1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:29,980
Thank you.

2
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:50,880
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Fallout with Dr. Robert Malone and myself, Jan Jekielek,

3
00:00:51,040 --> 00:00:56,920
Senior Editor at the Epoch Times. Today, we're going to look at a couple of hard-hitting articles

4
00:00:56,920 --> 00:01:04,180
from the Epoch Times. Number one, the CDC had evidence before it admitted it that the COVID-19

5
00:01:04,180 --> 00:01:11,040
genetic vaccines could cause death. Number two, we're going to look at an unexpected side effect

6
00:01:11,040 --> 00:01:18,840
of these COVID-19 genetic vaccines, psychosis, a possibility. And finally, there's been these new

7
00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:23,660
boosters that have been put on the market, and there's a paper out there that actually looks at

8
00:01:23,660 --> 00:01:28,280
their effectiveness. Robert, it's great to be with you again, and I just want to remind everybody

9
00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:35,740
that this is a very special live Q&A episode, so make sure to put your Q&A questions in the comments,

10
00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:38,740
and we're going to answer a bunch of them. Hi, Robert.

11
00:01:39,500 --> 00:01:46,420
So Jan Weed seem to be in a funny phase right now, a transition, where information is starting to

12
00:01:46,420 --> 00:01:53,620
trickle out both from the federal government and from the peer-reviewed literature, information that

13
00:01:53,620 --> 00:02:00,600
is frankly validating for what a lot of us, including you and I, have discussed in many prior

14
00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:10,500
American Thought Leaders episodes and prior Fallout episodes. And we have a recent interview from

15
00:02:10,500 --> 00:02:19,400
Ashish Jha that I found fascinating. Ashish Jha being the, I think he's a dean of Brown University

16
00:02:19,400 --> 00:02:28,720
Medical School, but he's the global coordinator for the White House for COVID. And he had some very

17
00:02:28,720 --> 00:02:35,140
frank comments to make the other day. I want to talk to you a little bit about, and perhaps you can

18
00:02:35,140 --> 00:02:41,160
speak to it, how people are able to get help. Because it says here, as of April, just over 13,000

19
00:02:41,160 --> 00:02:48,120
vaccine injury compensation claims have been filed, but to no avail. Only 19% have been reviewed.

20
00:02:48,340 --> 00:02:54,160
What can we do to do better with some of these folks? Yeah. So in my mind, there are two parts

21
00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:57,240
of this. First of all, is we've got to speed up reviews of these things. People who have been

22
00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:03,160
entered should not have to wait months or years to get an answer. Second is, you know, we have some

23
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:08,080
traditional things we look at. We probably have to expand the definition or think about, are there

24
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:13,720
new conditions that are vaccine injuries that we haven't identified before? This requires research.

25
00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:18,020
It requires, you know, what's really a vaccine injury, what's not. We've got to be focused on

26
00:03:18,020 --> 00:03:24,160
that as well. I think we just can do a lot better for these folks. It'll also help build confidence in

27
00:03:24,160 --> 00:03:28,980
the vaccine system, reminding people that while it's safe for most people, if you are injured,

28
00:03:28,980 --> 00:03:34,140
you'll get taken care of. I think that's sort of my next question is, is, you know, why is it

29
00:03:34,140 --> 00:03:39,220
taking so long? Why isn't the government doing better? Why aren't we bringing attention to some

30
00:03:39,220 --> 00:03:44,440
of these people who are suffering and saying, you know, we can do better by you. And here is how we

31
00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:50,820
can, here is how we can assist you. Yeah. I worry a little bit that what has happened is we've gotten

32
00:03:50,820 --> 00:03:56,200
caught in the sort of politics of this, because as you know, there are a lot of people who've become

33
00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:02,100
very anti-vaccine. And so that means that a lot of doctors see these patients and worry that if

34
00:04:02,100 --> 00:04:06,320
they acknowledge that person's suffering, that somehow they're becoming anti-vaccine themselves.

35
00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:12,000
I take care of people. I remind people it doesn't matter. I'm very pro-vaccines. I got them. Everyone in

36
00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:17,000
my family got them. Still, I think we have to acknowledge this. That is not just happening among

37
00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:19,680
doctors. It's happening inside the government. We just have to do better.

38
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:27,560
I find that absolutely fascinating. And just before we continue, I want to remind our viewers

39
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:32,240
that if you do have questions for Dr. Robert Malone or myself, please make sure to put them

40
00:04:32,240 --> 00:04:36,760
down in the comments. And we're going to be answering a bunch of them. So Robert, what do

41
00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:38,880
you make of it? Tell me more about what you think of this interview.

42
00:04:39,580 --> 00:04:47,560
The tone is fascinating. I haven't heard anything this transparent, let's say, coming out of this

43
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:56,440
White House. Remember, this goes back to the president making statements about the outcomes

44
00:04:56,440 --> 00:05:05,940
of those that would not take the vaccine. It was really rather harsh. And now Ashish Jha is being

45
00:05:05,940 --> 00:05:16,460
more open and is making a series of statements that appear to acknowledge that there has been some bias

46
00:05:16,460 --> 00:05:24,780
in underreporting on adverse events, consequent to physician fear of being labeled as anti-vaxxers.

47
00:05:26,060 --> 00:05:35,400
I mean, that makes sense. That's the short. I mean, we're, of course, very aware of this is

48
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:43,660
something that we've covered quite a bit, I think, over the years. Overall, right? There's this paper by

49
00:05:43,660 --> 00:05:51,260
Zach Stieber or this article by Zach Stieber that we just published. And so, I mean, is it surprising

50
00:05:51,260 --> 00:05:59,900
that now we have this evidence from FOIAs that the CDC knew more than it admitted to? Or, you know,

51
00:05:59,900 --> 00:06:07,780
what do you think? It's not surprising to me. I've known that the FDA and the CDC knew about

52
00:06:07,780 --> 00:06:16,420
myocarditis and the shingles incidents and many other adverse events for quite a long time.

53
00:06:17,060 --> 00:06:25,140
And in a prior series, Zach and another colleague did a great job documenting the history and timeline

54
00:06:25,780 --> 00:06:32,180
of the CDC withholding informed consent, because that's what it really comes down to.

55
00:06:32,180 --> 00:06:42,100
Withholding information about the myocarditis and the long timeline associated with that of them having

56
00:06:42,100 --> 00:06:50,820
that documentation and refusing to acknowledge that risk in public and often kind of gaslighting or

57
00:06:50,820 --> 00:06:58,260
downplaying the risk of myocarditis. And now in a complimentary article that he's published the

58
00:06:58,260 --> 00:07:10,740
following day, also withholding information about death. And that happened in the case of two adolescents

59
00:07:10,740 --> 00:07:22,820
or young men. And there was very active suppression of the manuscript or attempts to suppress the publication

60
00:07:22,820 --> 00:07:29,940
of a manuscript written by those that had been involved in making the determination of the cause of death,

61
00:07:29,940 --> 00:07:39,540
the autopsies, that involved some CDC testing. But it, based on Zach's reporting, it appears that the CDC

62
00:07:39,540 --> 00:07:46,980
has more than just withheld information about the association between death and these genetic vaccines,

63
00:07:47,540 --> 00:07:56,020
but it has actively suppressed publications and information coming from non-CDC physicians

64
00:07:56,660 --> 00:08:02,980
that have been reporting autopsy results or other findings having to do with cause of death.

65
00:08:03,700 --> 00:08:11,300
And that loops back to the other thing, you know, there's a number of kind of amazing truth bombs in

66
00:08:11,300 --> 00:08:21,780
Zach's article. One is that the CDC is refusing to accept a independent physician determination of the cause

67
00:08:21,780 --> 00:08:30,180
of death, in many cases through autopsy, in which there was specific statements made by the diagnosing

68
00:08:30,180 --> 00:08:35,300
physician that fills out the death certificate, who legally has the responsibility for making the

69
00:08:35,300 --> 00:08:41,060
determination on the determination on cause of death. And these physicians and pathologists had listed

70
00:08:41,060 --> 00:08:49,460
vaccine-associated, in many cases, vaccine-associated myocarditis as the cause of death. And then the CDC

71
00:08:49,460 --> 00:08:58,660
refused to accept that diagnosis of cause of death in their official tabulations. So it appears that

72
00:08:58,660 --> 00:09:09,060
that we now through Epoch Times work in Freedom of Information Act requests, have literally the

73
00:09:09,060 --> 00:09:16,900
documentation to not to, you know, engage in hyperbole, but literally the smoking gun concerning the

74
00:09:18,660 --> 00:09:26,100
willingness and methods and ability of the CDC to withhold information about

75
00:09:26,100 --> 00:09:33,780
death-related adverse events. And this isn't just with the RNA vaccines. It also includes

76
00:09:34,980 --> 00:09:40,660
the side effects associated with the J&J vaccine product, the adenovirus vector product,

77
00:09:41,700 --> 00:09:51,940
which included this sting in somewhat perplexing clinical finding of idiopathic thrombocytopenic

78
00:09:51,940 --> 00:10:03,460
thrombosis or ITP, which is this kind of blotchy red bruising-like that appears on some nation's skin.

