57 At the international level, there were public-private partnerships. 8:00 At the governmental level, there was public-private partnerships. 8:03 In fact, the COVID task force was led by industry people in Canada. 8:07 So I don't even know if everybody understands that, but basically pharma was very much involved at a very high level at directing 8:15 the recommendations. 8:18 Just a quick aside, whenever COVID happened, I was very, very much surprised by the level of fear and propaganda that was going on. 8:27 But fear is the number one ingredient for selling vaccines. 8:33 You know, for most treatments, if you, a person has to have a condition and they're suffering from actual treatment, from actual illness, 8:42 in order to be able to convince them that a product is beneficial for them. 8:46 But when you're selling a vaccine, basically what you do is you take a perfectly healthy person, you convince them that they're going to be very, very sick by scaring them, and that convinces them to have a vaccine. 8:57 And vaccines are by far and away the most lucrative products that a pharmaceutical can have. 9:02 So this is very, very big business. 9:04 And so if they can capture public health and direct public health to sell their vaccines, 9:10 then basically public health becomes the marketing arm, Canada becomes a distribution arm. 9:16 And then if they can also circumvent safety testing, which is the most expensive element of a product development, then basically it's an incredible win for pharmaceutical companies at a global level. 9:30 But let's just get into some of the data. 9:32 So whenever you're doing an evidence-based evaluation, what you do is you start with the highest level of evidence. 9:37 The highest level of evidence produced for the mRNA product, which has also been marketed as a vaccine, is the Pfizer six-month data. 9:45 So this is called level one evidence. 9:48 And I actually took the New England Journal of Medicine publication and summarized it in these slides. 9:54 And if you actually were to read the paper in full, including the supplements, which is where they bury a lot of the safety data, what you'll find out is that in terms of the 10:04 six months of evaluation for the COVID-19 vaccine, I'm looking at the Pfizer paper here, the COVID-19 cases were fewer in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm. 10:16 But if you actually looked at the absolute change, it was minus 4%. 10:20 So they were actually able to reduce the number of COVID cases by minus 4%. 10:25 If you looked at the product side effects during that same period, and when I talk about product side effects, these were unsolicited side effects, meaning that the patient had to report them during the trial period. 10:37 And just so that you know, a normal randomized controlled trial, you have a clinician that's monitoring the patient, you do lab work, you do symptom profiling. 10:48 This was mediated through a phone app. 10:52 And there was no lab work done at all. 10:55 So the physicians and the clinicians had no idea what was actually happening in the bodies of the patients when they were running these trials. 11:02 They were just looking at the symptoms. 11:03 But interestingly enough, you have minus 4% of cases, but plus 18% in side effects. 11:10 And that's just patient reported side effects. 11:13 In terms of severe COVID-19, it was a minus 4%. 11:18 0.1% reduction in severe COVID cases, but an increase of 0.5% in severe side effects. 11:26 So what we're looking at here is a five times the number of side effects for any benefit of reduction in COVID cases in the first six months. 11:33 And they call this an incredible win. 11:35 But if you looked at the risk benefit profile, it's actually a loss for each of the patients that are, for the patients as a whole who are in this trial. 11:43 The other thing that's really interesting is that if you actually looked at cardiovascular related deaths and they did record these, we're looking at a population of healthy volunteers that participated in this trial. 11:56 And yet there were nine cardiovascular deaths in the six month period. 12:01 after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and that was higher than the placebo arm. 12:05 So to me, that would have been an immediate signal right away that this is going to have an impact on cardiovascular system. 12:13 And yet it was completely overlooked whenever they were presenting the results. 12:16 We were told that this is safe and effective, but what this looks to me is that the risks outweigh the benefits. 12:25 I just want to highlight another thing is one of the ways the primary endpoint that they used for this paper was confirmed COVID case, which is confirmed with a PCR test. 12:37 And they didn't actually look at clinical symptoms. 12:40 This is basically a chart of reactogenicity. 12:43 And reactogenicity is a fancy word for saying what happens immediately after you get your vaccine. 12:48 And if you actually note here, a lot of the things that people were experiencing, fever, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, remind you of COVID. 12:57 It's a COVID-like illness. 12:59 So what they're actually recording here is that 13:03 36, let's just take headache, for instance. 13:06 After your first dose, 36% of the patients in the vaccine arm had headaches and 28% of the placebo, but that's a plus 8%. 13:17 So what we're looking at is that we're actually getting increases in COVID-like illness with each dose. 13:22 If you look to the second dose, you can see that those numbers go up even further. 13:26 So you have plus 37% in fatigue. 