testing. I'm gonna come on screen here and see if anybody will come in on the
chat. That's probably we're five minutes late so there's probably somebody already
waiting. Maybe maybe possibly. Hello, this is a sound check. And then I'm just
gonna quick start a few slides here. Ladies and gentlemen, this is giga-owned
biological, a high-resistance low-noise information stream brought to you by a
biologist. The illusion is sustained only through your active participation. The
real trick is to try and see what you're participating in and understand it
because it's a lot more complicated than just watching the nightly news and
deciding on which channel is the one that got it right. We are really working on a
kind of non-compliance thing in the sense of not being subject to a CDC that tells
the whole nation what to do, not being subject maybe even to an FDA that tells
us what's on labels. We've got to understand that we have abdicated our
responsibility for a very long time for the control of our communities and our
states and our nation. And I think a lot of this abdication has occurred all
around the western world. And even though right now for the last four years we've
been focused on it in COVID, I think there are people inside of the system from
before COVID who are already vaguely aware of it. I know that I was one of them and
I didn't understand it. And I'm lucky enough today to have someone on the
stream who I've just met actually a few minutes ago. His name is Dr. William
Macus. Is that the way we pronounce your name? That's right. Yeah. And I'm not sure
care bear. It might be better if you come in later because then I can have the whole
screen for Dr. Macus. But it's okay. I think when if we set this right I can get
it to be the speaker. I'm just going to let you give an introduction to yourself. Please
make sure that you give a full introduction of yourself before the pandemic so that we
understand what you're up to and where you were in your profession before the pandemic.
Thank you very much. Well, thanks for that. I was born in Czechoslovakia communist Czechoslovakia.
My family fled communism in 1988. My dad was an academic. He was pursued by the communists.
They wanted him in the communist party. They wanted him pushing communist ideals. He didn't
want to be part of it. He felt he had a target on his back. So he fled the country. We ended
up in a refugee camp in Yugoslavia in a United Nations refugee camp. We had no idea how long we
were going to be there. So I learned English there. You know, we had a choice of Canada,
US or Australia where we wanted to go. And we were lucky enough after a year we were given a
ticket to go to Canada. So came to Canada as a refugee, government housing. My dad was sort of
a math engineering professor and worked very hard. I grew up in Toronto. And for my undergrad,
I went to University of Toronto. I did immunology for four years. And then I got into medical school
at McGill University in Montreal. And I did about 10 years of medical training at McGill. I did my
MD degree. And then I did a five year specialization in nuclear medicine. Nuclear medicine encompasses,
it's a branch of radiology, but it encompasses radiology and oncology. And so I got training
in both of those fields. And then I graduated in 2010 and just started as a regular, you know,
regular small doctor in a small town. We moved to Manitoba in a very small town. I had my own
department and I did mostly imaging. Cardiac stress tests, bone scans, bone density scans,
that kind of stuff, just basic imaging stuff. But I was doing a lot of publication as well with,
you know, material that I had from McGill University because we had a PET scan,
which was sort of a new technology at the time to diagnose cancers. I know I dove
deep into that. I was publishing a lot and I wanted to do more in cancer and more in oncology.
So I ended up moving my family to Alberta to work in a large cancer center, took over a large
face to clinical trial of targeted radionuclide therapy using medical isotopes to treat stage four
cancers. These were neuroendocrine cancers at the time. And the idea was that you would
take these beta emitting isotopes, you would link them to a molecule that would then deliver
the radiation to a particular receptor on the tumor cell. And then the radiation would be dropped
picked up by the cell. It would then, the beta radiation would then cause single strand or
double strand breaks. And it would either kill the cell or render the cell unable to replicate.
And while sparing healthy tissue, and so the half-life of these medical isotopes was quite short. It
was only about six hours, half-life. So essentially, if you treated the patient with an injection,
the material would get delivered throughout the body to the tumors. And then the patient would
pee the rest of it out. So the rest of it would be excreted in urine. And you would monitor them,
maybe for an hour or two, just to make sure that they didn't have any kind of unexpected
reaction. Usually there was no reaction at all. And you could send them home, that you could do
these treatments as really as an outpatient. They didn't need to be hospitalized and so on.
So it was a very fascinating technology that had been developed in Europe. And FDA sat on this
for almost 20 years. They refused to approve any of these medical isotope treatments. And so
unfortunately, my program was sabotaged. At the time I didn't realize, I didn't know why it was
sabotaged. I found out later that the Trudeau government would go on to invest hundreds of
millions of dollars into this. They wanted to have a monopoly. They wanted to have it in Vancouver,
British Columbia and call themselves global leaders in this technology. Now this was all
before the pandemic, right? And so I had actually been fighting at legal battles since 2016 with
the health authorities in Canada realized that the entire medical system is corrupt top to bottom.
And that included all the health authorities. That included the medical boards like in the
Canada, it's the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That's the medical board in the United States.
They are, I believe, called medical boards. Completely corrupt universities. Completely corrupt.
And of course, the politicians were corrupt. So I had that sort of revelation a few years before
the pandemic. And because I refused to settle, I refused to sort of take any payoff that they put
in front of me. They came after my license, took my license hostage and said, basically, we won't
allow you to practice medicine until you sign those legal documents and those non-disclosures.
And they said, we'll destroy your reputation. We'll never allow you to practice medicine again.
So I've been fighting really that legal battle. The non-disclosures are about the radionucleotides.
The non-disclosures are about that technology here. No, not about the technology that they,
you know, they weren't really, they didn't care about that. It was non-disclosure, basically,
that the program got sabotaged in the province of Alberta. They left those patients
actively to die because it was stage four patients who had failed all other treatments.