79
00:10:04,020 --> 00:10:10,020
I have a person that's worked on the farm, a mason that had that, for instance. It's not that rare,

80
00:10:10,980 --> 00:10:19,540
but they assert that it is extremely rare. And this is observed with and reported by the CDC

81
00:10:19,540 --> 00:10:27,380
as or found by the CDC according to the documentation that Zacks obtained. This is associated with the J&J

82
00:10:27,380 --> 00:10:37,060
product. It happens to be exactly the same syndrome that has triggered a large legal case

83
00:10:37,860 --> 00:10:47,620
in the United Kingdom right now against AstraZeneca. And strangely, AstraZeneca is denying that there's any

84
00:10:47,620 --> 00:10:55,220
relationship between this large legal case that it looks like they're going to lose and withdrawing

85
00:10:55,220 --> 00:11:00,980
their product from the vaccine. The J&J product had already been withdrawn from the market, but now

86
00:11:00,980 --> 00:11:09,140
AstraZeneca is going to be withdrawn in Europe and in the UK. Also for this same syndrome and death,

87
00:11:09,140 --> 00:11:18,180
again, to reinforce deaths associated with the vaccine, which the CDC withheld information from the public on.

88
00:11:21,300 --> 00:11:26,980
I'm going to jump to actually a live Q&A before we continue because I want to kind of bring in our

89
00:11:26,980 --> 00:11:36,660
bring in our viewers. So related, but more extensive, I suppose. Chester Brown asks,

90
00:11:38,900 --> 00:11:44,500
all of this sounds like a very coordinated effort by the CDC, this administration, the media and big

91
00:11:44,500 --> 00:11:47,700
pharma. Is this grounds for a RICO investigation?

92
00:11:47,700 --> 00:11:57,940
So RICO refers to the Racketeering and Corrupt Activities Act, which was originally set up for

93
00:11:57,940 --> 00:12:05,380
basically going after mafia and other coordinated activities that are breaking the law in a kind of a

94
00:12:05,380 --> 00:12:12,260
group activity. So if you were going to think about taking a RICO approach, and I'm not a lawyer,

95
00:12:12,260 --> 00:12:21,780
that would imply that there was some specific coordination between these various parties.

96
00:12:22,500 --> 00:12:29,460
And I think we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions about coordinating activities between

97
00:12:29,460 --> 00:12:35,620
pharma and the government or potential conspiracies. That's always a possibility. I think we need to

98
00:12:35,620 --> 00:12:41,700
acknowledge that. But there are other reasons why government employees might want to

99
00:12:41,700 --> 00:12:49,780
withhold this kind of information in a coordinated way. Remember that at the CDC, they have, like many

100
00:12:49,780 --> 00:12:57,620
federal agencies, a dual purpose. In the case of vaccines, they're supposed to monitor vaccine safety,

101
00:12:57,620 --> 00:13:04,020
and they also have a specific mission to promote vaccine. Of course, not surprisingly, the budget to

102
00:13:04,020 --> 00:13:11,140
promote vaccines is much larger than the budget to monitor vaccines. And so there's this tension within

103
00:13:11,140 --> 00:13:17,220
the CDC and many other branches of government between those that are tasked with being the truth

104
00:13:17,220 --> 00:13:26,180
tellers about potential risks, and those that are tasked with promoting whatever the industry is or the

105
00:13:26,180 --> 00:13:36,340
field. And so sometimes the kind of the bureaucracy and the structure of these agencies can lead to what

106
00:13:36,340 --> 00:13:43,860
what appears to be a coordinated effort that benefits their industry, but they are likely to take the

107
00:13:43,860 --> 00:13:50,500
position that they're just acting in accordance with their congressional mandate. So I think we have to be

108
00:13:50,500 --> 00:13:57,380
careful about assuming that there's racketeering or corrupt activities involving coordination between

109
00:13:57,380 --> 00:14:04,500
government officials, and for instance, the pharmaceutical industry. That's not to say that it isn't happening one way or another.

110
00:14:04,500 --> 00:14:11,460
But I think we have to be cautious about jumping to conclusions. And prosecuting a RICO case

111
00:14:12,340 --> 00:14:18,260
in something like this, from what I hear from the attorneys, would be extremely difficult.

112
00:14:18,260 --> 00:14:24,260
Right. And I mean, I think what I hear you saying, if I've got this right, is that if the

113
00:14:25,140 --> 00:14:30,420
incentive structure is set up in a lot of different groups or agencies all kind of stack in the same

114
00:14:30,420 --> 00:14:37,140
direction, it might create the illusion of coordination where there isn't any, assuming the incentive structures

115
00:14:37,140 --> 00:14:39,380
weren't coordinated in the first place, I guess.

116
00:14:39,380 --> 00:14:51,940
Yeah, I agree. It's really complex. And it's just a minefield of conflicts and complexity. And

117
00:14:51,940 --> 00:15:00,340
in no way do I want to downplay the possibility that there was coordination. I'm just cautioning

118
00:15:00,340 --> 00:15:08,500
not to jump to that conclusion. And acknowledging what I learned from the attorneys, which is a case

119
00:15:08,500 --> 00:15:19,540
like that would be very difficult to bring against a US government agency in this time. And with these

120
00:15:19,540 --> 00:15:28,740
kinds of mandates, I just very much doubt that we would see this Justice Department or anyone else

121
00:15:30,100 --> 00:15:33,620
interested in pursuing a RICO type action.

122
00:15:34,740 --> 00:15:41,460
You know, there was another paper that Zach Stieber followed up with. The headline was, you know,

123
00:15:41,460 --> 00:15:47,380
inside the study that shook the CDC. This was a study that detailed the sudden deaths of two

124
00:15:47,940 --> 00:15:54,980
teenagers. And you drew a kind of continuity here between this one.

125
00:15:54,980 --> 00:16:00,660
Yeah, because they're both speaking to, let's say gently, the underlying culture

126
00:16:01,780 --> 00:16:11,300
of the CDC and how they've approached COVID-19. And Zach in his articles points out that there's

127
00:16:11,300 --> 00:16:23,140
kind of two opposite approaches being taken. In the case of potential vaccine harms, there seems to be

128
00:16:23,140 --> 00:16:36,020
the assumption that there's the appearance of a very strong bias within the CDC to denying any adverse event

129
00:16:36,020 --> 00:16:43,540
event or death associated with the vaccines. And paradoxically, on the other side, a really strong

130
00:16:43,540 --> 00:16:53,460
bias towards assigning death to anything that has a PCR positive signal for COVID disease,

131
00:16:53,460 --> 00:16:58,580
for infection by the virus. So in the case of the virus, a strong bias towards

132
00:16:58,580 --> 00:17:11,300
reporting death or disease associated with the PCR signal. And on the other side, a very strong bias to

133
00:17:11,300 --> 00:17:23,060
under reporting death and disease in anyone that has no PCR signal, but has received the vaccine product

134
00:17:23,060 --> 00:17:30,500
within 45 days. That's the other thing is they keep that window for 45 days. Whereas, as Zach points out,

135
00:17:30,500 --> 00:17:39,300
in the case of the infection, if there is any prior history of PCR evidence, and I'm saying this because

136
00:17:39,300 --> 00:17:51,220
most of our audience will recognize those PCR tests are questionable in terms of their positive predictive value

137
00:17:53,060 --> 00:18:06,340
and specificity. But, you know, there seems to be a willingness to attribute death events to infection

138
00:18:06,340 --> 00:18:14,580
even even beyond 45 days after infection. So that's really what this is coming down to is

139
00:18:15,380 --> 00:18:23,380
how, in retrospect, how do we look at the data that have come from the CDC? How do we interpret those data

140
00:18:23,380 --> 00:18:32,340
both in terms of the vaccine and the infection? Because the appearance is that there is some real reporting

141
00:18:32,340 --> 00:18:40,500
biases going on that have completely distorted public policy. I mean, you're suggesting that the deaths

142
00:18:40,500 --> 00:18:46,420
due to the virus itself are kind of over-reported, according to this, and in the opposite direction

143
00:18:46,420 --> 00:18:52,420
when it comes to that. Which is something I said, you know, years ago now on Rogan, made the point that

144
00:18:52,420 --> 00:19:01,460
anybody who could be detected as having a positive PCR signal that was being hospitalized would be

145
00:19:02,180 --> 00:19:11,060
determined to be hospitalized consequent to the infection. And so that resulted in a huge reporting

146
00:19:11,060 --> 00:19:19,380
bias, positive reporting bias for death and disease associated with SARS-CoV-2, which doesn't fit with

147
00:19:19,380 --> 00:19:27,700
the all-cause mortality data. That's the big paradox here is we had all of this discussion about a huge

148
00:19:27,700 --> 00:19:33,620
wave of, I'm going to say the big words, morbidity and mortality or sickness and death associated with

149
00:19:33,620 --> 00:19:41,860
SARS-CoV-2. And yet in retrospect, when we look at all-cause mortality, all causes of death in the United

150
00:19:41,860 --> 00:19:48,980
States and in Europe and in the Western world, we would expect to see a big surge of increased mortality

151
00:19:48,980 --> 00:19:57,060
across the board with the onset of the infection, but we don't see that. We see a flat line compared to

152
00:19:57,060 --> 00:20:05,300
prior years about running about the same because people die until the rollout of some of the

153
00:20:06,420 --> 00:20:11,220
pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. I'm using very careful language there,

154
00:20:12,180 --> 00:20:21,940
but some might infer that that sudden surge in all-cause mortality that was noted by the insurance

155
00:20:21,940 --> 00:20:29,220
actuaries seems to correlate with the onset of the vaccine campaigns and the vaccine mandates in

156
00:20:29,220 --> 00:20:37,220
particular. So that's highly suggestive that it wasn't the virus, it was something else.