13:29 You have plus 29% in headache. 13:32 And these are over and above what I mentioned earlier, which is the plus 18% in side effects. 13:37 So what we're seeing here is this is having a major impact on people. 13:42 And curiously enough, when we looked at this, we're like, it looks like it's causing COVID. 13:47 We can't say it's causing COVID, but it looks like it's causing COVID-like illness. 13:51 So it's very interesting that we're trying to reduce COVID and then we're giving somebody something that actually produces COVID-like illness. 13:58 If COVID-like illness is so bad, why are we 14:02 inducing it with this product. 14:06 But I guess we were told that it works. 14:08 And so what we have here is the data from Ontario, Canada. 14:12 This is basically data from a FOIA request where we asked them to give the data for 14:22 COVID cases by vaccination status. 14:24 And it's a complicated graph, but I'm just going to walk you through it. 14:27 So if you did not get vaccinated, then you would follow the blue line. 14:33 The blue line moves along. 14:34 You have a couple peaks before October. Speaker 3
14:38 Can I just stop you? 14:38 So it says unexposed, but it could say unvaccinated. Speaker 1
14:42 That's right. 14:43 in the figure. 14:45 So that's unexposed to the mRNA product. 14:48 We did a paper and we didn't actually want to call it a vaccine because technically speaking, it isn't like a traditional vaccine. 14:55 So thank you for highlighting that. 14:57 So initially, if you did not get vaccinated, basically you have a couple peaks and then 15:04 When Omicron arrived, which is the date of January 2022, when you see that big peak, there's a little bit of a peak, and then you'll see that there is no more cases afterwards. 15:12 It just peters off completely. 15:14 If you actually look at the vaccinated, so that's the two doses, which is the orange line, you see that when they began rollout, there was an immediately spike in COVID cases among the vaccinated, the ones that got one to two doses. 15:29 Then it petered down a little bit. 15:30 And then with the arrival of Omicron, you can see that the highest level of case rates, the number of cases per population per 100,000 is in the vaccinated, those one to two doses, those who have received a one to two dose. 15:42 And while they were rolling out the vaccine, 15:49 the booster is when Omicron happens. 15:51 We have Omicron and they're rolling out a booster. 15:53 And if you look at that, they also peak. 15:56 And then from Omicron onward, the highest rates are in the boosted. 16:02 So what this data tells us is that vaccination increases your risk of COVID infection. 16:12 It also tells us that... Speaker 3
16:13 I just have to stop you so people hear that again. 16:16 So this is using 16:18 province of Ontario data. 16:20 This is the province's data on rates of COVID. 16:24 And you've just said, so from Omicron on, that actually it appears that the vaccines, a major side effect is COVID, that you're more likely to get COVID when you're vaccinated. Speaker 1
16:36 So what we're looking at is population data. 16:38 So I can't actually assert a causal link between this, but what I can say is that following the vaccination at a population level in Ontario, 16:48 people who were vaccinated had an increased risk of getting COVID versus people who were unvaccinated. 16:56 And again, this data was readily available to officials if they wanted to look at it. 17:02 This is Ontario data pulling administrative data and analyzing it as standard practice. 17:08 But it does look like even whenever you added the booster that 17:13 with the addition, and when we say boosted, it's three doses or more because they kept boosting people, that group has the highest risk of COVID following the rollout of the booster. 17:28 So it seems to me that once you roll it out, then you actually have increased risk in that particular population. 17:35 So this would be the opposite of what we were told. Speaker 3
17:39 And I'll just 17:40 Just ask. 17:40 So, I mean, because your chart goes from up till looks like just shy of January 2024. 17:48 But it looks like around February of 22 onwards, those that were boosted were on a population level. 17:56 They were more likely to get COVID because they were getting COVID more than the unvaccinated. 18:01 Now, we're still boosting. 18:02 I don't know what shot we're up to. 18:04 But I know people that are still getting boosted and nobody is telling them. 18:10 That with each booster, because it continues, doesn't it? 18:14 That with each booster, you are more likely to get COVID. Speaker 1
18:18 Interestingly enough, there was a regulatory change through COVID that's still in play. 18:25 And basically for the mRNA products, what they do is they approve the lipid nanoparticle part. 18:32 which is the fat capsule that it's in. 18:34 And then basically they can change the code, the mRNA code within that without doing any further clinical evaluation. 18:41 So basically we don't even do biomarkers. 18:43 So each of these boosters that we're recommending right now, A, we haven't actually ever analyzed the cumulative toxicity. 18:51 There's no study that actually looks at that. 18:53 And then secondly, 18:55 They're not even actually doing any clinical evidence, any clinical trials, or evaluating whatsoever any of the products that are now being put out. 19:03 So it's an interesting, there's definitely not enough clinical evidence to support that recommendation to continue to boost. Speaker 3
19:12 And I'm just going to, I just realized we're under a tight time schedule, so I better stop interrupting you. Speaker 3
