1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:19,520
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Fallout with Dr. Robert Malone and myself, Jan Jekielek.

2
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:25,360
What a hearing this was that Ron Johnson held just a few weeks ago. An encapsulation of where

3
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:32,400
we're at today with COVID, with COVID response, with the media, how malfeasance, I think the term

4
00:00:32,400 --> 00:00:38,340
I would use is, I mean, just kind of laying things out in a way that I hadn't seen before.

5
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:45,940
It's interesting you say that because it came to pass in kind of an organic way. It was catalyzed

6
00:00:45,940 --> 00:00:51,380
by me just writing to Ron saying we're going to have this international COVID summit concurrent

7
00:00:51,380 --> 00:00:58,900
with CPAC. And would you be open to having hearings about the same time since we're going to have all

8
00:00:58,900 --> 00:01:07,020
these people coming internationally? Ron's mission was that each of these people testifying had to

9
00:01:07,020 --> 00:01:13,200
conclude their testimony within five minutes. People have been pestering me that there's a need

10
00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:22,020
for someone to summarize where we're at right now. And I think Ron's hearing catalyzed that kind of,

11
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:28,120
it embodied it. First of all, I was thrilled with the fact that there was this significant section

12
00:01:28,120 --> 00:01:32,400
on the media, and some of those media were actually international, a little Canadians. And notably,

13
00:01:32,700 --> 00:01:37,500
one of the journalists, Rodney Palmer, made a kind of an interesting observation which really hit me,

14
00:01:37,580 --> 00:01:42,240
and that was that, you know, the media have been poisoned. As a result, we're kind of fighting over

15
00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:48,100
what is basic reality as opposed to figuring out, like, how to deal with things, right,

16
00:01:48,180 --> 00:01:54,860
in a reasonable way. When the news is poisoned, so is democracy, because we've stopped debating about

17
00:01:54,860 --> 00:02:00,500
what's right, and instead we waste our time arguing about what's true. One of these issues, actually,

18
00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:08,340
so Jessica Rose was one of the earliest people to testify, and she laid out very obviously in intricate

19
00:02:08,340 --> 00:02:17,360
detail how we know as a fact that these COVID vaccines cause harm, causal harm, not just correlational harm.

20
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:25,720
Today, I speak for the people injured by the COVID-19 injectable products through VAERS data.

21
00:02:26,720 --> 00:02:31,880
Analysis of the VAERS pharmacovigilance database in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products

22
00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:37,820
has revealed strong emergent safety signals from myocarditis to death that are not being

23
00:02:37,820 --> 00:02:43,360
acknowledged by the owners of the data. This goes against standard operating procedures and begs the

24
00:02:43,360 --> 00:02:50,440
question, why are the injured being hidden? Fact, the Bradford Hill criteria are used to assess causality

25
00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:57,620
in epidemiological data, such as the VAERS pharmacovigilance system. Fact, the proportional reporting ratio

26
00:02:57,620 --> 00:03:02,260
is used to assess whether or not a particular adverse event is more commonly reported in the

27
00:03:02,260 --> 00:03:10,680
context of a particular drug. If the PRR is greater than one, a causal effect is indicated. Fact, the PRR

28
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:17,780
calculation for death from VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 shots using current VAERS data is 3.6.

29
00:03:18,460 --> 00:03:26,800
Fact, the underreported number of deaths successfully filed to VAERS by January 20th, 2021 was 634.

30
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:34,180
Based on historical guidelines, this was sufficient as a signal, not only to prompt an investigation,

31
00:03:34,880 --> 00:03:43,180
but to shut down the rollout of the COVID-19 shots. Fact, in 1999, a rotavirus vaccine designed to

32
00:03:43,180 --> 00:03:49,300
prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis was pulled from the market due to an intussusception signal emanating

33
00:03:49,300 --> 00:03:58,640
from VAERS, which comprised 584 cases. Question, if 584 cases of intussusception were enough to prompt product

34
00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:08,260
removal, then why weren't 634 cases of death not enough to prompt COVID-19 product removal? Fact, the early death count

35
00:04:08,260 --> 00:04:19,040
was hidden. Fact, currently 1,615,998 reports of adverse events have been successfully filed to VAERS in the context of the

36
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:28,880
COVID-19 injectable products, with a staggering 1,013,442 reports filed in 2021 alone, when considering both the foreign and domestic

37
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:36,600
data sets. The number of adverse events reported to the domestic VAERS data set for all vaccines combined has been on average

38
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:45,660
39,000 in total per year, and has been very slowly and steadily increasing in direct proportion to the increasing number of vaccine

39
00:04:45,660 --> 00:04:55,740
products on the market. See slide one. In 2021, however, a 1,417% increase in reporting occurred, whereby 93% of these

40
00:04:55,740 --> 00:05:03,520
reports were in the context of the COVID-19 products. Fact, age is not deterministic for adverse event reporting. Since

41
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:10,380
administration of the COVID-19 products to the 0 to 4 age group commenced, the rate of adverse event reporting has been

42
00:05:10,380 --> 00:05:21,580
increasing faster than for any other age group. Fact, the argument that this spike in reporting is due to increased shot

43
00:05:21,580 --> 00:05:29,500
administration is false. Slide two shows the comparison of the number of adverse events per million doses in the context of

44
00:05:29,500 --> 00:05:38,840
influenza vaccines and the COVID-19 injectable products in 2019 and 2021, respectively. On the left are the total adverse events, on the

45
00:05:38,840 --> 00:05:46,760
right are the deaths. The COVID-19 injectable products are associated with a 26 and a 100-fold increase in total adverse events and

46
00:05:46,760 --> 00:05:55,180
deaths, respectively, when compared per million doses with influenza vaccines in the same time frame. Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion

47
00:05:55,180 --> 00:06:04,500
reversibility is satisfied. When a drug is withdrawn, the side effects disappear. A strong correlation of R equals 0.8 and a high

48
00:06:04,500 --> 00:06:12,420
covariance exists between shot rollout data and myocarditis reports filed according to our world in data, new vaccination data and

49
00:06:12,420 --> 00:06:22,500
VAERS data, respectively. As shot demand wanes, so do the myocarditis reports. See slide 3a. Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion's specificity is

50
00:06:22,500 --> 00:06:33,460
satisfied. A very specific population at a specific site and disease is reported with no other likely explanation. Dose 2 is associated with a four-fold increase in