157
00:20:37,220 --> 00:20:42,500
And that something else could include the vaccines.

158
00:20:42,500 --> 00:20:47,460
So, you know, a question was queued up for me here, which is sort of the perfect follow-up here,

159
00:20:47,460 --> 00:20:56,020
and given how much we're talking about the virus. And so Leonora Perron says, asks,

160
00:20:56,820 --> 00:21:02,740
some say that there is no such thing as a virus, that it is merely a computer calculation. And there's

161
00:21:02,740 --> 00:21:06,180
no photograph of one, only drawings and cartoons. True or false?

162
00:21:06,180 --> 00:21:17,700
False. And I acknowledge that there is a community that has this belief system. This kind of relates to

163
00:21:17,700 --> 00:21:25,620
the overall problem of what is truth and what is reality. In fact, there are multiple images of

164
00:21:25,620 --> 00:21:34,340
coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1. The viruses are isolated. I mean, we just had a lengthy discussion

165
00:21:34,900 --> 00:21:43,540
in the house concerning the origin of the virus itself and whether or not it was engineered

166
00:21:44,100 --> 00:21:55,620
at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And I find it amazing and perplexing that we've had this theme emerge,

167
00:21:56,260 --> 00:22:05,700
that there are no such things as viruses and no such thing as SARS-CoV-2, when in fact there's an abundance

168
00:22:05,700 --> 00:22:15,380
of evidence that both things are false. But some people have belief systems that are very resistant to

169
00:22:16,100 --> 00:22:29,060
data. And this is one of the problems, I think, with reliance on social media for information.

170
00:22:29,060 --> 00:22:39,220
Well, I mean, the challenge is when there's a lot of, let's say, falsehood among the established

171
00:22:39,220 --> 00:22:45,380
sources of information that are supposed to be conveying truth, you go to where you think you can

172
00:22:45,380 --> 00:22:52,420
find it. And of course, and then you have a mix, right? Yeah. And so I was asked on a podcast the other

173
00:22:52,420 --> 00:23:03,940
day, how do you tell who's telling you the truth and who isn't? And in this environment in which we've

174
00:23:03,940 --> 00:23:14,580
come to lose faith in experts, that faith that we had developed as a community, as a culture over

175
00:23:14,580 --> 00:23:22,260
decades and hundreds of years now has been compromised. And that leaves us in kind of a post-truth

176
00:23:22,260 --> 00:23:29,220
environment where all truths are considered to be equivalent. And there's a rejection of

177
00:23:31,460 --> 00:23:40,660
credentialism or credentialed expertise. And I can understand why that would be the case, given what

178
00:23:40,660 --> 00:23:50,100
we've seen. You know, there's actually kind of two, there's a related question, right? The first

179
00:23:50,100 --> 00:23:55,140
question is, do viruses exist at all? I think that's what this question was, right? The second

180
00:23:55,140 --> 00:23:59,460
question, which is related, which I'm kind of mad-looking, which I've heard about too, is, you know,

181
00:23:59,460 --> 00:24:10,020
people will argue that the, at least in the West, the harm, right, the death was primarily iatrogenic,

182
00:24:10,020 --> 00:24:13,300
a big word, you know, basically caused by... Physician-caused.

183
00:24:13,300 --> 00:24:17,540
Right. Yeah. Physician-caused or hospital-caused is iatrogenic.

184
00:24:17,540 --> 00:24:22,260
Right. So in that sense, you know, they'll say, well, it wasn't really the virus,

185
00:24:23,220 --> 00:24:28,500
it was something else, right? Kind of like what you said earlier. So how does that square up?

186
00:24:29,060 --> 00:24:39,060
So both things can be true. The issue there, and that's one of my challenges in communicating in

187
00:24:39,060 --> 00:24:45,460
this space with people that are very passionate about this topic, is that when you look at the

188
00:24:45,460 --> 00:24:50,260
macro level, you know, up at the 40,000-foot view, you're looking at all-cause mortality,

189
00:24:50,260 --> 00:25:00,260
uh, it's really hard to make the case that, uh, we have data from all, from looking at all causes

190
00:25:00,260 --> 00:25:07,540
of death, which is the only metric that seems to not have been contaminated by interest of various

191
00:25:07,540 --> 00:25:16,180
parties and, you know, um, and conflicting agendas. Uh, you don't see a surge in all-cause mortality.

192
00:25:16,180 --> 00:25:19,860
Now that doesn't mean that people didn't get sick from this virus.

193
00:25:20,900 --> 00:25:27,860
And the people that are in the, uh, none of this was the virus and, and the virus was false,

194
00:25:28,340 --> 00:25:34,820
and that's a false narrative camp, seem to disregard morbidity or sickness

195
00:25:36,100 --> 00:25:44,740
and, uh, only focus on mortality or death. One of the derivatives of that is that they assert that

196
00:25:44,740 --> 00:25:51,460
these physicians that have been providing early treatment are all, um, charlatans,

197
00:25:52,100 --> 00:26:01,700
are misrepresenting that in fact, uh, there was no mortality and these physicians that provided early

198
00:26:01,700 --> 00:26:06,980
treatment are claiming that they saved lives when in fact there's no evidence. The counter argument to

199
00:26:06,980 --> 00:26:14,420
that is, well, there was actually a strong cohort of physicians that was out there that basically blunted,

200
00:26:14,420 --> 00:26:26,180
or mitigated the death wave by providing, uh, early treatment. Uh, and I, I find this whole argument, uh, really perplexing.

201
00:26:26,740 --> 00:26:36,500
It's caused a lot of pain and anger. Uh, um, but I can't deny that when you just look at death

202
00:26:37,300 --> 00:26:45,620
from a high level and disregard sickness, um, uh, which is not the normal case when you're evaluating

203
00:26:45,620 --> 00:26:52,020
this type of epidemiology data, but the people that are making these cases are often mathematicians or

204
00:26:52,020 --> 00:26:59,220
data analysts, specialists, not, not, uh, medical or epidemiologic, uh, uh, professionals.

205
00:26:59,220 --> 00:27:08,180
Uh, they're saying, well, we're not seeing the death. It's not there. Uh, therefore, uh, the death only,

206
00:27:08,180 --> 00:27:14,500
we can see the death starting after some of these non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical interventions

207
00:27:14,500 --> 00:27:21,860
start, particularly the vaccine. And therefore it's all iatrogenic or physician and hospital caused.

208
00:27:21,860 --> 00:27:27,940
It's not viral caused. Well, and I'll just make one comment here. You know, the, the people who we

209
00:27:27,940 --> 00:27:32,500
know who are clinicians, people who are running big ERs, you know, and there's, there's, there's

210
00:27:32,500 --> 00:27:38,180
multiple people like this who decided to let's call it buck the system and not follow the standard

211
00:27:38,180 --> 00:27:42,980
protocol. They were, you know, they were a subset, but they had a significant impact, but all of them

212
00:27:42,980 --> 00:27:49,380
will tell you, right. That no, there's some, there was a virus that came in. I mean, there was something

213
00:27:49,380 --> 00:27:53,540
new that came in that we had to treat and it looked really bad. Yeah. Right. Yeah. It's like,

214
00:27:53,540 --> 00:27:58,580
so it's very, this is such an interesting point that there's, you know, people that are looking

215
00:27:58,580 --> 00:28:03,460
at things purely from the perspective of data and they could be, you know, like top epidemiologists

216
00:28:03,460 --> 00:28:08,740
or something like that. And there's people that are dealing with people coming in very sick with low,

217
00:28:08,740 --> 00:28:13,620
uh, you know, oxygen saturation and everything. And they're trying to figure out how to deal with it.