19:18 And get you proceeding. Speaker 1
19:19 OK, so basically one of the things that we did, too, is we basically noted that there was a delay in the way that they assigned vaccination status whenever they were vaccinated. 19:34 when public health, so when you're looking at a population level, they basically wait, they give you a dose, and then two weeks later, they change your status. 19:42 So if you're doing a safety evaluation, you have to actually look at it immediately after you get your dose. 19:48 And if you're wanting to understand what's happening at a population level, you actually should analyze it right at the moment that you receive the dose. Speaker 3
19:55 And I'm sorry, because I just said I can't interrupt because we're short of time. 19:59 But we've had person after person and chart after chart showing that 20:03 There's a big spike of symptoms in the first seven days for like that's where the adverse reactions start. 20:10 But if Ontario isn't even treating you as vaccinated for their reporting purposes until 14 days after a shot, then the majority of adverse reactions aren't even going to be reported. 20:23 They're going to be reported as occurring in the unvaccinated when it's actually a vaccine injury. Speaker 1
20:29 Right. 20:29 So what we did was we looked at the data and we actually asked for any short-term cases. 20:35 Those would be COVID infections that occurred in people who were vaccinated 14 days after 20:42 they received their shot, which would have normally been categorized as another vaccination status. 20:47 And what we found is that there were two clusters. 20:49 The first cluster occurred immediately upon rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population. 20:56 And you can see that that's the little call out to the left. 21:01 So what's driving the infection is 21:06 So again, the way public health sees it is that you're a disease vector if you're infected. 21:11 So they get vaccinated, they get COVID, which is what this is showing. 21:15 They're getting COVID cases immediately after. 21:16 It's not being counted in the overall population level data for effectiveness. 21:21 But they're actually driving infection whenever they get vaccinated. 21:25 You can see that there's another cluster in and around when they were rolling out the booster. 21:29 So it is very possible that the rollout of the booster contributed to the Omicron surge because you're actually causing people to get COVID and then they're spreading it to their neighbors. 21:40 And so therefore, it would probably be counterproductive, you would imagine, if you can give somebody an induced COVID vaccine. 21:47 And then basically claim that you were reducing it because now they've already had COVID. 21:52 So it also brings a lot of the population level data, the real world data into question because it's very confusing now. 22:01 In the clinical trials, they did the same thing. 22:03 They didn't count a COVID case that occurred in the short term and they only counted it after a certain time. 22:11 So what that means is that we can't tell whether the immunity that they're claiming is occurring was due to the infection that was induced immediately after they received the shot or whether it was actually the vaccine. 22:23 So it's very unclear. Speaker 3
22:24 And I'm just going to warn you, you've got five minutes and I'm going to stop interrupting. Speaker 1
22:28 Okay. 22:29 So here's another, this is basically hospital care trend data. 22:33 I just threw a lot of these in there because I wanted to show, but you can actually see that the trend for infection following immunization was going down. 22:40 And then you have the rollout of the shots, and then you have this dramatic jump up. 22:44 The two guardrails there are the confidence intervals, which means it's not due to chance. 22:49 Over here, we have maternal infection and parasitic disease. 22:52 So you can see that something's happening to their immune systems because in 2021, you have this absolute dramatic increase in maternal infections and parasitic diseases, which it's a category. 23:04 And then in 2022, it continues to go up. 23:07 So we had a really big push to try and vaccinate pregnant women. 23:11 And this is some of the things that were happening is that they're now increasingly susceptible to infection. 23:17 There's also impacts on immunology and hematology. 23:20 So after the COVID-19 rollout, you can see on the left hand side that there's this immunity disorder where you actually become more susceptible to infections that increases over time. 23:32 So there's a jump right when they roll it out. 23:34 But you can see at the far right, which is July 2025, there's this increase. 23:39 So what we're seeing is the population's immune system is becoming less able to fight infection. 23:45 We have iron deficiency anemia. 23:47 I added this slide in last night because there were a lot of people who testified who basically said I'm suffering from incredible fatigue. 23:54 So we know that VITT is a side effect of the vaccine, which basically means that you have your immune system either causes clotting or bleeding. 24:03 It basically just regulates your ability to 24:08 for your blood to work in terms of clotting and bleeding. 24:11 The long and the short of it is, is that there could be chronic bleeding or it could be doing something directly to the platelets. 24:16 But if you actually look at this, iron deficiency anemia skyrocketed the moment that you rolled out the vaccine and it's continuing to climb to the right. 