51
00:06:33,460 --> 00:06:43,460
reporting of myocarditis in 15-year-old boys. This indicates specificity with regard to age and gender. See slide 3b. Fact, the Bradford Hill criterion

52
00:06:43,460 --> 00:06:57,460
dose response is satisfied. Greater exposure leads to greater incidence of the effect. Following dose 2, an increase in signal occurs. See slide 3b. Fact, myocarditis is not transient

53
00:06:57,460 --> 00:07:05,460
or mild. A new paper published by rose at all in the journal therapeutic advances in drug safety shows that myocarditis

54
00:07:05,460 --> 00:07:15,460
is associated with hospitalization in 76% of reports. There are seven more Bradford Hill criterion criteria that are

55
00:07:15,460 --> 00:07:23,460
satisfiable. That's a 10 out of 10 bingo. Conclusion. Standard operating procedures for analysis of safety signals

56
00:07:23,460 --> 00:07:30,580
emergent from VAERS when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID-19 injectable products and the

57
00:07:30,580 --> 00:07:35,860
adverse events investigated. Standard operating procedures are not being followed by the owners of

58
00:07:35,860 --> 00:07:43,300
the data, namely CDC, HHS and FDA. And this equates to hiding the millions of people reporting not only adverse

59
00:07:43,300 --> 00:07:51,460
events but injuries in the context of the COVID-19 injectable products. Jessica's presentation was key. And Ron

60
00:07:51,460 --> 00:07:57,860
specifically wanted Jessica there. Jessica hadn't been able to attend previously because of various travel

61
00:07:57,860 --> 00:08:06,180
problems, etc. Ron had long wanted her to participate in the earlier presentations. And recently she's done a

62
00:08:06,180 --> 00:08:13,060
lot of hard work, you know, all through the COVID crisis, but it's really matured in her analysis of the

63
00:08:13,060 --> 00:08:19,140
vaccine adverse event reporting system of the CDC. And the stunning thing about this was this is all

64
00:08:19,140 --> 00:08:25,940
information that the CDC has known about and has hidden, has intentionally hidden as documented in

65
00:08:25,940 --> 00:08:31,780
these prior Epoch Times reports. So there's this other researcher that jumps to my mind right away as

66
00:08:31,780 --> 00:08:38,340
you're speaking, Raphael Lattister, who I wasn't frankly that familiar with before, but he's just completed

67
00:08:38,340 --> 00:08:46,020
the fourth of a series of papers looking at how the data that exists have been kind of used to exaggerate

68
00:08:46,020 --> 00:08:50,180
the safety and effectiveness of the jabs, which I thought was, you know, fascinating.

69
00:08:53,380 --> 00:08:58,980
I think Raphael has been one of the unsung heroes here. And he's done a lot of this publication together

70
00:08:58,980 --> 00:09:07,220
with Peter Doshi, the editor for BMJ, who's based at University of Maryland. And Raphael has driven a lot

71
00:09:07,220 --> 00:09:14,660
of that. He's got a fascinating story. He was subjected to pressure in Australia to lose his job because he

72
00:09:14,660 --> 00:09:21,620
wouldn't take the jab. He put together a dossier of information in his own defense saying, this is

73
00:09:21,620 --> 00:09:27,460
why I'm not willing to take the jab. I think one of the lovely things about Raphael is he's so modest.

74
00:09:27,460 --> 00:09:31,460
And absolutely. That was one of the things I noted. This is the kind of some of the most

75
00:09:31,460 --> 00:09:37,940
understated, incredibly hard hitting testimony. We have found in the studies varying definitions of

76
00:09:37,940 --> 00:09:44,980
fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. And generally, what we find with the term fully vaccinated is that

77
00:09:44,980 --> 00:09:51,300
they are ignoring COVID cases, COVID infections in the partially vaccinated. So this could be a few

78
00:09:51,300 --> 00:09:58,820
months worth of time where someone who's received the injections has a COVID infection, possibly because

79
00:09:58,820 --> 00:10:03,300
of the injection, as we've heard from other speakers today with immunosuppression and so forth.

80
00:10:04,100 --> 00:10:10,500
And yet it's not counted. It's completely ignored. And that effect was found to be up to 48%. Now,

81
00:10:10,500 --> 00:10:16,420
adverse effects in the observation studies, so relating to safety, a lot of these adverse effects

82
00:10:16,420 --> 00:10:23,460
are overlooked due to very narrow counting windows, including starting too late. So again, not counting

83
00:10:23,460 --> 00:10:29,700
what's happening in the partially vaccinated and ending too early, usually just a few months when we know

84
00:10:29,700 --> 00:10:36,980
there are long term effects such as myoconitis and so forth. Yeah, he's a great guy and understated,

85
00:10:36,980 --> 00:10:44,180
somebody that really ought to be recognized for his contributions during this. Well, and then there's

86
00:10:44,180 --> 00:10:49,300
this study reference that's been out for a little while now, referenced by Dell Bigtree, which had,

87
00:10:49,300 --> 00:10:56,500
you know, 99 million odd, right, you know, sample size. It's not bad. And this is a CDC study, by the

88
00:10:56,500 --> 00:11:02,580
way. The conclusions being drawn from this study by, let's call it the legacy media actors, including

89
00:11:02,580 --> 00:11:07,860
Fox News, is that right, are completely different from at least the conclusions that we would draw,

90
00:11:07,860 --> 00:11:12,260
I think, or that you pointed out to me. Yeah, different than the way that I read it.

91
00:11:12,980 --> 00:11:20,340
So this is a electronic publication in the journal Vaccine, which came out a few weeks ago, and the paper

92
00:11:20,340 --> 00:11:25,380
version will be coming out in a future issue. But they thought it was so important that they went ahead

93
00:11:25,380 --> 00:11:31,940
and published it electronically. And as you say, it's a survey of 99 million drawn from public

94
00:11:31,940 --> 00:11:38,100
databases. So these are government databases associated with the vaccine administration

95
00:11:38,980 --> 00:11:46,100
and the adverse events associated with that administration. The authors of this article,

96
00:11:46,100 --> 00:11:51,540
which, as you say, was sponsored by the CDC, they received a 10 million dollar grant to do this.