218
00:28:13,620 --> 00:28:17,620
Yep. Right. And it's just a completely different experience of the same phenomenon.

219
00:28:17,620 --> 00:28:24,660
Yes. Right. So that's, that's what underpins this and it's tearing apart, uh, communities,

220
00:28:24,660 --> 00:28:35,060
frankly, of, of scientists and physicians and others that, uh, um, are all, uh, concerned and focused

221
00:28:35,060 --> 00:28:44,660
on, uh, the COVID crisis and how it was managed, uh, because they're all kind of shooting at each other

222
00:28:44,660 --> 00:28:53,620
over the nuances of how you interpret these, this tension between the macro level data and the kind

223
00:28:53,620 --> 00:29:02,260
of street level data of what medical professionals encountered as they were practicing. Uh, and, um,

224
00:29:02,260 --> 00:29:10,500
I, I think it's, uh, frankly, it's a tragedy, uh, that, that, you know, when we have so many other

225
00:29:10,500 --> 00:29:17,380
things, uh, to worry about so many other sources of conflict that were busy at each other's throats

226
00:29:17,380 --> 00:29:24,580
over, over whether or not there actually was a virus or, uh, the, the, whether or not those that

227
00:29:25,300 --> 00:29:31,700
provided early treatment, uh, were, um, deluding themselves and their patients in some way,

228
00:29:31,700 --> 00:29:38,340
which is what's being asserted, uh, extremely destructive. Let me jump to another question

229
00:29:38,340 --> 00:29:44,100
from the live Q and a folks, um, tax paying American. Hmm. I think this one's for me.

230
00:29:45,060 --> 00:29:50,980
Would Epoch times create a publicly accessible online archive with all documentation that they

231
00:29:50,980 --> 00:29:58,580
have assembled over the years? Hmm. So, I mean, I, I think I, I'm, I'm not a hundred percent sure what

232
00:29:58,580 --> 00:30:07,220
the question is asking. I'm gonna, I'll ask answer as best I can. Um, uh, we're gonna keep all of our

233
00:30:07,220 --> 00:30:15,620
work publicly accessible. Um, and in many cases that work has links, uh, to the original documentation,

234
00:30:15,620 --> 00:30:20,900
if that's what you're asking about. Um, if you're asking, are we planning to create a book out of it

235
00:30:20,900 --> 00:30:25,940
or some kind of giant set of volumes? Uh, we don't have plans of that nature at the moment, you know,

236
00:30:25,940 --> 00:30:31,060
it's kind of digitally. Some of it is in the newspaper, those that have been collecting those.

237
00:30:31,780 --> 00:30:36,340
Um, but maybe perhaps tax paying American, if you would like to kind of, uh, expand a little

238
00:30:36,340 --> 00:30:40,500
bit on, on what you're asking, we'll, we'll, we'll look in the comments and try to answer.

239
00:30:40,500 --> 00:30:48,420
Can I comment on this? Um, in my experience, I'm able to use the search tool, uh, within Epoch

240
00:30:48,420 --> 00:30:57,780
Times online edition to find, uh, prior articles. But I think to acknowledge the commenter there,

241
00:30:58,340 --> 00:31:08,340
I have seen a pattern with other publications of, uh, revised articles, uh, kind of a retrospective,

242
00:31:08,980 --> 00:31:17,540
uh, historic revisions going on. Uh, and also, uh, key articles and references. We're running into this

243
00:31:17,540 --> 00:31:23,700
with our book on Cywar, uh, where references that we had cited as we're now finishing it up,

244
00:31:23,700 --> 00:31:28,660
we're going back and checking the references and a number of them are gone. You just can't find them.

245
00:31:29,380 --> 00:31:36,420
Uh, I, I was talking to somebody the other day who is very knowledgeable about the internet archive

246
00:31:37,060 --> 00:31:47,300
tools, uh, and, uh, told that yes, in fact, the Wayback Machine is making some articles disappear

247
00:31:47,300 --> 00:31:54,020
upon government pressure. This is somebody that's very linked to, uh, the, uh, Kennedy campaign and

248
00:31:54,020 --> 00:32:00,420
very knowledgeable about Silicon Valley. Uh, and in fact, they are making articles disappear under

249
00:32:00,420 --> 00:32:06,740
government pressure, but that they're not actually deleting them. They're just making them no longer

250
00:32:06,740 --> 00:32:11,780
visible. And if a different administration was to come through with different priorities,

251
00:32:11,780 --> 00:32:17,220
they could flip the switch and make those available. But I think the concerns about, uh,

252
00:32:17,220 --> 00:32:24,100
this kind of retrospective rewriting of history, uh, has a lot of merit. And in a way he's kind of,

253
00:32:24,100 --> 00:32:34,260
he's respecting Epoch times by, uh, suggesting that there would be merit of, uh, for, uh, somehow

254
00:32:34,260 --> 00:32:38,500
creating a collection of, of the historic documents that you've generated.

255
00:32:38,500 --> 00:32:43,140
That's very interesting. Well, anyway, thank you for the question. And it's a great idea. And,

256
00:32:43,140 --> 00:32:48,260
you know, just, but just as another comment, uh, I've been looking at some other media sources,

257
00:32:48,260 --> 00:32:53,140
more mainstream media sources recently, and I found lots of evidence and not necessarily

258
00:32:53,140 --> 00:33:00,980
specifically around COVID and so forth of actual stealth editing, uh, of content to like with leading

259
00:33:00,980 --> 00:33:06,420
to dramatically different kind of information being there without disclosing that such an edit was

260
00:33:06,420 --> 00:33:12,580
made. And this is very, it's very bizarre because, you know, you, it really, you really think of Orwell

261
00:33:12,580 --> 00:33:18,980
here, right. Where you're kind of, you rewrite, rewrite history as if ministry of truth, as if

262
00:33:19,540 --> 00:33:23,780
what was there was something different. So I, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective,

263
00:33:23,780 --> 00:33:30,020
just because I find the idea. So, um, abhorrent, frankly, um, you know,

264
00:33:30,020 --> 00:33:35,700
you know, everyone makes mistakes, you correct them and you acknowledge that, that you made them

265
00:33:35,700 --> 00:33:42,260
as best you can, but to do that is a whole different world mentality. And I think a dark,

266
00:33:42,260 --> 00:33:50,260
dark path. So, um, all right, before I go to the next question, I really want to talk to about, uh,

267
00:33:50,260 --> 00:33:56,900
uh, being, uh, Apathuli's, uh, article on looking at this new side effect that I hadn't been aware

268
00:33:56,900 --> 00:34:04,020
of from these COVID-19 genetic vaccines, which is, um, Psychosis. Psychosis. Exactly. Right. I was

269
00:34:04,020 --> 00:34:09,380
going to say, I was going to say something else, but yes, no, precisely. And that it, and that it's hard

270
00:34:09,380 --> 00:34:16,660
to, it doesn't go away quickly as I understand it. And, and what this, uh, peer reviewed publication

271
00:34:16,660 --> 00:34:23,780
is documenting. Now let's be clear. This is not a prospective randomized trial or any of the larger,

272
00:34:23,780 --> 00:34:29,380
more rigorous. This is a collection of case studies that they reviewed and find certain

273
00:34:29,380 --> 00:34:35,940
common features in those case studies, a fairly large collection, but it's, it's not a prospective

274
00:34:35,940 --> 00:34:44,660
randomized trial. Uh, and, uh, in it, in the paper, they're, they're, uh, identifying that there's two

275
00:34:44,660 --> 00:34:51,700
kinds of this psychosis, hallucinations and delusions, auditory hallucinations are particularly common.

276
00:34:52,820 --> 00:35:01,780
And, uh, to me, what's particularly worrying about this is that we're having psychosis,

277
00:35:02,500 --> 00:35:09,780
including hallucinations and delusions in people who are mandated to take these products.

278
00:35:09,780 --> 00:35:17,780
Uh, and this includes first responders, healthcare personnel, remember virtually all hospital personnel

279
00:35:17,780 --> 00:35:27,060
were forced to take the products, uh, in, in, in particular military personnel. So we've had products

280
00:35:27,060 --> 00:35:38,580
administered to crucial, uh, um, infrastructure people that are causing them to have mental conditions,

281
00:35:38,580 --> 00:35:43,060
detectable mental conditions. I just want to jump in for a moment and say, we don't know the frequency

282
00:35:43,060 --> 00:35:48,580
and it's not. Precisely. Right. Good point. Yeah. Okay. Crucial point. Right. There's still,

283
00:35:48,580 --> 00:35:56,660
that there's nothing in this article that speaks to frequency and prevalence. And the fact that it's a

284
00:35:56,660 --> 00:36:03,860
modest collection of these cases suggests that it's relatively rare. So that's, that's absolutely a valid

285
00:36:03,860 --> 00:36:11,060
point. Well, but the point is yet another area that we should obviously begets the need for,

286
00:36:11,060 --> 00:36:14,420
for research and exploration, given how many of these things were given out.

