See the Evidence: Scientist Calls Out CBC’s “Marketplace” with Grave Allegations of Compromised Journalistic Integrity

I grew up across the St. Lawrence River from Johnstown, Canada. I spent my youth sharing many experiences with Canadians; their television stations would broadcast right into my living room. “Beachcombers” was one of my favorite shows in the 1970’s. As I informed a committee in New Brunswick, Canada last year, I’ve lived many places around the US, and no one understands why I wear socks with sandals.

Fast forward to 2020, and I find myself targeted by CBC’s “Marketplace” program for – gasp – being paid to educate the public about Science. In a hit piece on their program, they targeted me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree and Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Their “undercover expose” itself leaves something to be desired overall. There was no need for any undercover reporters; we more than welcome media coverage at all of our events. Everything I said to CBC is precisely what I would have said if I had been asked in an open interview.

But I want to focus on one specific aspect of their coverage.

In their undercover interview of me, they never asked me for nor established my credentials. They claim I want to be seen as a Scientist. Sorry, CBC, I’m a PhD Scientist. And a Master’s. And a BA.

At the VIP event following the VIE Event in Washington, DC, a man, who identified himself as Canadian, asked me “So how much would it cost to bring you to Vancouver?”

“I don’t charge”, I replied. And the video has the rest of my response. Well, some of it. In one part of the exchange, I tried to make it clear that my intention was to not establish a quid pro quo – an exchange of testimony for money – because that would make me a lobbyist. I offered instead to run an IPAK Science Day – a purely educational event – at which I would go through the recent studies being conducted at IPAK, which were partly funded by donations for such event in the past. Such research includes our study on the expected chronic aluminum toxicity in infants under the CDC’s schedule.

In that exchange, I made it clear that it was not intended to be a “quid pro quo”, but, rather, since I would be on site at the same time as doing an IPAK Science Day, no one would have to pay for my airfare or lodging, etc. and if a Committee wanted to be educated, I would be available.

The reporter contacted IPAK and expressed further interest in running an IPAK Science Day. In the middle of communications, he made up an astounding number of people that he said he was sure he could get to attend. He wanted to know what the charge would be. Gretchen and I discussed it, and we let him know that we would have a sliding scale. Our intention was that these would be recommended donations, and in the past, I’ve instructed volunteers manning the check-in tables at IPAK conferences and other events to allow anyone in, no matter the size of their donation, and to let anyone in who cannot donate.

The video then shows a cutaway to a production booth – I presume at the CBC – and the video is running on the monitors in the production booth. The cut-away segment includes a lot of background noise, but you can hear me saying something about a quid pro quo.

Except that’s NOT what I said. I informed the man that we did it this way so as to AVOID a quid pro quo. As in “So there IS NO quid pro quo”. If you listen to it yourself (and many supporters have), you can see they twisted the words “So there is NO quid pro quo” into “Now we’ve got a quid pro quo”.

That would explain the cutaway, because if they showed my face up front, you’d be able to see my mouth forming an “Oh” on the “NO quid pro quo”.

Look at the monitor in the video during the cutaway. They are playing the sound of me saying “So there would be no quid pro quo”, but the text on the screen is from a few seconds before when I’m saying “So I’d come where you are, charge admission…” See for yourself.

Similar text is also played over a earlier timing in the video in their production:

This shows that the video is clearly very heavily manipulated to make specific words appear on the screen in a specific manner. Now, CBC clearly does not want anyone to see my face when the expression “quid pro quo” is stated. They have the video. They should produce the video, unedited, so everyone can see what they’ve done.

And they should apologize. Because I NEVER, EVER would suggest that anything I do is a quid pro quo. The only time I’ve used that phrase is to communicate to be perfectly clear that no one controls what I say, how I say it, or who I say it to. Anyone who knows me know that’s not possible anyway.

Get real, CBC.

I first alerted CBC directly on the comment section of their YouTube Channel:

When I checked the video for my comment on another person’s phone, and through another browser on my laptop, it was gone.

I had left the tab open where I originally commented so I added a comment – “CBC, are you removing my comments? Love, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD”

Nevertheless, neither comment is viewable by others, evidently.

As I was checking for their removal of my comments, an IPAK supporter and mom named Missy sent this message to me:

Shortly thereafter, another message

And an email from a colleague requesting help finding my comment:

Share your exact handle with us. I just searched for “James” and “Lyons” in the comments and it didn’t come up. It might be way at the bottom and the search feature might only search comments that have loaded… or they may have removed it already? Please let us know exactly what to look for.”

On Youtube, one can sort comments on Most Relevant or Most Recent. My two comments are not present anywhere.

So here are my missing comments to CBC on Youtube. There’s much more to come on the CBC’s Marketplace team’s lack of journalistic and professional integrity.