97
00:11:51,540 --> 00:11:56,980
And many of the authors have CDC affiliations. So this is pretty close to an official publication

98
00:11:57,540 --> 00:12:02,900
in a major peer-reviewed journal vaccine. But in the discussion, the authors acknowledged that

99
00:12:02,900 --> 00:12:09,460
all of these databases that they accessed were biased to under-report adverse events. Now,

100
00:12:09,460 --> 00:12:16,260
that's an easy thing to say. But when you unpack that, we know the reality. The average person that's

101
00:12:16,260 --> 00:12:22,020
just listening to this may not recognize what that really means. What it is, is an acknowledgement

102
00:12:22,900 --> 00:12:33,380
that these public databases are biased because physicians were unwilling to report adverse events.

103
00:12:33,380 --> 00:12:39,220
There were all kinds of disincentives to do so. And in many cases, the physician reports like happened

104
00:12:39,220 --> 00:12:45,700
in Canada would be deleted by the National Health Service as for any reason they could think of,

105
00:12:45,700 --> 00:12:52,180
saying that they were not accurate or valid. Despite all of that bias in the data,

106
00:12:53,140 --> 00:13:01,220
these authors with this rigorous 99 million analysis concluded that there was very strong statistical

107
00:13:01,220 --> 00:13:09,300
correlation between administration of the jab and a 45-day follow-up. So it's a short period of follow-up

108
00:13:09,300 --> 00:13:16,900
after vaccination. And three key types of adverse events. There's the cardiac damage, there's the

109
00:13:16,900 --> 00:13:25,460
sinus thrombosis, so in the brain, blood clots, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, this autoimmune-associated

110
00:13:25,460 --> 00:13:32,500
paralysis. So those were the three that had really strong correlations despite the bias in the data.

111
00:13:32,500 --> 00:13:37,940
But the authors acknowledged there was a number of other ones that looked like they were significant,

112
00:13:37,940 --> 00:13:43,860
but they didn't meet their rigorous criteria for a highly significant correlation. But what they

113
00:13:43,860 --> 00:13:49,460
did say is these should all be followed up and more carefully examined. And the press took this

114
00:13:50,100 --> 00:13:54,820
and they took the discussion section that had been written. The discussion section can talk about

115
00:13:54,820 --> 00:14:01,940
whatever they want, cite whatever papers they want. It was kind of a selective reporting and it cited a number

116
00:14:01,940 --> 00:14:09,460
of papers suggesting that these were relatively infrequent or rare. Now, rare is in the eye of the beholder.

117
00:14:09,460 --> 00:14:14,740
If you're the person that has developed Guillain-Barre syndrome or your relative or your child,

118
00:14:14,740 --> 00:14:22,820
it may not seem very rare to you. So rare is subjective. But the authors in their discussion section

119
00:14:22,820 --> 00:14:29,940
talked about other papers that had studied these things and said that they were rare. And the press picked up on that.

120
00:14:29,940 --> 00:14:36,180
They said, well, now the CDC, this study is acknowledging that these adverse events actually

121
00:14:36,180 --> 00:14:41,140
are happening, but they're still rare. But that wasn't actually what the paper concluded. The paper

122
00:14:41,140 --> 00:14:48,660
concluded that they were highly correlated and that further analysis was necessary and that this high

123
00:14:48,660 --> 00:14:54,580
correlation was detected despite the fact that these data were skewed, biased.

124
00:14:54,580 --> 00:15:00,660
One thing that just jumps to my mind also, you know, I had Kevin McKernan on the show on American

125
00:15:00,660 --> 00:15:06,900
Thought Leaders some time ago and he had found these DNA fragments in the jabs that shouldn't be there.

126
00:15:08,580 --> 00:15:16,420
So what Kevin did was he took the actual vaccine material with its DNA contamination and put it onto

127
00:15:16,420 --> 00:15:25,460
cultured cells basically to quiet down or address the fact checkers that said that, well, this hasn't been shown

128
00:15:25,460 --> 00:15:31,380
with these vaccines. And so he took the actual vaccine product, put it on cells and showed that in fact he could get

129
00:15:31,380 --> 00:15:38,420
integration. Not only could he get transfection, the delivery of those DNA fragments into those cells with high frequency,

130
00:15:38,420 --> 00:15:42,980
but he could also detect integration. What I want to talk to you today is about the DNA

131
00:15:42,980 --> 00:15:47,540
contamination that our team at Medistal Genomics discovered in the mRNA vaccines. We're specifically

132
00:15:47,540 --> 00:15:52,180
speaking about Pfizer and Moderna in this case. This work has been replicated by many labs around the

133
00:15:52,180 --> 00:15:58,420
world. And now the FDA, the EMA and even Health Canada have admitted to this. The regulatory agents have

134
00:15:58,420 --> 00:16:06,260
admitted that Pfizer also omitted the SV40 sequences that are in their vaccine. DNA contamination can lead to

135
00:16:06,260 --> 00:16:11,380
insertional mutagenesis. This is actually declared in Moderna's own patents regarding mRNA vaccines.

136
00:16:11,380 --> 00:16:18,820
This is U.S. patent 10,000,898,574. This is also supported by Lim et al., which speaks to the rate of

137
00:16:18,820 --> 00:16:23,220
spontaneous integration in the genome during transfection. We are using transfection after all

138
00:16:23,220 --> 00:16:29,220
with LNPs. The SV40 DNA is in fact functional. It is published as a potent gene therapy tool in a

139
00:16:29,220 --> 00:16:35,940
nuclear targeting sequence as described by David Dean et al. The SV40 promoter DNA is also known to bind to the

140
00:16:35,940 --> 00:16:40,500
tumor suppressor gene known as p53. We've applied these vaccines to some cancer cell lines and have

141
00:16:40,500 --> 00:16:44,980
evidence that it enters the cell and can survive several cell divisions. We have preliminary

142
00:16:44,980 --> 00:16:49,620
evidence, although this requires replication in other labs, that this DNA can integrate into the

143
00:16:49,620 --> 00:16:54,660
genome. We found two spike sequence integration events in ovarian cancer cell lines of CAR3 into

144
00:16:54,660 --> 00:17:00,820
chromosome 12 and 19 very recently. Kevin, in this wonderful little concise segment, basically says,

145
00:17:00,820 --> 00:17:06,500
in order to address the fact checkers, I've done these things, bang, bang, bang, and they were wrong

146
00:17:06,500 --> 00:17:10,020
about this, and they were wrong about that, and they were wrong about that. He talks about that they

147
00:17:10,020 --> 00:17:15,620
denied that the DNA was there, and now the agencies are all acknowledging that it's there, and they

148
00:17:15,620 --> 00:17:20,100
denied that it could be delivered, and he's demonstrated that it could be delivered, and they

149
00:17:20,100 --> 00:17:24,900
said it couldn't possibly integrate because that's what Peter Marks said, and in fact he's demonstrated that

150
00:17:24,900 --> 00:17:31,220
it integrates. So all of that stuff is now moot. God bless him. If I can harp on this for a moment,

151
00:17:31,220 --> 00:17:37,460
it's just astonishing to me that this lipid nanoparticle technology would be specifically used,

152
00:17:38,420 --> 00:17:46,340
like it's known as a method to cause integration in the first place. It's not perplexing to me. I spent

153
00:17:47,700 --> 00:17:52,340
15-20 years doing this, developing this tech. But what are the implications of this?