287
00:36:14,420 --> 00:36:20,340
Yeah, absolutely. And as you pointed out at the beginning, so they're treating these people with

288
00:36:20,340 --> 00:36:29,860
steroids and only about half of them are recovering. Uh, the other half still have persistent, uh, effects

289
00:36:29,860 --> 00:36:38,580
post-treatment. So it seems to be relatively intractable, uh, resistant to the little bit of,

290
00:36:38,580 --> 00:36:47,380
of treatment that is known as an option. And of course there's up till now been virtually no, uh,

291
00:36:47,380 --> 00:36:56,580
investigations in terms of, uh, the cause of this, uh, um, how to mitigate it or reduce the probability

292
00:36:56,580 --> 00:37:02,420
and how to treat it. Yeah. And it's, and frankly, it's new for me. Like I had, I just wasn't aware.

293
00:37:03,300 --> 00:37:11,700
And yet, uh, to be fair, psychosis was also a feature of the viral infection. Chris Cuomo lately

294
00:37:11,700 --> 00:37:18,100
is, uh, in quite a bit, he's got his own show, right. And he's acknowledged that he has his own

295
00:37:18,100 --> 00:37:27,220
vaccine damage. Uh, and, and that's, that's been, uh, featured in a lot of press articles. And if you

296
00:37:27,220 --> 00:37:33,940
reel back in time and remember when he became infected with SARS-CoV-2 with COVID, when he was

297
00:37:33,940 --> 00:37:41,380
broadcasting from CNN, uh, he, he stayed home and he acknowledged that he was having psychotic symptoms

298
00:37:41,940 --> 00:37:48,020
from, he was having hallucinations, overt hallucinations, uh, and kept broadcasting through

299
00:37:48,020 --> 00:37:58,820
it. It was an amazing, uh, uh, kind of series. Uh, but, uh, let's remember that these, uh, these kinds

300
00:37:58,820 --> 00:38:06,020
of findings were also seen with the viral infection. Well, and so then it's not necessarily surprising

301
00:38:06,020 --> 00:38:10,980
if assuming it's the spike that's, that's- You just said the key word. You made an assumption,

302
00:38:10,980 --> 00:38:18,900
but let's call it a hypothesis. Right. That, uh, and, and we know that spike, uh, can affect brain

303
00:38:18,900 --> 00:38:26,340
function. We know it's associated with neural inflammation. Uh, it's certainly associated with

304
00:38:26,980 --> 00:38:35,940
microvascular coagulation or small vessel blood clots. Uh, and, uh, so as you point out, not too

305
00:38:35,940 --> 00:38:42,580
stunning that you would see these kinds of symptoms in people that have received a product that would

306
00:38:42,580 --> 00:38:48,580
cause their body to make large amounts of this protein that I assert as a toxin, that being the,

307
00:38:49,140 --> 00:38:51,220
the biologically engineered spike.

308
00:38:51,220 --> 00:38:57,780
All right. Let's jump to another question. I think we've got about 20 minutes left in the show. So

309
00:38:57,780 --> 00:39:04,900
let's focus on, uh, uh, mostly the Q and A's and we may, we may look into this paper, uh, that's

310
00:39:04,900 --> 00:39:10,820
related to Cleveland Clinic papers. Right. Yeah. We'll just, we'll get you to summarize it in a bit,

311
00:39:10,820 --> 00:39:22,260
but okay. So, uh, this is, uh, Bay Klee T. How concerned would Medicare, should Medicare patients

312
00:39:22,260 --> 00:39:29,460
be that future vaccine compliance is tied to insurance coverage? I don't know the answer to

313
00:39:29,460 --> 00:39:39,780
that. I think that, uh, it is, it is certainly something to be alerted to, uh, you know, how concerned

314
00:39:39,780 --> 00:39:46,980
should you be? Uh, we saw withholding of medical care, including transplantation

315
00:39:47,780 --> 00:39:55,060
from people who had not accepted these COVID vaccines as you'll recall. So, so clearly there's

316
00:39:55,060 --> 00:40:05,460
precedent for policy in which, uh, um, medical treatment and care would be withheld if one was not

317
00:40:05,460 --> 00:40:11,780
compliant. I hear story after story these days of pediatricians firing their patients and their

318
00:40:11,780 --> 00:40:20,580
parents because of lack of compliance with the CDC vaccine schedule. And, uh, some have speculated that

319
00:40:20,580 --> 00:40:28,500
this has to do with the financial incentives provided to pediatricians to have certain fraction of their

320
00:40:28,500 --> 00:40:37,300
total pediatric population fully vaccinated according to schedule. Uh, so there's, you know, how concerned

321
00:40:37,300 --> 00:40:47,140
should you be that there would be a, uh, kind of a litmus test as a recipient of federal healthcare

322
00:40:47,940 --> 00:40:55,700
practice, you know, insurance, uh, that you, uh, would only be eligible if you were fully compliant

323
00:40:55,700 --> 00:41:02,980
with the vaccine schedule. I think there's merit to that. And, and I think that that's a potential

324
00:41:02,980 --> 00:41:11,060
policy that, uh, people should be very alerted to, and I hope would, uh, um, communicate to their

325
00:41:11,060 --> 00:41:20,740
representatives that they would find this intolerable. All right. Let's go to PM Kane 0312.

326
00:41:20,740 --> 00:41:28,500
Would ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine be effective with early use in any of the possible viruses that

327
00:41:28,500 --> 00:41:38,340
may be thrown at us? Um, so, uh, I have to be cautious in answering this, but I'm going to be fairly blunt.

328
00:41:39,220 --> 00:41:50,260
Uh, the data indicate that both of those agents have, uh, effectiveness against a wide range of viral

329
00:41:50,260 --> 00:41:58,180
diseases. Those are the data that I've seen. And those are consistent with my own private findings.

330
00:41:58,180 --> 00:42:04,900
When I was collaborating with leading researchers in the U S army in trying to identify repurposed

331
00:42:04,900 --> 00:42:12,740
drugs for various viral diseases. So I'm not in any way advocating that you go out and buy a stockpile of

332
00:42:12,740 --> 00:42:19,460
ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in the event that you might, uh, get exposed to bird flu that being,

333
00:42:19,460 --> 00:42:27,220
I'm just, uh, citing the current, uh, fear that's being circulated and promoted. Uh, if for no other

334
00:42:27,220 --> 00:42:34,820
reason that stockpiling antivirals or antibiotics can result in you having stuff on the shelf that's

335
00:42:34,820 --> 00:42:44,020
expired, that's a common problem. Uh, and, and self-treating over treating, uh, risking potential

336
00:42:44,020 --> 00:42:57,220
toxicities, et cetera. But, uh, I think that, uh, in the future, I hope that, uh, physicians and, uh,

337
00:42:57,220 --> 00:43:05,220
the federal government infrastructure will be more open to, uh, actively investigating and listening to

338
00:43:05,220 --> 00:43:12,420
frontline physicians about, uh, whether, uh, whether those agents or other repurposed drugs are effective

339
00:43:13,140 --> 00:43:23,460
in mitigating the disease risk associated with, uh, these, these, uh, various, uh, infectious diseases.

340
00:43:23,460 --> 00:43:30,820
Remember that it's not necessary for a drug to kill or treat the pathogen,

341
00:43:30,820 --> 00:43:42,660
because in many cases you can, uh, mitigate the disease by reducing the over, over amped inflammatory

342
00:43:42,660 --> 00:43:50,660
response to those pathogens. What gets you with COVID and, and frontline physicians will tell you this

343
00:43:51,220 --> 00:43:58,660
is often not the first wave when you initially get infected. That's bad. Um, if you have risk factors

344
00:43:58,660 --> 00:44:05,940
like I did. Um, but then you go into kind of a quiet phase for a couple of days and then there's a

345
00:44:05,940 --> 00:44:13,300
inflammatory phase where basically your body is overreacting to viral antigens and other debris and

346
00:44:13,300 --> 00:44:20,260
signals. And so that seems for instance, with the use of steroids, that's what's being knocked down.