And they took this technology and basically rendered it unavailable in the entire province.
So they have the deaths of thousands of cancer patients on their hands,
but they didn't want anyone to know about it. Simply one day, the technology was no longer
available in the entire province. And so that was what I had to sign that I would never speak
to my colleagues about this again. And I would leave the province and give up all my contracts.
I was producing this stuff, though, like the radionucleotides is something you had to make
on the bench, like at the day of the treatment. Yeah, so we had a radio pharmacy, but we didn't
have the ability to produce the medical isotopes ourselves. You need, you know, you need a decent
size cyclotron. So we were actually ordering the stuff from Europe. They would ship out,
there was two components. There was the medical isotope, and then there was the peptide component.
And we would basically import both of those. Now, as you're importing radiation with a half life
of six hours, obviously, you're going to lose a lot of it just by decay by the time it gets to
you. But then, you know, we had our radio pharmacy sort of put it together. It was sort of like a,
like a little kit where they would put those components together so that we could then
inject it into the patient. Now, the Trudeau government, the Justin Trudeau government is
actually heavily invested in building those cyclotrons on site in Vancouver so that they could
produce the medical isotopes on site so that, you know, you then you'd have a huge radio pharmacy
on site to put it together with whatever peptide or molecule you need. That is the targeting molecule.
And you could inject patients without losing a lot of the radiation in transit. So they're
building the facilities in Vancouver to be able to do that. And really, they've monopolized this
technology because I was the referral center for all of Canada. So they wanted the monopoly.
And the idea was that they would set up private clinics that would function parallel to the public
system where they could then bring in wealthy clients from Asia, you know, China, India, Japan,
fly them into Vancouver, which is a very easy flight into Canada and then have them treated
at these state-of-the-art cancer centers. And so I really came into the pandemic as a retired
physician because I gave up my license. You know, in this situation, I simply gave up my license.
And so now 2020 hits, I am 40, 41 years old or 40 years old when the pandemic hits. I'm 40 years
old and retired, right? And so I can look at the pandemic really without any propaganda,
you know, in the workplace, without any pressures, peer pressures, really without really any input
for my colleagues, you know, I could look at it as objectively as I could. And to me, I just
I couldn't understand the fear. Like, I couldn't understand the fear mongering at the beginning.
And I looked at some numbers. I think it was, I think I saw the numbers by Ewanidis
in terms of the case fatality rate. And it was like 99.9% survival rate or higher for, you know,
anyone who was all the age categories, except maybe age 70 plus. So I couldn't understand
the fear and the panic and the whole lockdowns and, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve and
and the six feet apart and all that just absolute nonsense, you know, and like one of the most
hilarious things to me was the arrows in the aisles in stores. So so we have these we have these
stores in Canada called, you know, the dollar dollarama, right? Dollarama one dollar stores.
And what they do is they would have arrows going one way. And then the next aisle, the arrows
were going the opposite way. And I thought like, this is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen.
And so, you know, I would go, you know, the opposite way just for fun. And you should see the looks
on people's faces. I mean, they were, it was like I was, I was going to kill them when I was
approaching them, like they were absolutely petrified. And the whole thing was like,
homical, right? Another situation where I, you know, the insanity of this was, you know,
when people now Costco is very popular in Canada. And so we would go to Costco. And then I would
see these lineups just around the blocks and, you know, snaking around, you know, these gigantic
lineups outside the Costco, because I guess there was a limited number of people you could allow
in at a certain time and they were counting how many people were in and how many people were coming
out. And then, you know, some people were standing six feet apart. Some some people weren't. I mean,
the whole thing was just idiotic. I remember, I remember that very well. We didn't do,
I guess you guys had it much stricter up there than we had it down here. But the same principles
were rolled out. That's for sure. Did you, did you then have any personal experience yourself with
the virus at any time, like that convinced you that that the spread was real or family members
or anything like that? I mean, I heard you say that the case fatality rate was very low, but I'm
sure by now, four years into this, you're aware that lots of people have argued that there wasn't
there are lots of places where there does isn't really evidence of spread. How do we,
was there a lot of excess mortality in Alberta? I think when I looked it up, there actually was.
You know, that is that that's a good question. I was trying to figure out if I had been exposed
to this thing. And if and it was really, I couldn't, if basically there hadn't been a declared pandemic,
I couldn't have told you that I was exposed to anything particularly novel or something that
I had never experienced before. So I didn't have that experience in 2020. I can tell you since then,
I could say that I do feel I had a couple of colds that were particularly strong. I would say
maybe stronger than I've been used to. So I could say I've been exposed to something in the last
three years that is maybe stronger than what I've experienced in the past. But I mean, certainly
in 2020, I did not experience anything out of the ordinary. And so, you know, and again, I was,
you know, I did look into, okay, well, what should I be taking? Okay, I was taking vitamin D, I was
taking, you know, zinc, vitamin C, quercetin, every now, you know, I throw some NAC or lysine in there,
what have you. And so I did take some steps to kind of try to protect myself. But I really
didn't feel like I experienced anything novel in 2020, definitely not in 2020. And so I can tell
you, I more or less ignored 2020. I mean, I, you know, I sort of, you know, I guess went along
with some of the nonsense in terms of the, you know, the six feet apart or what have you, you know,
just to not, I mean, I would always wear the mask under my nose because I don't like having
anything over my nose blocking blocking my breathing. So, and it was, you're right, I mean, it was a
little bit vicious in Canada, you know, they would go after people who weren't wearing masks properly,
they would have them, you know, they would call security, they would have you dragged out of a
store or what have you. So, did you, did you take any of the, the products at some point? Like,
did you take an injection at all? I have not taken any injection and I have not taken a test. Okay.