154
00:17:52,340 --> 00:17:58,820
That's why I was so shocked. When I first heard about Kevin's findings with the DNA fragments,

155
00:17:58,820 --> 00:18:05,780
and the SV-40 sequence fragment that's present in there, and the nuclear localization sequence,

156
00:18:05,780 --> 00:18:11,860
etc., this was first brought to me by David Weissman. And he said, there's this data, Robert,

157
00:18:11,860 --> 00:18:18,500
what do you think about this? And I said, he darn well better be sure that this is the true plasmid map,

158
00:18:18,500 --> 00:18:24,260
and that it actually has these SV-40 sequences in there. Because if he's right, the implications

159
00:18:24,260 --> 00:18:29,460
are profound. And then three months later, it's now been replicated by multiple laboratories all

160
00:18:29,460 --> 00:18:35,540
over the world, and confronted the FDA, and confronted Health Canada, and they've all concurred

161
00:18:35,540 --> 00:18:41,780
that in fact the DNA fragments are there. The implications have been right out front from the

162
00:18:41,780 --> 00:18:48,180
very beginning. And so in a very brief nutshell, why are the implications so profound?

163
00:18:49,380 --> 00:18:56,580
Because this tech is specifically used to deliver polynucleotides. It's agnostic. It doesn't care if

164
00:18:56,580 --> 00:19:04,900
it's RNA or DNA. And there was all this discussion early on because of a Rudy Yanish paper published in

165
00:19:04,900 --> 00:19:12,420
Proceedings in National Academy of Sciences. So Rudy is one of the core molecular virologists at MIT.

166
00:19:13,060 --> 00:19:18,580
And he had said that in the presence of reverse transcriptase, this RNA could be turned into DNA,

167
00:19:18,580 --> 00:19:26,260
and it would integrate based on some essentially disrupted genome of cells, certain type of liver

168
00:19:26,260 --> 00:19:34,100
cells, hep G2, a very artificial cell system. And I'd always said, well, that's a very contrived

169
00:19:34,100 --> 00:19:39,620
system. That probably isn't happening very often in humans after administering this.

170
00:19:41,300 --> 00:19:48,260
And then along comes Kevin's data that there's DNA there. That's a slam dunk, as far as I'm concerned,

171
00:19:48,260 --> 00:19:54,500
as somebody who gave rise to this technology and is a bona fide expert in it. That is specifically

172
00:19:54,500 --> 00:20:02,420
what this technology was originally developed for, was delivering DNA into cells in order to

173
00:20:03,140 --> 00:20:09,700
create cell lines or enable short-term expression of proteins off of that DNA. That's why it was

174
00:20:09,700 --> 00:20:14,420
created. It's also used for the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Right.

175
00:20:14,420 --> 00:20:22,740
Okay. So this is exactly what the tech was developed for. And no surprise that it would have this effect

176
00:20:22,740 --> 00:20:28,900
when injected into humans. And CRISPR, that Cas9 system, is the sort of, you know, gene editing

177
00:20:28,900 --> 00:20:36,420
system just for everyone's benefit. Yeah. When Kevin did that sequencing, identified those fragments,

178
00:20:36,420 --> 00:20:42,420
and then reassembled a plasmid map based on his core competency in genomic sequencing,

179
00:20:43,140 --> 00:20:49,140
using the available tools that he routinely uses, it changed everything as far as I was concerned

180
00:20:49,860 --> 00:20:59,140
about the risk profile. And yet what was amazing was the response from the official community, the FDA,

181
00:20:59,860 --> 00:21:10,020
and kind of the academic supporters that the press often goes to, was a full-on denialism that this could

182
00:21:10,020 --> 00:21:17,540
possibly result in integration. When any undergraduate doing cell culture work

183
00:21:18,660 --> 00:21:24,580
and using DNA to manipulate those cells, knows that's exactly what this tech is designed for.

184
00:21:24,580 --> 00:21:32,660
It must be done a million times a year, at least, worldwide. We developed these cationic lipid compounds

185
00:21:32,660 --> 00:21:37,460
and sold them to the likes of ProMega as reagents. I was going to say a million times a year,

186
00:21:37,460 --> 00:21:46,180
but not in vivo in human cells, right? Not in vivo, no, in human cells, but not in whole animals.

187
00:21:46,180 --> 00:21:52,420
Right. For me, it's been an Alice in Wonderland situation through the looking glass to know that

188
00:21:53,140 --> 00:22:00,340
this technology is specifically used for this. It was designed for this. It's marketed for this. I've

189
00:22:00,340 --> 00:22:07,140
developed marketed compounds for the research industry that we had patents on, we sold,

190
00:22:07,140 --> 00:22:14,980
to research reagent companies to do this, and then to have the FDA denying decades of experience that,

191
00:22:14,980 --> 00:22:21,540
in fact, this is the properties of this technology, was a bizarre moment in time. Since Kevin's data have

192
00:22:21,540 --> 00:22:27,860
come out, it's almost self-evident. So let's do a quick accounting as we kind of finish this segment

193
00:22:27,860 --> 00:22:35,620
of kind of the issues, right? I mean, I'm just kind of off the top of my head. We've kind of used in these gene therapy,

194
00:22:36,580 --> 00:22:43,940
you know, vaccine-named products, we've used a very toxic protein, right, as the antigen.

195
00:22:43,940 --> 00:22:44,340
Yeah.

196
00:22:44,340 --> 00:22:47,140
Which is, you know, there's a question mark.