347
00:44:20,980 --> 00:44:27,620
Is that reactive phase? My point is that it's, we hear again and again, well, that agent isn't proven

348
00:44:27,620 --> 00:44:37,940
to be an antiviral. Um, so what, uh, if the agent is observed by frontline physicians to be useful in

349
00:44:37,940 --> 00:44:43,780
reducing the disease and improving the outcomes, as far as I'm concerned, that's what matters,

350
00:44:43,780 --> 00:44:49,060
not whether or not it kills the virus. Well, that, that reminds me of, uh, something that was up,

351
00:44:49,060 --> 00:44:55,380
uh, I think when this, uh, Jiki leaks, uh, Twitter account promoted it for a while, this was Jiki is,

352
00:44:55,380 --> 00:45:01,380
is quite perceptive. Well, there's the, it was this idea that the two, two, hashtag two tablets,

353
00:45:01,380 --> 00:45:06,420
right. And I think it was azithromycin. Basically there's this post viral, uh,

354
00:45:06,420 --> 00:45:10,500
syndrome infection, right. It happens. And if you were to treat that,

355
00:45:11,060 --> 00:45:14,180
right. But you were kind of, weren't allowed to do that in the hospital, but if you weren't,

356
00:45:14,180 --> 00:45:17,300
were to have treated that, that would have reduced the death.

357
00:45:17,300 --> 00:45:24,740
Yeah. And I think that, that a lot of these early treatment protocols, um, had, uh, for instance,

358
00:45:24,740 --> 00:45:33,140
uh, peer Corey's initial, uh, presentation to Ron Johnson in the U S Senate and testimony wasn't

359
00:45:33,140 --> 00:45:39,940
about ivermectin. It was about the use of steroids, uh, which at the time was heresy,

360
00:45:39,940 --> 00:45:49,220
uh, and has now become normative in treating the disease. Uh, and, uh, because of course the, the,

361
00:45:49,220 --> 00:45:56,820
it's an inverted logic, uh, if you're shutting down the inflammatory response, you would think

362
00:45:56,820 --> 00:46:04,580
that would lead to worse disease. If the ability of the inflammatory response to kill the virus was

363
00:46:04,580 --> 00:46:12,180
what was important. But as Pierre observed, uh, and many others observed clinically, empirically,

364
00:46:13,060 --> 00:46:20,100
by tamping down that inflammatory response, you really improved the disease outcome because the

365
00:46:20,100 --> 00:46:24,820
disease outcome had more to do with that hyper-inflammatory response, which is what Jickey,

366
00:46:24,820 --> 00:46:28,500
I think was pointing out. Right. I think it was, I think it was azithromycin and zinc.

367
00:46:28,500 --> 00:46:31,860
And that was what I think, if I recall, that was the idea.

368
00:46:31,860 --> 00:46:39,380
Yeah. Yeah. I, I, that's an interesting pairing. Uh, um, uh, the Dieter Raal protocol

369
00:46:40,020 --> 00:46:45,220
was hydroxychloroquine and zinc, cause I, uh, no, it was azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine,

370
00:46:45,220 --> 00:46:54,820
I think was what he was promoting. Um, and, uh, that also had some kind of obscure side, sideways

371
00:46:54,820 --> 00:47:02,660
activity. Uh, um, there was a lot of those kind of dual tablet, uh, protocols that, that surfaced.

372
00:47:03,380 --> 00:47:10,740
And what it underscores is that the truth is that if you got on this thing early,

373
00:47:12,180 --> 00:47:18,500
there's a lot of different drugs that were effective, not just hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

374
00:47:18,500 --> 00:47:26,020
A lot of different drug protocols were designed by physicians all over the world, uh, and, um,

375
00:47:26,020 --> 00:47:33,940
that were effective if you got it early. And that's what was so, um, discouraging

376
00:47:34,980 --> 00:47:42,980
about the position taken by many hospitals that, uh, patients would come in and present with symptoms.

377
00:47:43,780 --> 00:47:52,660
And they would be essentially sent home with, uh, equivalent of aspirin, an anti, a mild over

378
00:47:52,660 --> 00:47:58,660
the counter anti-inflammatory and told to come back when they were in severe respiratory distress,

379
00:47:58,660 --> 00:48:04,500
ergo, when your lips are blue, uh, which just is counterintuitive. And I think that,

380
00:48:04,500 --> 00:48:10,900
that in particular is what upsets a lot of the frontline physicians that were giving early treatment.

381
00:48:10,900 --> 00:48:15,380
And I think this was the argument, the argument was that if you weren't, for some reason,

382
00:48:15,380 --> 00:48:19,700
you know, we know that the diagnosis, that the diagnostic methods were highly problematic

383
00:48:19,700 --> 00:48:25,140
using, you know, PCA as a diagnostic tool. And so if you were, you weren't diagnosed with COVID,

384
00:48:25,140 --> 00:48:29,780
you would get treated with something that would actually help getting rid of the bacteria.

385
00:48:29,780 --> 00:48:31,380
That was the paradox, right?

386
00:48:31,380 --> 00:48:32,100
Right. Yeah.

387
00:48:32,100 --> 00:48:35,620
So anyway, that's, that's just kind of litigating back. But I think that's what,

388
00:48:35,620 --> 00:48:40,260
that's what that idea that I was mentioning, I hope I got it right, was, was, was, was, was getting at.

389
00:48:40,900 --> 00:48:45,220
But let, let me jump to another question here. I think this is actually quite interesting. Um,

390
00:48:45,220 --> 00:48:52,900
this is, uh, Carm, Carmel Gu. How do I convince surgeons I work with that the COVID shot is causing

391
00:48:52,900 --> 00:48:58,500
health problems such as Graves disease, thyroid eye disease, menstrual problems, et cetera?

392
00:48:58,500 --> 00:49:06,820
Uh, that's a tough one. Uh, that gets to the Ashish Jha, uh, clip that we played earlier on where,

393
00:49:07,460 --> 00:49:18,980
uh, surgeons or other medical health professionals have, uh, there, there has been developed because of

394
00:49:18,980 --> 00:49:28,420
much of the messaging that has been promoted, uh, that if you have, if you express any concerns about

395
00:49:29,620 --> 00:49:36,100
adverse events associated with these products, then you're labeled as an anti-vaxxer,

396
00:49:37,060 --> 00:49:43,140
which is a pejorative and can be a career ender. Uh, if you're a licensed medical professional,

397
00:49:43,140 --> 00:49:49,620
you're at risk for losing your license if you're so labeled. So how are you going to convince somebody

398
00:49:50,180 --> 00:49:57,460
whose livelihood depends on their medical license and their reputation to acknowledge the possibility

399
00:49:57,460 --> 00:50:03,060
of something that could severely damage their ability to practice their profession?

400
00:50:03,060 --> 00:50:08,020
You know, I, I think that we actually have a tool and you, you just mentioned it. I mean,

401
00:50:08,020 --> 00:50:14,260
there's this video right now you can say, Hey, look, this is the, you know, as the, the mainstream of

402
00:50:14,260 --> 00:50:22,900
mainstream, you know, medical advisors. Yeah. What I, so, so I'm going to share, I'm going to share a

403
00:50:22,900 --> 00:50:30,820
personal anecdote. The other day I went in for an echocardiogram to my local hospital, uh, and the, uh,

404
00:50:30,820 --> 00:50:35,620
very experienced technician that ran that, by the way, I had a good outcome. Brooke Miller tells me

405
00:50:35,620 --> 00:50:43,460
that I'm within normal range. So yay. Uh, um, we were concerned. Uh, but the, this is the second

406
00:50:43,460 --> 00:50:49,860
time I've been into that hospital over the span of a year and a half, uh, for cardiac issues. And in

407
00:50:49,860 --> 00:50:58,100
both cases, the technicians, um, have quietly, once the doors were closed, spoken to me because they

408
00:50:58,100 --> 00:51:04,420
recognize my name, spoken to me about what they're observing in the medical system, how disappointed

409
00:51:04,420 --> 00:51:11,140
they are, um, the, uh, failure of the medical system to act with integrity and acknowledge what's

410
00:51:11,140 --> 00:51:18,820
going on. My point is that patients, and they did so because they felt comfortable. They already knew

411
00:51:18,820 --> 00:51:25,380
what my position was because I'm so public about it. And so they felt comfortable coming out and kind of

412
00:51:25,380 --> 00:51:34,900
acknowledging their own concerns and observations. Uh, and, and I, I get a lot of that. Uh, um, but

413
00:51:35,860 --> 00:51:44,100
the average patient that walks through, uh, why would a physician open up to that person? Uh, there's so

414
00:51:44,100 --> 00:51:53,940
many disincentives right now. And, uh, I think that that's one of the most, um, it is one of the great

415
00:51:53,940 --> 00:52:04,180
tragedies of how the COVID crisis has been handled in the role of media, uh, and, uh, propaganda and

416
00:52:04,180 --> 00:52:10,500
censorship, uh, delisting, uh, demonetizing, all those things that we've talked about here previously

417
00:52:11,060 --> 00:52:17,300
have, uh, really damaged the ability of the medical profession to acknowledge reality,

418
00:52:17,300 --> 00:52:23,620
which is exactly what Ashishah is speaking to in that clip, um, to his credit.