And nobody in my family has my immediate family. Now, I think my wife took a PCR test once,
because I think she panicked. But I was like, no injections, no testing, like that was,
I've gone through the entire pandemic with with that. Now, the reason why you came back then,
I mean, it not came back, but like it's, it feels very much like you're sort of kind of coming
out of retirement in the sense of, you know, using your medical background to speak out about what's
going on. So how, how is that transition back? Ben, it looks like you were doing geology or
something in your spare time. You know, I love, I love gemstones. I love the fossils. So that's
something I, you know, I collect and enjoy. Honestly, yeah, that that's a good question,
because, you know, 2020, I was, I was basically ignoring the pandemic thinking, whatever it is,
it's going to blow over. You know, it's obviously not sustainable. If no one's dying or people are
not dying in large numbers, whatever's happening is obviously not sustainable over the long term.
That was my reasoning. You know, then we hit 2021 and the whole vaccine issue and the whole
vaccine rolls out. There were some red flags for me with that. And I will, you know, I will always
admit, I did not know how toxic these things were going to be, or how toxic they, you know,
they definitely appear to be now. But I had some questions about, as soon as I heard,
it was, it was going to be mRNA and lipid nanoparticle technology, I had some serious questions. I was
like, okay, why, like, why are they using these things? Can we go back? Just very, very, very,
very, yeah, in your radio nucleotides, what is it when they mix them together? What, what,
how do they get them to go in then? How are the peptide and isotope get mixed together? And then
are they also need a carrier molecule of some kind or the peptide can be dissolved with the
radio molecule somehow and injected in there's a there's some kind of chelation that happens.
Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. So there's there's an additional there's an additional molecule that
chelates. Okay. The, the, the radionuclide with the with the peptide. Okay. Yeah.
It wouldn't be like you were using lipid nanoparticles to do that. And that's why no, no, no, no, no,
no, but but you know what, but that's, but that's the funny part is that because I was aware that
there had been a lot of attempts made in oncology to use lipid nanoparticles as as carriers
for chemotherapy, right? And I know they had lots of problems with it. I know they had they had,
I know that these were inflammatory, you know, highly inflammatory. I know that they could not
control the delivery of the lipid nanoparticles. And that was one of the, that was actually one
of the major problems because if you're, if you're, if you're loading them with chemotherapy and
you're hoping that these things, you know, get delivered to the tumors. Well, what's really
happening is they're dumping chemotherapy all over the place. And you have this sort of
uncontrolled release of chemotherapy in places where you really may not want chemotherapy,
right? And so I was sort of, you know, vaguely aware of this that the lipid nanoparticles had
never worked that like there was these things were problematic, like they never figured out
in terms of targeting. And I know that, you know, they were then sort of thinking about,
you know, monoclonal antibodies and ways of maybe attaching monoclonal antibodies to, to,
to find ways of delivering them. But, but it was basically as far as I was concerned,
it was one of these failed technologies that had never worked. And mRNA, that's a whole
kind of worms that I really wanted nothing to do with. Because again, it's something that had
never worked in any sort of, you know, condition that that as far as I was aware. So now you're
combining these two, you're combining what in my mind were two failed technologies together,
right? And I just remember my gut feeling was I want to have nothing to do with something that
is this experimental with so many unknowns. And that's without knowing anything about myocarditis
and all that kind of stuff. So many unknowns with people on TV telling us that there were
almost no unknowns. It was a it was a win-win. This is a this is a no-brainer. Yeah. And I can
tell you having run a clinical trial for several years, and really a proper clinical trial
with stage four cancer patients where I had to do, you know, full informed consent. I had to go
over all the possible risks, not just the benefits, the idea that you would give something
completely experimental to a healthy person with so many unknowns. It just again, it seemed
completely insane to me. But you know, I looked around and I'm like, Holy crap, everyone is lining
up for this. People are lining up outside of Walmart. They're lining up in in parking lots.
They're lining up, you know, at Superstore. I mean, they're basically lining up for these injections.
No one's talking to their doctor or at least most people didn't even talk to their doctor
about it. They're just getting to get these shots. And that like that. And I remember that vividly
because this is like spring of 2021. And the politicians are like, come on, just just get one
shot, right? Let's just get 70% of people getting one shot. We get the herd immunity. We're going
to be out of this thing so fast. And now these were sleaze balls, like the politicians, a lot
of these were very sleazy politicians that were pushing this stuff. And in terms of the medical
system that I had experience with the corruption in the medical system, the same corrupt bureaucrats
that killed my cancer program and basically destroyed my career, we're now pushing the vaccines.
I mean, there was no there was no change in the bureaucracy in the healthcare bureaucracy.
And I think that's something that doesn't get talked about very much that, you know, these people
that were pushing this stuff, these were lifetime bureaucrats, you know, that had been occupying
their positions for a very, very long time. I mean, look at Fauci, right? I mean, talk about a
lifetime bureaucrat and and Burke's and Redfield, all of them, the heads of that initial start of
this in America were no doubt long time servants, definitely. Yeah. And so same thing in Canada,
you know, corrupt bureaucrats, who I know were completely corrupt, just pushing this stuff on
everybody. That was when I started to not panic, but I really started to get concerned. I'm like,
okay, they're pushing this into they want to put this into everybody, but they still hadn't talked
about the kids yet. Right. It was only in the summer of 2021, where they were like, now this
is going into kids. Yep. This is going into kids. And of course, you know, first, it was like 12
to 19. And I thought, okay, no way, parents are going to put up with this crap. And they did.