197
00:22:47,140 --> 00:22:48,180
Engineered antigen.

198
00:22:48,180 --> 00:22:54,260
It's engineered. There's this, you know, pseudouridine in it, which causes this

199
00:22:54,260 --> 00:23:00,100
ribosomal frame shifting. So then, you know, I think it's 8% of the proteins are the wrong thing,

200
00:23:00,100 --> 00:23:05,620
with possibly some kind of immunological activity in itself. So we've got that. We've got this DNA

201
00:23:05,620 --> 00:23:11,940
contamination. We've got the endotoxin, which is the cell wall contamination, from that same process

202
00:23:12,740 --> 00:23:19,700
in there. We've got a lot of variation in the way production, it seems like the quality control,

203
00:23:19,700 --> 00:23:26,580
ostensibly very poor. And governments are blocked from actually verifying the purity, potency,

204
00:23:27,540 --> 00:23:35,860
and identity of the products by contract with Pfizer and Moderna. Yeah. So Ron really wanted to have

205
00:23:35,860 --> 00:23:44,580
somebody put down a punch list of these kinds of specific, where do we stand with the vaccine

206
00:23:44,580 --> 00:23:51,300
science and the effects. And after all the dust settled of everything, everybody else organized,

207
00:23:51,300 --> 00:23:57,620
he asked me to roll out my punch list of what I thought were the key things that we've learned

208
00:23:57,620 --> 00:24:03,460
about the vaccine adverse events and other characteristics, much as you're doing. And I came

209
00:24:03,460 --> 00:24:09,460
up with this little list. The modified mRNA and adenovectored products are not traditional vaccines.

210
00:24:10,500 --> 00:24:14,820
They employ cutting edge gene delivery or gene therapy technologies and should be regulated as

211
00:24:14,820 --> 00:24:20,020
gene therapy products. That's still being considered controversial, by the way. There are still fact

212
00:24:20,020 --> 00:24:26,020
checkers that are denying that this is gene therapy technology. Despite the fact that we had Bayer

213
00:24:26,020 --> 00:24:32,420
pharmaceuticals come out the other day and explicitly refer to these as gene therapy products,

214
00:24:32,420 --> 00:24:39,300
and basically celebrate that now the populace is accepting gene therapy products and the field can

215
00:24:39,300 --> 00:24:46,100
advance. We're really taking that leap, us as a company buyer, in cell and gene therapy, which to me

216
00:24:46,100 --> 00:24:52,340
is one of these examples where really we're going to make a difference hopefully moving forward. There's some

217
00:24:53,300 --> 00:24:59,060
ultimately the the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say

218
00:24:59,060 --> 00:25:06,020
if we had surveyed two years ago in the public would you be willing to take a gene gene or cell

219
00:25:06,020 --> 00:25:12,020
therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95 percent refusal rate. These leaky

220
00:25:12,020 --> 00:25:19,220
products, there's no denying that these are unsuccessful in preventing infection replication and spread of the

221
00:25:19,220 --> 00:25:28,420
virus. And we had recent testimony from the CDC representative on the hill that acknowledged finally and persistent

222
00:25:28,420 --> 00:25:35,220
questioning that these products don't prevent infection. And just to recap, to reel back in time,

223
00:25:35,780 --> 00:25:41,140
at the very outset of this I did a deep dive into the history of coronavirus vaccines, which many other

224
00:25:41,140 --> 00:25:48,100
people did too. And the truth was there has never been a successful human coronavirus vaccine.

225
00:25:48,100 --> 00:25:52,900
Because the things mutate so much, so it doesn't make a ton of sense. A whole lot of reasons they're

226
00:25:52,900 --> 00:25:59,300
able to evade immune responses. They mutate really rapidly to escape them. There's never been a successful

227
00:25:59,300 --> 00:26:05,460
coronavirus vaccine. And I argue there still has not been a successful coronavirus vaccine in terms of

228
00:26:05,460 --> 00:26:12,420
preventing infection replication or spread. We're down to arguing the nuance of whether or not there's a

229
00:26:12,420 --> 00:26:20,260
short-term benefit in terms of hospitalization or death. We know there's not a long-term benefit after

230
00:26:20,260 --> 00:26:27,060
receiving these products because of the negative effectiveness that after two to three months post

231
00:26:27,060 --> 00:26:35,220
vaccination, you actually become more likely to have significant COVID disease or death. Surprise.

232
00:26:35,460 --> 00:26:41,460
Point three. In contrast to official HHS communications, these products distribute

233
00:26:41,460 --> 00:26:46,900
throughout the body. So this is another lie. They go all over your body. They don't just stay in the

234
00:26:46,900 --> 00:26:51,700
shoulder after you're injected. Because that's what the lipid nanoparticles are designed to do,

235
00:26:51,700 --> 00:26:57,540
is go everywhere. And your body handles them like other lipids. It distributes them all over your body.

236
00:26:58,100 --> 00:27:05,220
So who cares? Well, what happens is not only is the lipid nanoparticle toxic, so that

237
00:27:05,220 --> 00:27:11,700
toxicity goes with it wherever it happens to go in your body. But then when it produces these proteins,

238
00:27:11,700 --> 00:27:16,340
both the frame-shifted proteins and the spike protein, the engineered spike protein,

239
00:27:17,060 --> 00:27:23,300
those are seen as foreign. And your body's immune system will attack those cells wherever they are in

240
00:27:23,300 --> 00:27:29,300
your body because they're producing a foreign protein. Okay, so that's a problem. The viral spike

241
00:27:29,300 --> 00:27:35,220
protein which these products cause patients' bodies to manufacture is a genetically engineered toxin.

242
00:27:35,220 --> 00:27:43,060
That's now well established. The lipid nanoparticle used to deliver the mRNA has intrinsic toxicity in

243
00:27:43,060 --> 00:27:49,620
humans. That's now established fact. These products do not deliver natural messenger RNA,

244
00:27:49,620 --> 00:27:53,780
but rather a synthetic chemically modified form. This is the pseudouridine,

245
00:27:54,420 --> 00:28:01,220
with its bizarre characteristics that it suppresses inflammation. And it also

246
00:28:02,260 --> 00:28:08,740
causes these products to last a really long time. Remember early on we were told, well, the RNA,

247
00:28:08,740 --> 00:28:13,780
it goes into your arm, it goes to the draining lymph nodes, doesn't go anywhere else, and it's gone in a

248
00:28:13,780 --> 00:28:18,180
couple hours, so don't worry about it. All those were wrong. Well, except that this was

249
00:28:18,180 --> 00:28:24,500
the pseudouridine was been specifically to allow the technology to work in the first place. Yeah.