24:26 It's difficult for us to know whether these are people who are getting boosted or it's difficult for us to know if, you know, what exactly, whether this is a result of bleeding, but basically this would cause chronic fatigue. 24:38 So, and the numbers are standing. 24:40 If you look at the left-hand side, you can see that pre-COVID, maybe you had 200 people like this per 100,000. 24:47 And now on the right-hand side, we're getting close to 325 per 100,000. 24:51 So that's a dramatic increase in iron deficiency anemia. 24:52 Yeah. 25:00 This is somebody mentioned yesterday about anaphylaxis. 25:04 You can see here that this is drug adverse effects, which would include anaphylaxis. 25:08 Pre-COVID, it was pretty standard. 25:10 The rollout of the vaccine, and you can see those jumps. 25:13 That is one of those kind people's mothers dying, that jump up there, or maybe more, and then coming back down again. 25:23 So the rollout, especially that first dose, was incredibly toxic. 25:28 and caused anaphylaxis. 25:29 Anaphylaxis is life-threatening. 25:31 So again, you have to ask yourself, you have COVID, which is not life-threatening for the majority of the population. 25:37 And then you give them a dose of a product that causes an immediate reaction, which is notable here. 25:43 And looking at what, 160 per 100,000 people are getting an anaphylactic reaction or something along those lines after their COVID shot. 25:52 And we're calling this good. 25:55 Bell's palsy, we had some people reporting that. 25:58 So again, very standard leading up. 26:01 There's a 26:02 A little bit of a blip. 26:03 And then now you can see that the line would be where normal is. 26:07 And we are hovering well above the line, meaning that this is an ongoing issue. 26:12 People are suffering from Bell's palsy and it's going out to 2025. 26:15 This is not just a transitory reaction. 26:19 Pulmonary embolism. 26:20 So you can see that there's a peak right when they rolled it out in June 2021. 26:25 It kind of goes down afterwards because, believe it or not, Pfizer has a new drug called Alequis. 26:31 And it's an oral drug that basically treats clotting. 26:37 So if you actually ever ask anybody if they got clots from their shots, they would show up and they would say, oh, no, we've got you covered. 26:44 And they're on this very expensive oral product, which is patented. 26:48 Again, Pfizer is benefiting from that. 26:51 Okay, so I'm going to just shift into reproductive health because, again, we had a couple of people talk about loss of... 27:02 So on the left hand side of the biodistribution data and I've highlighted the black box or the red box there is that the LNPs are little fat molecules and ovaries are hungry for those. 27:16 And so the LNPs accumulate in the ovaries. 27:19 They're also inflammatory, so causing inflammation. 27:22 So inflammation of the ovaries is basically will impact your fertility. 27:28 So if you look on the right, the OHIP code 614 for oophoritis, which is swelling of the ovaries, is right there. 27:35 And you can see that at the peak after COVID, which it was going down previously prior to COVID, and then after that, you have this dramatic jump in 2021, a 34% increase versus what would be expected in oophoritis, which means swelling of the ovaries. 27:50 So this is basically having a dramatic impact on many women's ovaries. 27:56 So disorders of menstruation, it's not surprising that you'll see menstrual disorders. Speaker 3
28:01 So again, we have issues of... Deanna, you have a minute left and I'm sorry about that. Speaker 1
28:06 I'm going to keep going. 28:08 Female fertility, male fertility issues, pregnancy loss. 28:13 It was in the New England Journal of Medicine. 28:15 Oh, sorry, I'm going back. 28:16 Let's just go here. 28:18 The New England Journal of Medicine, there was an error where they said it was 12.6% miscarriage rates. 28:23 We tried to correct that. 28:24 And because the actual data said that it was 82% in and around that, if you actually looked at the right denominator. 28:31 And here it is. 28:32 That's what it looks like on a population level. 28:35 You roll out an mRNA product and you get miscarriages. 28:39 So that line there is 225 per 100,000 and it jumped up to 275 per 100,000. Speaker 3
28:45 And this is province of Ontario? Speaker 1
28:47 This is Ontario. 28:48 Yeah, that's what it looks like whenever you don't do your safety testing. 28:52 So there was something that talked about fetal malformation. 28:56 They did do a randomized control trial in pregnant women that they stopped whenever they basically approved the vaccine. 29:02 But if you actually go and look at a congenital malformation, it's double in the vaccine arm versus placebo. 29:09 So this data was buried. Speaker 3
29:10 And I have to stop you, but you're going to be here today and tomorrow. 29:13 We may recall you. 29:16 To give you more time if we find ourselves with a break, because I think everyone is finding this very important. 29:24 And the fact that this is new research using province of Ontario data is quite striking. Speaker 1
29:30 All right. 29:30 Well, I'm here. 29:31 Let me know. Speaker 3
29:33 And I'm sorry about that. Speaker 1
29:34 No, no, I know. Speaker 3
29:35 We did know when we shooed her in that we'd have to be tight with time. 29:38 And I think I can speak for our dean. Speaker 2
29:41 Yeah, no, and thank you. 29:42 Yeah, thank you very much for being here and providing. 29:45 And you'll be providing the decks, and we'll be providing them online as well. 29:49 And hopefully we can sneak you back up to finish it off.