And they got I can tell you it in Canada, they got 80% of kids 12 to 19 injected with this stuff.
Wow. At least at least two doses. Wow. 80%. This is 12 to 19 years old. I mean,
forget all the, you know, immune issues, autoimmune issues or whatever. Myocarditis, you know,
everyone knows blood clots. What about the fertility? Yeah. What about the fertility? Like,
how do you sometimes generation of kids? Sometimes I think the only hope is that these people were
diabolical enough to put out some placebo batches so that the total devastation they caused is
harder to trace to the shot. Right. It's awful, man. I don't know what to say. And, and, and I really,
you know, it's hard for us to really gauge what happened in, in Canada versus what we were
allowed to see happening in Canada. And the same, I think can be said for every English-speaking
nation that certain news made it here and certain news didn't. And for America, it often felt like
the worst examples of, of authoritarianism in Canada, for example, made a lot of circulation
over here where, you know, Trudeau is just saying, if you want to travel on a train or whatever.
Yeah. Yeah. The same with the guy from Australia who was saying you're of anti, if you have support
for people who have ideas about anti-backs, you're anti-backs. So those, those things were sent to us
as showing us how bad it could be. Right. And they did it to you guys, I think, because your
legislative system kind of permits it, whereas maybe there's some
last bastion of checks and balances or laws against things that they couldn't quite do it here,
like they did it where they, where they could, and they really hit you guys some places really hard.
They did. Yeah. And I can tell you, I think it's also important to remember not just what they did
to try to force as many people, you know, to take these shots as possible, but when they did it.
And so, you know, when you sort of look back, you know, the spring of 2021, there was none of this
animosity and this like, well, we're going to punish you and we're going to, you know, we're
going to fire you and we're going to make sure you cannot get government support if you don't take
these shots. I mean, it was just like, Hey, let's get to her and immunity. You know, let's just get,
you know, 70%. I remember that kept moving the goalposts. First, it was just 70%. It was enough
than 75, 80%, 85%. I remember that too. Yep. Moving those goalposts. When I really panicked
about where they were going with this was in the summer of 2021, you know, they, they did the whole
booster thing in Israel. And that seemed to just crash and burn very quickly. And the moment they
started talking about the kids, I thought, okay, I can't, like, this is not, this is not going to
go like this is not going to pass. You know, whatever I may have thought in 2020 that this whole thing
it was just going to pass. Now we're, we're in something permanent here. They're talking about
booster shots. And they know that they had to basically say that the first two shots had failed
in order to get people to accept taking a third shot, because they went all in on the first two
shots. Right. And so in a way, they had to admit that, well, actually, you know, the first two
shots really didn't work. So now you need the booster, right? And that was a, you know, that was a
psychological operation in it in itself. But I can tell you, and I don't know if the Americans
experienced this to the same degree, but in Canada, they came extremely aggressively after kids,
getting kids vaccinated, making sure that these shots, and I can tell you, yeah, 80% was the uptake
for kids 12 to 19. That's when I started speaking out really online. And then they came for the
kids five to 11 years old. And they managed, and I thought like that is like, this thing is
that on arrival, no way will parents of younger kids allow this, especially none of those kids
were dying. Well, I mean, pretty much none of the kids 12 to 12 to 19 were dying either.
But I could see, you know, I could see how they could fool, especially the, you know, with the
older kids 17, 18, 19, of course, then the university mandates came where they really forced it into
all those young kids. But I thought, well, maybe parents will draw the line at five to 11 years old.
And again, they managed to, they managed to force it through. And so about 50% of those kids have
had at least two shots in Canada. Right. I know it's not as bad in the United States.
No, it's not. But they got the, they got the university kids here really well. That's it.
That's well, they got the university kids everywhere. And Canada, United States.
It was a real crucial, crucial mistake that we made in 2020, where more parents should have
either insisted, okay, you're gonna do that, we're not gonna pay for that, then we're gonna stay
home a year. And then we had power back then. But once we said, well, I don't know, I guess so
you got to do what you got to do, then the kids now realize that mom and dad don't know what
they're talking about anymore. And they're turned to the same authority that I guess I have to turn
to. And we, we really blew it there. I think we have to turn back to those kids and explain how
bad we blew it. Absolutely. So, you know, I had, I had, you know, some of my daughter's
classmates were saying, well, you know, I didn't necessarily, you know, want the vaccine, but I had
no choice my my parents took me and I had no choice. This is like 12 years old, right? And you
could see even like at this age, some of these kids realize like, you know, they have no, they
have no power in this situation. It's just a horrible thing that happened. So I really think the bulk
of the crime of this thing, if we're looking at it, you know, on a time scale, is the second half
of 2021. Because this is where they, this is where it was no longer the carrot. It was no longer
the million dollar lottery or get a donut or get a joint or get a lap dance or whatever the
incentives were to get vaccinated because right, they started with the incentives. Then they came
with the stick, which was, okay, we're going to fire you. And, and, you know, basically corporations
whole scale took on the vaccine mandates and forced this. So, so, you know, why? And, and, you
know, it's like it was so aggressive that second half of 2021, that's when all the vaccine mandates
came. It was the university mandates, right? For the first two shots. It was the healthcare workers.
Like here in Canada, it was October 15 2021. And when I dug into that deadline to submit proof
all that you had two shots, that deadline, you could see that deadline all across the world.