250
00:28:24,500 --> 00:28:29,780
Because otherwise, because if it gets gone in an hour or whatever it is, then it actually can't work.

251
00:28:29,780 --> 00:28:35,620
Or actually, the justification that Carrico and Weissmann used in their early paper

252
00:28:36,500 --> 00:28:44,500
was that it would suppress the inflammatory response to the RNA itself. When they made that

253
00:28:44,500 --> 00:28:50,820
discovery, the whole science of pseudouridine was still in its infancy. And all of these other

254
00:28:50,820 --> 00:28:57,540
effects that we now know more about, but we still don't really know about, were unknown. So they kind

255
00:28:57,540 --> 00:29:02,740
of were out on the edge and said, hey, let's take a lark. Let's try this thing. We're trying to find

256
00:29:02,740 --> 00:29:09,220
some way to make this thing work. And they did it because they knew that the inflammatory response

257
00:29:09,220 --> 00:29:15,460
triggered by the RNA itself was a major problem. The side effect was that it had this longer lasting.

258
00:29:16,580 --> 00:29:20,740
These products are contaminated with previously undisclosed short DNA fragments. We just talked

259
00:29:20,740 --> 00:29:26,100
about that. This is Kevin McKernan et al. Many others have contributed this, but Kevin certainly

260
00:29:26,100 --> 00:29:32,820
deserves the gold star for being the leader and pioneering us. Analysis of public databases clearly

261
00:29:32,820 --> 00:29:37,940
demonstrate a causal relationship between administration of these products and a variety of toxicities,

262
00:29:37,940 --> 00:29:43,380
including cardiac damage, central and peripheral nervous system damage, and damage associated

263
00:29:43,380 --> 00:29:49,220
with abnormal blood clotting and death. This was the stuff that was covered so well by Jessica Rose.

264
00:29:50,900 --> 00:29:55,540
Public health data from a wide variety of Western government sources demonstrate that repeated

265
00:29:55,540 --> 00:30:02,500
administration of these products are associated with this problem of negative efficacy.

266
00:30:02,500 --> 00:30:12,260
And we also had testimony about that. In particular, the elevation of IG4, also kind of inside baseball,

267
00:30:12,260 --> 00:30:20,740
what is IG4? It's a variety of immunoglobulin. It's a category of immunoglobulin. There's many different

268
00:30:20,740 --> 00:30:29,940
kinds of immunoglobulins. And IG4 is typically upregulated conditions that involve allergic responses,

269
00:30:29,940 --> 00:30:37,460
responses, and it's associated with downregulating adaptive inflammatory responses, so anti-infectious

270
00:30:37,460 --> 00:30:47,380
disease responses. So the problem with elevated IG4, particularly after repeat administration,

271
00:30:47,380 --> 00:30:56,180
is this general problem of immune imprinting, original antigenic sin, downregulating immune response.

272
00:30:56,180 --> 00:31:05,380
If your child has an allergy and you go to an allergist, what do they do? They give them allergy shots.

273
00:31:06,340 --> 00:31:13,940
They basically expose them to ragweed pollen, for example, through intradermal injections. Your child

274
00:31:13,940 --> 00:31:20,820
eventually develops a tolerance for ragweed pollen. Functionally, what this IG4 data show is that a

275
00:31:20,820 --> 00:31:26,980
similar thing is happening is happening with the COVID jabs. And strangely, what the CDC recommendations

276
00:31:26,980 --> 00:31:36,180
are doing is driving people that are fully compliant to have a response akin to what your allergist might

277
00:31:36,180 --> 00:31:44,100
have your child do with ragweed pollen, where it's actually pushing down the ability of your body to

278
00:31:44,100 --> 00:31:52,900
respond to COVID. These are, I think, the key things that are really at the center of an update of where we

279
00:31:52,900 --> 00:32:00,500
at right now with these products. While the CDC is once again recommending that the elderly take their next

280
00:32:01,380 --> 00:32:09,780
dose, to my eye, the data show that the elderly have more adverse events than do some of the younger

281
00:32:09,780 --> 00:32:14,900
cohorts. So they both have more risk from the virus, but they also have more risk from the vaccine.

282
00:32:14,900 --> 00:32:22,980
The CDC also is now kind of normalizing COVID, saying that we no longer have to have this five-day

283
00:32:22,980 --> 00:32:29,380
quarantine period. We can treat COVID more like any other respiratory virus. They're trying to get

284
00:32:29,380 --> 00:32:35,460
all of their guidance for respiratory viruses aligned so that basically we have one guidance,

285
00:32:35,460 --> 00:32:41,620
whether it's flu or RSV or COVID. It seems that we're in this bizarre, through the looking glass

286
00:32:41,620 --> 00:32:48,340
world where the data are completely misaligned with the public policy positions.

287
00:32:48,340 --> 00:32:54,420
I think we've covered the kind of state of the jab part of the hearing pretty well here today. But

288
00:32:54,420 --> 00:33:01,060
frankly, I think the entire hearing deserves watching. I mean, there's some highlight reels around. I know in

289
00:33:01,060 --> 00:33:07,700
Senator Johnson's Twitter feed and his rumble. I completely agree. And some of the highlights

290
00:33:07,700 --> 00:33:13,780
are stunning, like Laura Logan's talking about the media and what's happened. Some of the Canadian

291
00:33:13,780 --> 00:33:19,540
testimony we had, as you mentioned, a Canadian journalist and also a Canadian politician. And

292
00:33:19,540 --> 00:33:28,500
data from Romania showing that there was very low uptake, basically Romanian resistance to the green card.

293
00:33:28,500 --> 00:33:36,500
And yet they have the best outcome in Europe in terms of all-cause mortality. Just as we might,

294
00:33:36,500 --> 00:33:42,260
you and I might expect, less jabs, better outcome. It's a paradox.

295
00:33:42,260 --> 00:33:49,620
So there's room for some kind of observational study, possibly to look at Sweden, to look at Romania,

296
00:33:49,620 --> 00:33:55,700
and then look at some of the places that had both heavy lockdowns and heavy jab. That's interesting.