James Lyons-Weiler: Their assertions are paper thin. If you want to support IPAK, I’d host an event near you. That way there is NO QUID PRO QUO. That’s my message. Their video is 100% wrong and they are being dishonest. Watch at about 9:12 – I clearly state “NO quid pro quo”, meaning, if IPAK hosts a public event near you, those in attendance would be asked for a suggested donation. Why did they cut away? My bet is you can see me form an “O” when I say “NO quid pro quo”. That up-close video will be the focus of scrutiny. Also, their’ “$10,000” was based on their random number of 400 people that we were told. They were told it was a sliding scale more people, lower suggested donation. That’s how we operate. If we suggest donations of $15-$20 per head, and 100 people show up, we’re lucky. We put the funds to good use, with peer-reviewed research. Check Pubmed. I state VERY CLEARLY that if I were to be paid to be flown out to Vancouver (a place I love, BTW!) to testify, I’d be a paid lobbyist. Educating the public is what I offered. Is CBC Marketplace anti-science? Read their email to me inviting comment, and my reply to them sent immediately after they contacted me. Did they cover my reply and include all of the science I cited and the realities we are facing about vaccine safety science? No. Did they interview the 1,000s of parents of vaccine injured children in attendance at the VIE event to find out why they would come out and stand in the cold to support medical freedom, informed consent, and objective Science? No. It appears to me like their own cameras have caught them constructing a false narrative, not reporting the news. I don’t WANT to be SEEN as a scientist, I AM a scientist, and have been throughout my adult life and career. My bio is available online for all – including the reporters – to see – These reporters clearly WANT to be seen as objective reporters. Now pardon me as go back to analyzing human subjects research data for our Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated study. Yes, it’s IRB approved. Yes, it will be submitted for publication for peer review. Shame on you, CBC, you have a lot to learn about being a sensible part of solving a very complex problem facing our society.

Watch “Unbreaking Science” tonight, 1/19/20 on Youtube and Facebook. I have a special treat for CBC tonight which I will add to this article.


  1. Youtube has been shadow banning comments in a couple ways. At the top of the comment section you can sort comments by Top Comments or Newest First, the default is top comments. Some comments are filtered so as only to be seen by others when comments are sorted by newest first rather than top comments and has to be done each time. As most dont know this, this greatly reduces views on those specific comments.

    Occasionally, other comments are further shadow banned so they are viewable only to you when you log in under your own youtube account, but if you view that comment section on another device or even another browser on the same computer where you are not logged in to your youtube account, it isnt viewable at all. So others would not see that comment whatsoever. People think others just are not interacting with their comment, but in reality the comment is not being shown to others. It doesnt require to use a vpn to see that at this time. It appears to be computer driven so you can sometimes edit the post to remove the link or keywords triggering the shadow ban.

  2. Snakes. It’s a crying shame that very few news agencies engage in fair and honest reporting about this subject. I suppose they think they’re doing the public a favor .

  3. I have already said the same as the authors of vaxxed and the lies said by our Canadian Broadcasting station now a right wing propaganda tool fed from our govt health agencies and others. They are telling lie,lies and more fkn lies and will not even interview we the Vaccine injured who KNOW the TRUTH. I have tried for years too be interview and not one other than ctv would and the now will not give us any more opportunity to tell the REAL truth. Bob Matin Vaccine Injured GBS from The admitted CDC in the usa of all vaccines the Flu Vaccine in the past is resposible for over 70% of vaccine DEATHS and life time injuries this iis the TRUTH CBC cll me and interview me or go underc cover and snoop a bit you may get the REAL truth. Bobs Story

  4. CBC ditched journalistic integrity decades ago.

    It’s sad. I grew up listening to CBC, and I loved it. Now they just manipulate. I have a slogan for them: “Canada fibs here.”

  5. They (CBC) claim they want to be seen as journalists. They’re glorified advertising. They’re bought by the drug industry. Part of their inner circle of organized crime. It would be funny if not so many people would be hurt by their lies and lack of investigation into the most urgent and corrupt issue of our times.

  6. What kind of accountability/liability does the CBC — or any news outlet — have when they misreport facts in a such a blatantly libelous manner? Is there some kind of legal loophole that allows them to do that to someone who is not on Canadian soil? Or not a Canadian citizen?

    Or do news outlets today simply have free rein to say whatever the hell they want, with no consequences?

    1. I guess the Bought and Paid for Media were given legal liability to spread their lies and propaganda much the same way as the pharmaceutical companies??? I pray they will be held accountable for their part in the next Nuremberg Trials!

    2. Alison, it would seem by the lame or non-existent replies of the CBC Ombudsman, that they just don’t care and figure that no one has the means or time to challenge them legally anyhow. Their tactics are equally bad on Canadian soil.

      HOWEVER, CBC has rightfully received considerable flack for Marketplace’s yellow journalism and I feel as a matter of principle – if nothing else – that they need to be called out and feel the CONTINUED pressure to answer for their violation of basic journalistic standards. They are still feeling the heat from the Jan. 17th show, so PLEASE send in your comments and get others to as well! (Asha was the “reporter”) Thanks!,,,,

  7. Lol. You got caught red handed grubbing for money and explaining how they can hide the payment.

    1. No, Bill. It’s called “development”. A lot of not-for-profit organizations raise funds for their activities. CBC’s sudden “discovery”that we raise funds to support research is stunning only in that we are very vocal about our need for donations from the public. Monthly donations are most helpful.
      Here’s the link:

      1. I don’t understand how they could think that you being paid to travel to a location and do an event is any way unethical. I think they are just hoping that the public is so ignorant that they can simply claim there was something unethical and that will be sufficient to sway the public.

Leave a Reply