So this was literally a global push. It was in the United States, these deadlines, you know,
it was in Italy, France, it was in Africa, like you name it, public servants who were dependent
on the government for their job and, and, and salary. They hit them with the, with the vaccine
mandates during that time period. This was the, the second half of 2021. And this is really where
I, I see the maliciousness of this whole thing and, and the malicious intent. And, and, and I always
ask why did, because they already had like 70% of people taking two shots, right? Why did they need
the last 15, 20% to the point where they were willing to burn down institutions to the ground,
throw all medical ethics down the toilet, um, and really throw experienced, valuable people
out on the street. They were willing to go, they were willing to do anything to get that last 15,
20% injected by any means possible. And, and like this is when Trudeau comes out and says,
don't think you can get on a plane or a train and sit next to a vaccinated person, right? And
calling, calling the, the unvaccinated racists and misogynists and, and, and, and people that
do we even tolerate these people? Should these people have access to healthcare? Should we be
taxing them? Should, should they pay higher insurance rates, right? Should they actually
have any access to, to healthcare? This is when the brutality of this thing took place.
Why the hell did they want the last 15 to 20% of populations in the US, Canada, UK, Australia,
injected? That is my big question. Like why, right? Because you've got 70% of the population
by that point, just by, you know, the usual propaganda, right? The usual sort of, um, manipulation
techniques in the media peer, a little bit of peer pressure. Hey, you're going to kill grandma,
or hey, everyone's doing it. Don't you want to do it for your community and, and don't you want
to protect the healthcare system from collapsing, right? Those were the techniques that were used,
but why did they go so aggressively after that last 10, 15%? I think, I think there's an answer
there that it doesn't get talked about. But I think it's something that maybe will reveal itself
over the coming years. Why did they need that extra population so that they could then say,
well, we've got 85% or 90% of the people injected with at least one dose of this stuff. And who
cares about the last 10%? They're crazy. They're a fringe minority and will lock them out of society
and everyone else did the right thing. I think actually what they want is the elimination of
the control group. I mean, yeah, they I'm sure that's part of it. Yeah. You don't want to have
people at work that, you know, for three years, don't get sick while everybody else at work gets
sick, right? That would be a real pain in the ass. Especially if that person isn't a triathlete
or a vegan or whatever people imagine makes them special, right? If they're just an average dude
who plays video games at night, but never gets sick because he didn't take the shot. That's a
pretty that's a pain in the butt to have around on a college campus that could be devastating,
right? I mean, so that that's one of the main issues there was college kids and how everybody feels
if there are a bunch of people on college campus that don't have the health issues that everybody
else seems to think is normal, that would be a very big big deal breaker. So they had to get
rid of that. I think that's one of the reasons they had to do it. Yeah. And I think honestly,
I think they failed. I feel like there is just big enough of a control group
where you can't just sort of bury the last group of unvaccinated and say, well, these are lunatics
and we'll just, we won't even look and see what's going on there. So I think they fell short of the
mark. I think they really fell short of the mark there. And it may be they're undoing down the road.
But I think they didn't quite get where they were going. And they really went all in like this was
like all in they were willing to burn every institution to the ground. Every concept of ethics,
you know, medical ethics or ethics. Otherwise, they burnt it all to the ground to like you said,
I guess eliminate that that that control group. And I do think they failed. Now it is tragic that
they got as many people as they did. I think that's a tragedy. But but I do think that they they
failed. So let's flip the script a little bit. And so did you have a lot of like former colleagues
then that that you were in contact with at the start of the pandemic that also were kind of like
what the hell's happening that we're panicking or or you were already kind of disconnected from
that community. And I think because of of the legal situation I was in, actually a lot of my
colleagues have been threatened. They were threatened to kind of cut ties with me. And so I was more
or less disconnected from from the medical community, which in a way was probably protected. Sure.
Absolutely. Right. Because because one thing I realized, you know, when I read,
you know, when I read a lot of these sort of interactions between positions and so on,
I realized how much peer pressure there was at all of these institutions. Unless you were like
completely private and you had like a completely private clinic with like-minded individuals and
you could basically say, well, the hell with you, I'm not implementing any vaccine mandate or what
have you, you if you didn't, if you didn't have that and most doctors don't, then you and so if
you were a part of the system in any way, you really were subjected to an incredible amount of
peer pressure. And I think, you know, you can resist peer pressure to some degree, but then
if it's just over a long period of time and everyone's doing it and you know, all your nurses are
doing it and all the texts are doing it. And of course, they quickly eliminate the people who are
not complying, you know, they quietly, well, they put them on unpaid leave, basically what
happened in Canada, they just put everyone on unpaid leave and said, well, if you're not,
if you don't submit your vaccine status, like we'll fire you. And a lot of people resisted
initially and they kept sort of postponing the deadline and eventually they just got rid of
whoever was non-compliant. But if you're in that environment and the non-compliant people basically
disappear and everyone else has done this thing where they've taken two shots or three shots or
what have you, I think the peer pressure is a huge part of that. And I think it wants to stay in the
system. Anyone who stayed in the system psychologically to resist that over a long term, I think is
very difficult. So you literally had to be kicked out of the system to, I think, to be fully protected.
And be able to, you know, or to extricate yourself, you would almost need to be thrown out. I mean,
yeah, it's a, it's a, oh my gosh, it's such a, and you know, and you know, and you know what,
JJ, another thing I find right now is that there's another element to this. Because, you know, a lot
of us are complaining about, well, how come doctors are not waking up? How come they continue to
be part of the system? And maybe some of them have stopped taking booster shots, but like,
you know, if you're now in your like fourth or fifth or sixth shot, I mean, what the hell does
it matter? You know, you've taken four or five, six injections of this stuff, right? But look at how,
how almost impossible it is for anyone who's sort of complied and stayed in that system to then
try to come out of it. There's been almost nobody. Yeah. Right. It's almost like,
it's almost like people just are mentally broken. And maybe just resigned to, maybe they don't have
the strength, maybe they don't have the mental strength to realize they made a huge mistake and
try to, you know, course correct. It's like no one can course correct at this point.