419
00:52:26,180 --> 00:52:31,300
You know, this is a topic for another fallout episode, I suppose, but, you know, there's this,

420
00:52:31,300 --> 00:52:37,380
you know, the aftermath of situations where a lot of stuff got, went wrong and a lot of people are,

421
00:52:37,380 --> 00:52:42,740
you know, could be held accountable and would like to avoid, uh, held accountable, right? These kinds of

422
00:52:42,740 --> 00:52:48,020
situations, I mean, we, we, I, I, this is something I've been looking at for years, especially for

423
00:52:48,020 --> 00:52:52,340
example, emerging out of communist societies, there's another scenario like that. And how do

424
00:52:52,340 --> 00:52:55,940
you deal with that? And there's actually perhaps some lessons to be learned, like say for a future

425
00:52:55,940 --> 00:53:03,620
follow-up episode, but, um, there, there's, there's things that seem to work and, uh, and there's things

426
00:53:03,620 --> 00:53:10,740
that seem to not work and sort of, you know, treating people in the harshest possible way, just

427
00:53:10,740 --> 00:53:16,820
looking back at it now, historically, what happened post 1989 to my eye doesn't actually seem to work.

428
00:53:16,820 --> 00:53:23,700
I'm saying the guilty, the guilty parties, like, so, uh, uh, when I, because so many people are

429
00:53:23,700 --> 00:53:28,660
complicit, this is what I'm saying. Yes. It's not that it's not sure. There might be a few people

430
00:53:28,660 --> 00:53:34,100
that need to be specifically, you know, sort of held accountable, but if there's so many people are

431
00:53:34,100 --> 00:53:39,300
complicit and so many people even not knowingly at the beginning, right. Or, or so on. How do you,

432
00:53:39,300 --> 00:53:43,220
how do you actually deal with that topic for another episode? Let me try to get one more,

433
00:53:43,220 --> 00:53:48,020
one more question in. And we also need to touch on this, uh, this, this paper,

434
00:53:48,020 --> 00:53:54,100
Cleveland Clinic paper. Yeah. The Cleveland Clinic paper. Exactly. Well, um, gosh, I'll have to, um,

435
00:53:58,900 --> 00:54:02,980
well, why don't I'll, I'll just, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll do this one. I don't know how you can,

436
00:54:03,700 --> 00:54:09,780
how you'll answer it. But Chris Hamper asks, I'm a 77 year old female with MS. I took two

437
00:54:09,780 --> 00:54:13,060
Pfizer shots, then stopped. How could I be affected negatively?

438
00:54:14,500 --> 00:54:20,820
So she's asking an open-ended question. Um, hypothetically, how could she be affected?

439
00:54:20,820 --> 00:54:31,300
And the honest truth is, uh, she could have many kinds of adverse events. She's could be affected

440
00:54:31,300 --> 00:54:39,620
by the full spectrum of what we now know to be adverse events. Uh, she may have some increased

441
00:54:39,620 --> 00:54:45,220
risk for some of those, particularly those involving neuroinflammation, because she already

442
00:54:45,220 --> 00:54:52,580
has multiple sclerosis. So she could see an acceleration of that. For example, it's important

443
00:54:52,580 --> 00:55:00,900
to remember, uh, and I, and I, you know, to her speaking to her particularly, she's taken the product

444
00:55:00,900 --> 00:55:08,420
twice. And, uh, she's not reporting that she's currently experiencing those adverse events.

445
00:55:09,540 --> 00:55:16,980
Presumably she took the product a while ago. Uh, so she's, the probability is high that she's out of

446
00:55:16,980 --> 00:55:26,180
the woods, uh, in terms of her risk profile. And I, I think it's important to, to not scare people,

447
00:55:26,980 --> 00:55:33,940
uh, inappropriately. And to acknowledge that, uh, when we speak about these adverse events,

448
00:55:33,940 --> 00:55:41,700
including death, uh, they're relatively infrequent. We can argue about how frequent they are and

449
00:55:41,700 --> 00:55:49,940
myocarditis seems to be more frequent. Subclinical myocarditis might even be up to 50% based on some

450
00:55:49,940 --> 00:55:56,020
analyses having to do with blood enzymes. But for many of these things, like we're talking about the

451
00:55:56,020 --> 00:56:03,460
psychosis, et cetera, they're relatively rare. Um, so she's not experiencing things right now,

452
00:56:03,460 --> 00:56:12,020
even the turbo cancer, uh, is, is a rare event. Uh, if she's not experiencing things now after a while,

453
00:56:12,020 --> 00:56:18,900
after having taken these two products, she's probably okay. Now that is a perfect segue into

454
00:56:18,900 --> 00:56:30,900
our next paper, uh, which speaks to the issue of, are the boosters working? Uh, and, um, are there any

455
00:56:32,100 --> 00:56:42,980
problems in terms of your risk of developing COVID if you take multiple doses of this, uh, of these

456
00:56:42,980 --> 00:56:49,140
products? I'm hesitating to call them vaccines, uh, because their ability to prevent infection

457
00:56:50,180 --> 00:56:57,060
is, uh, quite modest. Uh, you know, we're the arm wrestling right now is whether or not

458
00:56:57,060 --> 00:57:03,380
they're active in reducing your risk of disease or death. And it's important to remember that

459
00:57:04,340 --> 00:57:11,220
they're not licensed when, when the FDA provided emergency use authorization and the license,

460
00:57:12,100 --> 00:57:21,460
uh, prevention of disease and death was not listed as one of the reasons, one of the indications,

461
00:57:22,340 --> 00:57:28,980
uh, for these products. They were licensed for prevention of infection and they don't do that.

462
00:57:29,780 --> 00:57:33,700
Uh, and, and, you know, I was called a liar by the Washington post for saying so,

463
00:57:34,260 --> 00:57:40,660
but, uh, this next paper, uh, really documents that you want to jump into that. Sure. Yeah,

464
00:57:40,660 --> 00:57:45,620
no, absolutely. Um, so this, what's, do you have the title listed there? I don't have it with me.

465
00:57:46,340 --> 00:57:52,500
Right now. Uh, so this is, it's, what's important to note about this one is it's a preprint,

466
00:57:52,500 --> 00:57:58,820
so it's not yet peer reviewed, but it's coming from one of the elite medical institutions in the United

467
00:57:58,820 --> 00:58:05,700
States, the Cleveland Clinic. So the title is effectiveness of the 2022, 24 formulation of

468
00:58:05,700 --> 00:58:13,060
the coronavirus disease 2019 mRNA vaccine against the JN.1 variant. Very specific title.

469
00:58:13,060 --> 00:58:21,460
Very precise. Um, and I think in it's, uh, that I would call that a defensive title. Um,

470
00:58:21,460 --> 00:58:27,460
they're being very careful about how they're wording that and what they're saying because they know

471
00:58:27,460 --> 00:58:31,700
they're going to get raked over the coals by the reviewers. Remember, this is a preprint. Uh,

472
00:58:32,260 --> 00:58:45,140
so, uh, this is a study of employees of the Cleveland Clinic. It's, it's 47,561 employees of

473
00:58:45,140 --> 00:58:50,420
the Cleveland Clinic have been enrolled in the study. I hope they all gave informed consent. Um,

474
00:58:50,980 --> 00:58:58,100
and, uh, so it is a prospective study. They're looking forward in time. They, they said, we're

475
00:58:58,100 --> 00:59:02,260
going to do this study. We're going to enroll these people. We're going to look at this outcome. And by

476
00:59:02,260 --> 00:59:10,500
the way, the outcome was basically PCR positive signal. So we all understand, uh, at this point

477
00:59:10,500 --> 00:59:18,260
that PCR positive signal has a lot of artifact issues, but that was the endpoint. Did you develop a PCR

478
00:59:18,260 --> 00:59:27,860
positive signal as a surrogate for being infected by SARS-CoV-2 after you received the jab, the booster

479
00:59:27,860 --> 00:59:38,420
jab, the booster jab that was formulated for XBB strain viruses? And there, the X, as I predicted way back

480
00:59:38,420 --> 00:59:43,460
then when they were rolling it out, XBB at the time they rolled it out was already extinct. It had been

481
00:59:43,460 --> 00:59:50,100
replaced by other lineages and, uh, to their credit, when they did this assessment, they, for everybody

482
00:59:50,100 --> 00:59:58,180
that came up with a positive PCR signal, they determined which virus strain they were infected by.