297
00:33:55,700 --> 00:34:02,500
And I'm hearing from a lot of other people that somehow this one feels like a turning point.

298
00:34:03,140 --> 00:34:09,300
Because I think in part, it was broader. It was multinational, international.

299
00:34:10,500 --> 00:34:14,340
And it was more aimed at the questions that real people have.

300
00:34:14,340 --> 00:34:19,700
So actually, that's what I heard as well. So I want to recommend everyone, all our viewers,

301
00:34:19,700 --> 00:34:24,820
check out the hearing, check out the highlight reel, learn a bit more. It's packed full of amazing

302
00:34:24,820 --> 00:34:30,820
information. And I think we should actually shift gears a little bit and head over to a different

303
00:34:30,820 --> 00:34:36,100
vaccine to think about the flu vaccine now, a little bit of its background. So we're going to take a short

304
00:34:36,100 --> 00:34:39,460
break right now. And after that, we're going to hit you with some Vax Facts.

305
00:34:39,460 --> 00:34:46,500
Let's talk about the flu vaccine. I really like using the flu vaccine as a starting point,

306
00:34:46,500 --> 00:34:52,500
an entry-level thing for talking about vaccines, because it covers so much of the whole vaccine

307
00:34:52,500 --> 00:34:58,980
technology space. And in the case of flu, what's interesting is, in many ways, what we covered a

308
00:34:58,980 --> 00:35:06,660
couple of segments ago when we talked about the history of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. The myth around that

309
00:35:06,660 --> 00:35:13,140
pandemic is really what underlies not only the entire vaccine enterprise, but especially the

310
00:35:13,140 --> 00:35:20,260
influenza enterprise, because the government has taken as a policy position that it's their

311
00:35:20,260 --> 00:35:28,980
responsibility to prevent a 1918 H1N1 from ever happening again. And we think that now that there

312
00:35:28,980 --> 00:35:35,700
might have been other factors than the actual influenza virus that caused this. Those are the data that come

313
00:35:35,700 --> 00:35:41,860
from Walter Reed looking at old army autopsy samples. 100%. We'll get our folks to check out

314
00:35:41,860 --> 00:35:49,700
that episode if they're not familiar. Yes. So in a way, the whole influenza strategy is kind of built on

315
00:35:49,700 --> 00:35:56,900
a myth that we now know isn't really true. But it has a life of its own, like many bureaucratic things.

316
00:35:56,900 --> 00:36:05,060
And in the case of flu, the reason why we all get pushed to take an annual influenza vaccine here

317
00:36:05,060 --> 00:36:10,980
in the United States, as opposed to Brazil or many other countries that don't mandate and don't promote

318
00:36:10,980 --> 00:36:17,940
annual influenza vaccines is because there's a need to maintain, here's the key word, warm-based

319
00:36:17,940 --> 00:36:26,580
manufacturing. What that means is the government believes that in the event that a 1918-like thing

320
00:36:26,580 --> 00:36:31,940
happens again, we're going to have to be able to make enough influenza vaccine for everybody.

321
00:36:31,940 --> 00:36:37,460
But you can't just stand up and influence a vaccine manufacturing facility and mothball it.

322
00:36:37,460 --> 00:36:43,140
You have to keep it in production because otherwise you can't really turn it back on again.

323
00:36:43,140 --> 00:36:47,940
Well, and you need eggs, right? That's something a lot of people don't know.

324
00:36:47,940 --> 00:36:57,140
Yes. So most influenza vaccines are manufactured in eggs because flu will grow in chick embryos. Flu

325
00:36:57,140 --> 00:37:03,380
grows like crazy in wild birds. So all the migratory geese and ducks and everything else

326
00:37:04,260 --> 00:37:09,540
carry a lot of influenza with them. And they poop enormous amounts of influenza into the water,

327
00:37:09,540 --> 00:37:15,780
by the way. So the whole idea that we could somehow vaccinate all chickens in the United States

328
00:37:15,780 --> 00:37:23,540
and stop bird flu is false. The thesis is that we have to have this massive ability to rapidly

329
00:37:23,540 --> 00:37:28,580
manufacture enough flu vaccine to inoculate the entire population of the United States and

330
00:37:28,580 --> 00:37:35,300
preferably the rest of the world to prevent some horrible outcome that might occur like 1918. And how

331
00:37:35,300 --> 00:37:43,780
are you going to do that if you just have, you know, people, elderly, the children that are immunocompromised,

332
00:37:43,780 --> 00:37:48,500
the people that are really at risk for influenza for dying, if they're the only ones that are getting

333
00:37:48,500 --> 00:37:56,100
the vaccine? You can't sustain the manufacturing if you don't have the market. That they've created a market

334
00:37:56,980 --> 00:38:03,940
through the annual influenza vaccine campaigns in order to sustain the warm-based manufacturing

335
00:38:03,940 --> 00:38:10,180
in case someday we have a 1918. That's the chain that's happening. And what's happened over time

336
00:38:10,180 --> 00:38:16,420
is they've kind of changed the goalposts. They used to focus on whether or not the vaccine would protect

337
00:38:16,420 --> 00:38:23,140
against infection. That was efficacy. Now they've changed efficacy to whether or not it protects against

338
00:38:23,140 --> 00:38:29,540
severe disease. Reminds me of another vaccine. Sounds awful familiar, doesn't it? Just like COVID,

339
00:38:29,540 --> 00:38:35,860
the same games. And that's no surprise because that's kind of how CDC grew up their whole vaccine

340
00:38:35,860 --> 00:38:41,140
enterprise. Well, so the other thing that jumps to my mind is, you know, we've talked about a number

341
00:38:41,140 --> 00:38:45,860
of times on this show and certainly on American Thought Leaders, this idea of immune tolerance. Sometimes

342
00:38:45,860 --> 00:38:52,260
it's called a negative vaccine efficacy. Immune imprinting is another word. And there's other fancier

343
00:38:52,260 --> 00:38:59,620
words that are kind of inside baseball for immunologists and vaccinologists. I've lost two key

344
00:38:59,620 --> 00:39:07,620
clients in the past by even talking about this. This was a third rail in influenza vaccines for years and

345
00:39:07,620 --> 00:39:14,980
years and years. You weren't supposed to talk about this problem of negative efficacy or of immune

346
00:39:14,980 --> 00:39:22,580
intolerance. But it's influenza literature. And what's shown again and again is that when you have

347
00:39:22,580 --> 00:39:28,340
these annual boosters, when you're repeatedly vaccinating somebody against influenza, they actually

348
00:39:28,340 --> 00:39:36,980
become less responsive to a new influenza infection. Their bodies get trained to respond to the last

349
00:39:36,980 --> 00:39:43,060
influenza or the one that had the biggest impact on their immune system, perhaps their first one.