That's what's so shocking to me. It's like you either managed to get, you know, on the right
course fairly early on. And even even a lot of the doctors in our movement, let's say,
broadly speaking movement, even a lot of them took took a couple of shots before maybe they
realized the situation, right? But then if you didn't realize it back then, there's almost nobody
was correcting at this point. Yeah. At least in the medical field.
No, it's very extraordinary. I mean, I came, the University of Pittsburgh is a faculty of
neurobiology. The faculty is I think 135 faculty members. And from, I've heard from none of them,
not one, not even now. And maybe you could reach out and say, wow, I guess you weren't so crazy.
Oh, they think it's a lab leak. And they can at least tell me that they've been watching the news
and heard that what I was suggesting might have happened in February of 2020 is still might be
possible. And then I wasn't crazy. Even though I don't think it's an adequate explanation now,
I still am fascinated by the fact that how how how I appear to have been right so long ago that
none of these people have have even called to say, wow, I hope you're okay. Or, you know, I remember
your wife from the barbecue, she was really sweet. And your kids weren't crazy either. So I
hope you guys are all right. Not a peep, not one phone call, that one email. It's extraordinary.
Same same thing here. It's it's no one from my circle, sort of even an extended circle.
And in my, you know, medical career, my previous jobs, you know, university, so on, no one has
reached out. No one has said a word. I get so I get outreach when it comes to physicians,
I'll get outreach from physicians in other countries, I'll get outreach from spouses of
physicians who are freaking out and who know that something's wrong. And they're like, oh, my god,
like, what do we do this and that is my, you know, husband gonna have a heart attack or a stroke or
blood clot or whatever. So I'll get outreach from from immediate family members. But that's as far
as it goes. I don't get outreach from from the physicians themselves. And so I'm like, really,
like, is everyone really going down with this ship? That's that's, and it's, you know, I mean,
is it too late? I don't think it's too late ever to course correct, but it takes a lot of
strength, I guess, at this point, to do it. And it seems people don't have it.
Yeah, I think it's also part of the, you know, how much you actually give up when you do it.
When you not give up, but what you let go of, they have a pretty, you know,
developed idea of how the world works. And this is very contrary to that. And so,
you know, they put all of their eggs in the idea that, well, they wouldn't be telling us to do it
if they didn't figure it out already, you know, if it wasn't okay. And I, I don't buy that. But,
but I know that a lot of people were duped by people who gave that excuse. I mean,
Robert Malone says that he took two shots because he thought they must have fixed it. And I don't,
I don't know. I just, for me, it's hard for me to imagine how anybody could think that
transfection was something that would work on children. I guess, I even have a video of myself
in my garden saying in 2020 that her 2021, that I actually thought that maybe it helped my parents,
but I don't need to take it. And I was trying to not necessarily be totally skeptical,
saying that there's a chance that it might have done something. Maybe it's not a totally evil
thing, but to argue that healthy younger adults should take it as just absurd. And we have to be
realistic about the immunology that I understood at the time, which I understand better now.
What is your, you said you did four years of immunology. So what is your take on
expressing a spike protein using a lipid nanoparticle in somebody's body? And then what happens to,
how does the immune system supposedly process that cartoon? And then what do you think is a much
more realistic cartoon of what happens when somebody's transfected? Well, I mean, I'll be honest with
you, I find myself, I really feel like I'm sort of like learning to swim here. And you know,
someone who's just been thrown into water and like, try to figure out how to swim here. Because,
I mean, I'm two, I'm more than two decades removed from my, you know, from my undergrad
immunology, undergrad. So I'm trying to learn, I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this.
And, you know, it's interesting, because even this idea of the DNA contamination in these,
in the vials was not a thing. You know, last year, it was not even a no one knew about it,
no one talked about it. You know, the fact that, you know, there was this, whatever,
there were these limits, apparently, that these regulatory agencies had put on the quantities of
DNA. And yet, it was not, it was not even an issue of discussion, right? I remember the big
thing was, the big topic was, well, can, you know, the mRNA somehow reverse transcribe into the genome
and, and, and can there be, you know, an integration event this way? And then, of course, you know,
sort of the mainstream is like, no, no, no, that can't, there's no way that can possibly happen.
Then there's a paper that shows that, well, it kind of could happen in vitro. So, but I mean,
that was as far as that discussion went, right? And then, you know, then you've got this whole
DNA contamination, you know, with Kevin McCurnan and, and Philip Buckholtz and so on. And, and I
actually got myself into a little bit of trouble. When I reacted, you know, to some of these posts
where, you know, and it does seem that this, this DNA contamination, the presence of it, at least
it seems like it's been reproduced, the confirming that it is there. Yeah, that's basically there.
No one seems to be sort of arguing that, no, that's, that's not a thing. You know, we're not arguing
well, how much quantity and, and does it do anything clinically and so on. But so I mean,
that at least seems to be confirmed, is my understanding, right? But then, you know, you've got Philip
Buckholtz come out comes out and says, well, there's no, there's no way that this can cause
cancer or that, you know, the, the Pfizer vaccine can cause cancer. And, and I'm coming from this
from a, from a completely a clinician perspective where I'm looking at people developing all these
cancers, you know, vaccinated people developing all these extremely aggressive cancers. And so,
so I can tell you, like, I'm learning about this stuff. You know, to me, it's, it's, it's, it's
fascinating. Now, the, my understanding of the lipid nanoparticle is, is that there's absolutely no,
um, there's no way to control the delivery of this thing at all, at least in the, in the lipid
nanoparticle that we're dealing with with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that this thing,
um, if it ends up in, in, in the bloodstream like that, that's it. It's, there's, there's no way to,
you know, predict or control where this stuff goes, right? And it could theoretically go everywhere.