483
00:59:58,180 --> 01:00:08,580
And they were all infected by this JN1 variant, which is not an XBB. Okay. So this is a heterologous,

484
01:00:08,580 --> 01:00:13,620
is the technical term we use in virology. Okay. It's akin to a heterologous challenge. They're getting

485
01:00:13,620 --> 01:00:19,460
infected by one virus strain that's different from what the boosters were designed from. It was

486
01:00:19,460 --> 01:00:32,580
determined to be 23% effective in preventing, uh, by, by one form of analysis, uh, in preventing a PCR

487
01:00:32,580 --> 01:00:43,860
positive signal. In their, this is also fun. 18% of their employees took the booster. This is the

488
01:00:43,860 --> 01:00:51,060
Cleveland Clinic. 18% uptake of the booster among Cleveland Clinic employees. That's, uh, kind of a

489
01:00:51,060 --> 01:01:01,700
stunning, a little buried fact within this study. Um, in, in order to detect that 23% effectiveness,

490
01:01:01,700 --> 01:01:08,180
they had to carefully adjust for confounding variables. If they didn't adjust for confounding,

491
01:01:08,180 --> 01:01:15,860
and sometimes adjusting for confounding variables can introduce bias. Okay. So if they didn't adjust for,

492
01:01:16,420 --> 01:01:24,100
uh, confounding variables, they saw no effect associated with vaccination. Okay. So it's, it's modest,

493
01:01:24,100 --> 01:01:33,540
but the, the, the, the stunning thing, and this is the eighth study to demonstrate this. This is not a,

494
01:01:33,540 --> 01:01:45,060
a, you know, anomalous outlier finding. The risk of COVID-19 was higher after two, three, or three or more

495
01:01:45,060 --> 01:01:53,300
doses than in the unvaccinated. So this gets the negative effectiveness that, that is being observed

496
01:01:53,300 --> 01:01:58,820
in many of these studies where the multiple inoculated actually are the ones that are at

497
01:01:58,820 --> 01:02:08,660
highest risk for developing disease. It's worth with actually, actually reading the conclusion statement

498
01:02:08,660 --> 01:02:15,860
from this because there's a whole lot of fascinating nuance. Although some individuals are at risk

499
01:02:15,860 --> 01:02:24,340
of complications of COVID-19 and may benefit from receiving a vaccine frequently may the wisdom of

500
01:02:24,340 --> 01:02:30,180
vaccinating everyone with a vaccine of low effectiveness. Remember this is from the Cleveland

501
01:02:30,180 --> 01:02:37,620
clinic vaccine of low effectiveness every few months to prevent what is generally a mild or an

502
01:02:37,620 --> 01:02:43,540
asymptomatic infection that I'm talking about in most healthy persons needs to be questioned.

503
01:02:45,540 --> 01:02:52,900
In conclusion, this study found an overall low protective effect of the 2023-2024 formula

504
01:02:52,900 --> 01:03:01,140
COVID-19 vaccine against infection with the JN1 lineage while also finding a higher number of prior

505
01:03:01,140 --> 01:03:07,460
vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. Now, remember that in

506
01:03:07,780 --> 01:03:17,380
many schools, this is still a mandated product. In the childhood vaccine schedule, the CDC is still

507
01:03:17,380 --> 01:03:23,380
recommending this product, these boosters. The federal government and the CDC are still promoting these,

508
01:03:24,020 --> 01:03:33,460
and yet these are the data. And sorry, Washington Post, it's not working. And I think that we can trust the

509
01:03:33,460 --> 01:03:42,500
Cleveland clinic and a study of 47,561 employees as giving us a pretty good indicator that the product

510
01:03:42,500 --> 01:03:51,460
is not meeting expectations. And just very briefly, what were you thinking when you said that the buried

511
01:03:51,460 --> 01:03:57,300
hidden finding is that only 18%, is it only 18% or is that a lot?

512
01:03:57,300 --> 01:04:05,060
In an environment in which there is strong positives and incentives to take the vaccine,

513
01:04:05,060 --> 01:04:10,900
you know, working in a hospital, most medical students are still required to take the jab.

514
01:04:10,900 --> 01:04:19,060
There's strong positive incentives to take the product and yet still less than 20% of these

515
01:04:19,780 --> 01:04:26,580
hospital employees were willing to take the booster. To me, that's stunning. Because these

516
01:04:26,580 --> 01:04:32,980
are the people that are encountering patients on a daily basis that are the most informed about

517
01:04:32,980 --> 01:04:40,260
whether or not these products are working in their potential risk. Even a mildly effective product with

518
01:04:40,820 --> 01:04:43,940
low or no risk, which is pretty much what the CDC

519
01:04:43,940 --> 01:04:52,660
CDC says officially is that these are safe. In a healthcare environment, even a partially effective

520
01:04:52,660 --> 01:04:59,700
vaccine with little or no risk, I would expect to have a pretty robust uptake, you know, 60, 80%.

521
01:05:00,900 --> 01:05:04,660
But here we have well less than 20% at one of the leading medical

522
01:05:05,540 --> 01:05:08,180
complexes in the United States, the Cleveland Clinic.

523
01:05:08,820 --> 01:05:14,340
Well, I mean, it's, it's been years now since I remember I had you on the show and you advocated

524
01:05:14,340 --> 01:05:19,380
for having these products be withdrawn. And I'm pretty sure you haven't changed your view on this.

525
01:05:19,380 --> 01:05:23,140
Well, thanks for reminding people forget that, that I was one of the first to,

526
01:05:23,700 --> 01:05:30,740
to come out and say that as was the group that we used to tour with, referred to as the PHA group.

527
01:05:30,740 --> 01:05:39,140
Uh, we, we did a whole thing on Dell Bigtree's, uh, studio, uh, where we called for withdrawal,

528
01:05:39,940 --> 01:05:46,420
um, many years ago now. Uh, and of course it was disregarded, uh, um, but here we are.

529
01:05:46,420 --> 01:05:52,980
Uh, and that, that is very, that conclusion, that is very interesting language, which suggests,

530
01:05:52,980 --> 01:05:59,220
uh, you know, some sort of shifting. It's pretty definitive. It's about as definitive as,

531
01:05:59,220 --> 01:06:00,340
uh, as I've heard.

532
01:06:00,340 --> 01:06:05,860
And from a major medical institution, uh, I, I, you know,

533
01:06:05,860 --> 01:06:14,660
uh, uh, we kind of bookended this session, this segment with Ashish Shah at the beginning.

534
01:06:15,700 --> 01:06:24,900
And now this statement from the Cleveland Clinic, uh, I think that, uh, there is a increasing openness

535
01:06:24,900 --> 01:06:35,140
to acknowledging, uh, the, uh, overstatement of risk associated with SARS-CoV-2, which is explicitly said here.

536
01:06:36,020 --> 01:06:43,540
I mean, that, that's one of the things that's a little bit stunning to me, uh, to prevent what is

537
01:06:43,540 --> 01:06:52,180
generally a mild or an asymptomatic infection in most healthy persons. That's, uh, that was heresy

538
01:06:52,740 --> 01:06:58,740
to say that a year or two years ago. And now it's coming out of a mainstream medical institution.

539
01:06:58,740 --> 01:07:08,900
Uh, so it's, it's as if some semblance of, of, uh, uh, uh, reality is, is kind of being allowed.

540
01:07:09,860 --> 01:07:17,220
Uh, I, you know, I, I get the feedback, uh, fairly frequently now that I've been validated, uh, which

541
01:07:17,940 --> 01:07:24,900
gives me no comfort, uh, that, that a lot of the things that you and I discussed so long ago have,

542
01:07:24,900 --> 01:07:33,460
have, have, uh, and were, were, uh, resoundingly, uh, criticized for saying, uh, have now been verified.

543
01:07:33,460 --> 01:07:45,540
That's, there's, uh, um, some peace, I think, in, in, uh, in seeing that, uh, you and I and so many others

544
01:07:45,540 --> 01:07:55,380
that stuck our necks out, uh, uh, have, are, are now being perceived as, uh, truth tellers

545
01:07:55,940 --> 01:07:58,980
at a time and telling truth was not very popular.

546
01:07:58,980 --> 01:08:00,500
Hopefully a little bit more at least.

547
01:08:02,100 --> 01:08:02,820
A modicum.

548
01:08:02,820 --> 01:08:03,220
Yeah.

549
01:08:04,260 --> 01:08:07,220
But anyway, I think, you know, I think that's it. I think we've kind of over,

550
01:08:07,220 --> 01:08:09,860
overshot our, our, our planned time a little bit.

551
01:08:10,340 --> 01:08:14,260
Um, we're going to do more just, uh, for the benefit of everybody. We are going to do more

552
01:08:14,260 --> 01:08:19,300
of these Q and A's, uh, in the future. Um, I asked, I think one of the users to please

553
01:08:20,340 --> 01:08:24,260
add me at a follow-up to your question. I'm going to look for that and I'll answer it.

554
01:08:25,060 --> 01:08:28,660
Um, and, uh, I don't know, any final quick thought, Robert?

555
01:08:29,860 --> 01:08:37,620
Uh, you know, be good to take your, uh, vitamin D and zinc and, uh, uh, please, uh,

556
01:08:38,260 --> 01:08:41,540
come back and join us next week on fallout.

557
01:08:44,260 --> 01:09:00,500
We'll see you next week.

558
01:09:14,260 --> 01:09:16,260
You