350
00:39:43,060 --> 00:39:50,420
And then you keep boosting them. But what happens is you end up boosting antibodies and immune response

351
00:39:50,420 --> 00:39:58,740
from an antiquated strain a lot of times. And so then your body isn't able to adapt and respond rapidly

352
00:39:58,740 --> 00:40:04,820
to a new strain that's different. This annual influenza vaccine strategy, while it may be great for

353
00:40:04,820 --> 00:40:11,060
maintaining warm-based manufacturing, it isn't so great for the patient because they actually become more

354
00:40:11,060 --> 00:40:17,460
likely in some cases, in many cases, to become infected with the latest influenza strain. If you keep

355
00:40:17,460 --> 00:40:24,740
giving an antigen, you keep giving an influenza shot again and again and again, what you can do is train

356
00:40:24,740 --> 00:40:30,340
somebody's immune system to not react to influenza. I've heard that you can actually get influenza from

357
00:40:30,340 --> 00:40:37,780
getting a shot. And that's a little bit complicated to answer. It turns out that one of the influenza vaccines

358
00:40:37,780 --> 00:40:46,980
is the intranasal live attenuated flu mist product. It's restricted to people, I think it's 4 to 49.

359
00:40:46,980 --> 00:40:53,700
It can't be used in pregnancy. It can't be used in immunocompromised because it is a live influenza virus.

360
00:40:53,700 --> 00:41:00,900
It's a weakened one. That's what the word attenuated is. And it goes into your nose, but it can cause disease

361
00:41:00,900 --> 00:41:08,020
in some people. So yeah, the answer is in the case of flu mist, you absolutely can get influenza if you

362
00:41:08,020 --> 00:41:13,940
are somebody who has basically a weak immune system. Should people be getting this vaccine?

363
00:41:13,940 --> 00:41:20,900
That's a good question. You're basically putting me on the spot to go against CDC guidance and lose my

364
00:41:20,900 --> 00:41:27,860
medical license and God only knows what else these days. But I'll say it this way. I don't take an annual

365
00:41:27,860 --> 00:41:34,820
influenza vaccine. Many countries throughout the world do not recommend annual influenza vaccination.

366
00:41:34,820 --> 00:41:42,740
If you're an elderly person with a history of upper respiratory infections or immunocompromised,

367
00:41:42,740 --> 00:41:49,140
it may make sense for you. But I think for the average person, it's just like with COVID.

368
00:41:49,140 --> 00:42:00,340
If you get a periodic influenza infection, it's going to generate a robust immunity that's complex. It's

369
00:42:00,340 --> 00:42:08,020
cellular and humoral, and it's going to be against all the different influenza antigens. And that's

370
00:42:08,020 --> 00:42:16,020
probably some of the best immune response you can get, to not be afraid of the annually circulating

371
00:42:16,020 --> 00:42:22,180
influenza. There's another one where we're surrounded by fear messaging. You must get

372
00:42:22,180 --> 00:42:29,060
your influenza vaccine. Influenza kills people. Well, the truth is the people that are at high risk

373
00:42:29,060 --> 00:42:36,820
for death from upper respiratory viral infections like influenza, RSV, COVID, beta coronaviruses,

374
00:42:37,940 --> 00:42:44,820
other respiratory viruses, are people that are already not well. People that already have compromised

375
00:42:44,820 --> 00:42:50,980
immune systems that are elderly. In some cases, it's just the thing that tips the balance.

376
00:42:52,340 --> 00:42:58,580
You're already on the edge in terms of your health, and you get a pneumonia, and that knocks you out.

377
00:42:59,700 --> 00:43:05,620
You can also have that from an ascending urinary tract infection. That's a common way that old people

378
00:43:05,620 --> 00:43:10,820
die. And there's also, you know, ways you can kind of protect yourself to strengthen your immune

379
00:43:10,820 --> 00:43:16,500
system. And of course, vitamin D, you know, comes to mind immediately. Absolutely. Vitamin D plus zinc,

380
00:43:16,500 --> 00:43:24,100
a healthy living, getting outside, getting sunshine, maintaining your health in every dimension is the

381
00:43:24,100 --> 00:43:30,020
best protection you have. So I guess that's a wrap. And next week, we're going to be talking about this

382
00:43:30,020 --> 00:43:35,380
paper that Dr. Jessica Rose, we talked about earlier, along with Dr. Peter McCullough and a few others,

383
00:43:35,380 --> 00:43:41,060
published the first paper actually calling for the withdrawal of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines,

384
00:43:41,060 --> 00:43:45,940
went through extensive peer review, was published, and then mysteriously retracted. So we're going to

385
00:43:45,940 --> 00:43:52,420
look into the peer review process, something you know a lot about. Absolutely. And for our viewers out

386
00:43:52,420 --> 00:43:58,740
there, can you do me a favor? The next time you see an outrageous headline, something that just seems to

387
00:43:58,740 --> 00:44:05,380
be upside down. Put it in the social media, tag it as Fallout, and put it in the comments below here

388
00:44:05,380 --> 00:44:10,660
so that we can pull those things together for a segment next week. And we'll see you next week on Fallout.

389
00:44:28,740 --> 00:44:33,380
We'll see you next week on the next week.

390
00:44:33,380 --> 00:44:37,380
Bye.

391
00:44:37,380 --> 00:44:41,380
Bye.

392
00:44:41,380 --> 00:44:43,380
Bye.

393
00:44:43,380 --> 00:44:45,380
Bye.

394
00:44:45,380 --> 00:44:47,380
Bye.

395
00:44:47,380 --> 00:44:49,380
Bye.

396
00:44:49,380 --> 00:44:51,380
Bye.

397
00:44:51,380 --> 00:44:53,380
Bye.

398
00:44:53,380 --> 00:44:55,380
Bye.

399
00:44:55,380 --> 00:44:57,380
Bye.

400
00:44:57,380 --> 00:44:58,380
Bye.