And I mean, on ironically, the, the guy that a lot of people credit for having invented this
stuff, Peter Kullis has been on stage in 2022 saying that he said in the same question and answer
session after a lecture that after the vaccine was said to be 95% effective, he opened up bourbon.
And then in the second question, he said, Oh no, we can't target this. I wasted the post, I wasted
five postdocs trying to target lipid nanoparticles to someplace. And the last postdoc actually
demanded a different project or she was going to quit. And that was his way of explaining how
they couldn't target it anywhere. So he thought that I guess that doesn't matter. I guess they
work anyway. I mean, I don't know, it's extraordinary. Yeah. And then how did they, and how did they
justify or how did they explain that this stuff was just staying in the arm? No, I mean, that's
exactly what Peter said it won't. Then he knew it wouldn't. And I'm sure that he feels like he told
them that it wouldn't. So that's why he felt very free to say it. It was really extraordinary. And
that was in 2022. So it was well after they burnt Byron Bridal's career for suggesting that
that was possible. So there's a lot of highly contradictory stuff going on, for sure.
Yeah. And and and what, you know, what amazes me is that they're they're plowing ahead. I mean,
they've come out openly. I think it was it was either Albert Burlauer, Stefan van Seller,
both of them who said like, yeah, we're gonna use this same lipid nanoparticle for all future
vaccines. And there's no like, you know, like, oh, no, we're we're doing more investigation. We,
you know, we want to maybe develop a new new nanoparticle or lipid nanoparticle. Like there's
that they're like, no, we're using the same thing. And we're going to use it in all future products.
So they really don't seem to care that this thing basically ends up going everywhere and
delivering the payload, which again, there's obviously questions surrounding what is the payload
really composed of right now. I talked to, you know, David Speaker, who did
again, some of the confirmation of the DNA contamination here in Canada. And you know,
he's talking to me about these like, well, not just the DNA sort of fragments and plasmids and
all that stuff, but then these like complexes, these DNA RNA hybrids. Yeah, they make like a
triple helix of some kind. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so like imagine, let's assume that that is,
there's a whole bunch of that, you know, these sort of triple heluses in there.
And then you put it in in this lipid nanoparticle that delivers this stuff everywhere. I mean,
I that's just in this this the whole thing is insane. Well, maybe everybody, maybe everybody
will develop superpowers and it will be fine. Yeah, seriously. Well, they've put it enough people
that that, you know, maybe some, you know, that's funny, you mentioned that, because
there have actually been some claims that some people, their cancer went away,
that after taking the COVID vaccines. Yeah, now again, anecdotal. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wow. But but again, so got got only knows, but but but if you're delivering, if you're delivering,
you know, there's these various types of genetic material all over the body. I mean,
I can only assume that this completely makes the immune system go nuts. Yeah. And I just don't
have the, you know, I don't have the, you know, so the training, you know, to be able to tell you
exactly, you know, what's happening with the immune system, maybe they don't even know. Maybe they
themselves don't even know. Oh, I assure you they don't. But that's only because I think that's
where you should always put your bet. No, for sure, they don't. They want us to believe that
it's real simple and it's just antibodies. So if you make antibodies, you're fine.
And that's definitely really not the way it is. What's your, what's the plan now? Like what,
what, what are we doing with the the wellness company in in Canada? In America, the wellness
company feels like they are a, at least would like to try to project as an alternative
sort of, you know, telemedicine and I'm not necessarily against that. I'm, I have an HMO
that we have a doctor that tolerates our stance now. But unfortunately, as I told you before,
we started the stream, we gave them everything in 2022. So we've only just become trying to
buck the system. So we haven't really tested it yet. And because we don't have insurance right
now, we're not really testing it. So it's all, it's all just up in the air for me right now. But
I don't, I don't have a, I don't have a bone to pick with the wellness company. I don't have a
bone to pick necessarily with FLCC or any of these other groups. But it appears to me that
recently there has been a bone to pick with the wellness company and people are suggesting that
this, this lumberjack or whoever he is that the young guy that runs part or that started the company
or as part of the company or I don't know. So how did you get recruited by them? What do you do for
them? What do you not do for them? And what's your feeling on this attack or or are, let's not
call it a tack, let's call it an extra attention that's being given to the wellness company. It's
right. Not all positive. So, so I never belonged to any groups. And it's sort of not the way I am,
I guess, you know, that's sort of my personality. I, I am very independent. I don't like to, you know,
be as so, you know, purely associated with one group or another or belong to these groups. I've
kind of always done my own thing. So Dr. Paul Alexander reached out to me and said, listen,
you know, there's a bunch of us in this great company and we, we'd like you to join and we,
you know, we want you to join on, on a advisory, like a, like a medical board,
like a medical board advisory to, because we're expanding into Canada. And so, you know,
it's, we've got Dr. Peter McCullough, as the chief scientific officer and a bunch of these
other great doctors. And so, and I thought, you know, okay, that sounds like a great idea.
And so I joined the wellness company and, you know, we, I got to interact with and work with
really a bunch of great doctors. And that is what I see the wellness company as the wellness
company to me is a group of fantastic doctors who saw who are basically outside the medical
establishment saw through a lot of the nonsense in the pandemic. And it's, it's, it's a place where
we can sort of bounce ideas back and forth. You know, we meet once a week or once every two weeks,
we discuss what's going on, you know, we were constantly in touch with each other with emails
and all that. So, so that to me is, is really the core of, of what the wellness company is. It's,
it's sort of a, a getting together of, of minds, of great minds. And I was honored to, you know,
be able to, you know, work with Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Reich, you know,
Dr. Roger Hopkins in Canada, Dr. Mark Trosi. And, you know, there, there's some, it's allowed me
to collaborate on some papers as well that are, you know, we're trying to get published in terms of,
you know, vaccine injuries or autopsy reviews. And, you know, so they had products that they were
offering to deal with, or to try to deal with, you know, some of the vaccine injuries.
Is the guy Hodgkinson that you mentioned, is he an older fellow with glasses? And if I could say
it in the most complimentary way, he's a very ornery guy. I mean, he's a friendly dude. I think
he's very smart. I'm not saying anything negative about him. But I, I remember this name from the
Doctors for COVID ethics in 2021, before they split off or something. And after they, the two groups
divided into like the UK international something, something's in the Doctors for COVID ethics,
then I think Roger may have left and just gone, you know, and worked on his own thing. Or maybe he
left and joined one group or not the other group. And I lost kind of track of who he was. But what
he's he he's a Canadian pathologist. That's right. Okay. Yes. That's him. That's him. He's he's he's a
guy I would like to meet again, because he really came off to me as someone who was trying to let
common sense lead. And he got really frustrated a lot when people wouldn't start first with,
come on people. I remember that a lot. So I had a good impression of that guy. I'm glad to hear
that he's he's tangled up with you. That's good. Yeah. And so, you know, this is how I see the
we're sort of, you know, we're a group of doctors where we're there in an advisory role. And now
what's interesting is that the so the company is expanding, expanding, expanding, and it's trying
to expand in many different directions, ran into difficulties in Canada, with Health Canada,
you know, coming after the the Canadian branch saying, okay, you know, you got to take all
these products off and and you got to fill out some forms or get some number or what have you,
right? And then they ran into some issues. So the Canadian part has been actually slowed down
quite a bit. So I think that renewed the focus and the company is now expanding. It's expanding.
So it's expanding beyond bringing doctors together. Now they're, you know, they've got
partnership with Vigilant Fox and Vigilant News with Gateway Pundit. You've got you've got
to deal with rumble and so on. So it's it's it's focused on seems to be like a rapid expansion.
Now this is I think this is what rubs people the wrong way. And I think this is where where
some people get concerned, especially when one entity seems to suddenly be everywhere, right?
Or seems to be expanding at a very at a very high rate. So so that's where we're at right now.
Now what's what I find interesting is that I come under attack from from every possible angle,
from every direction, you know, and it's and I think the reason is because my approach to this
whole thing, especially with these products, right, with these, you know, with the lipid nanoparticle
mRNA products. My approach is the clinical. I want to know what these things are doing clinically.
What is happening to people who've taken two, three, four, five, six of these injections,
right? That is my focus. And this is I think what everyone else is trying to sweep under the rug.
Even right now you've got the the UK government is changing the way it's going to report excess
deaths. So that suddenly that excess deaths disappear, right? I get viciously attacked on the
cancers. This this idea of turbo cancer and that there is a particular phenomenon that is unique
to the lipid nanoparticle mRNA platform. There's this oncogenic phenomenon that is unique to that
particular platform. And I don't have enough information to know, well, does it happen with
AstraZeneca and J and J with a different delivery mechanism? And is this really a spike protein
issue, regardless of the delivery mechanism? Or is really the lipid nanoparticle a big, big part of
this? And the way this this genetic material gets delivered all over the body in a very
efficient way, it seems, right? But but this idea of turbo cancer being a phenomenon specific
to this particular product. I think it's something that the medical establishment wants to bury
the politicians, you know, they don't they don't want anything to do with it. And obviously the
sort of the pharmaceutical industry does not want to to to allow even for a one in a million
chance, like they do with myocarditis, right? You saw what they did with myocarditis, they basically
admit it and they say, well, it's rare. Yeah, one in 10,000, one in 20,000, rare and mild,
but they admit it. And you know, they might even put a warning on the label and what have you,
right? You know, we have this new study, this 99 million people study that's like, oh, well,
you look, it's admitting myocarditis and pericarditis. And again, it's this red herring because
what it does really, it's it neuters, the topic. And the way it neuters, the topic is that both
sides will say, well, one side will say, look, it proves the injuries are much greater than we
thought. And so on, the other, the other side says, well, you didn't do the statistics properly,
and it's still one in a million, right? And it's still a rare event. And it basically,
the topic's been neutered. Yeah, I think that I've been, I've been, I've been trying to teach
various aspects of how they limit the spectrum of debate so that it really feels like you're
arguing, but you're not actually arguing. Because as long as you argue about what they want you to
argue about, you're never even paying attention to what the real ball is. I think just to give you
an example of this one that I've been pushing for a couple of years now, there were a lot of
people that I ran into behind the scenes in 2020 and 2021 that were hyper focused on aspects of
the spike protein as being as being number one, perfect evidence of it being a laboratory leak,
but perfect evidence of it being a toxin or an engineered pathogen or or whatever. And it feels
very much now in retrospect, like those people were put there so that the the methodology of
transfection could be absolved of any fault and we could blame it all on this imaginary gain of
function spike protein that had these special attributes that if we just fixed it, then everything
would have been fine. But since we rushed it and we didn't know any better, we did we made a mistake,
but we can fix that in the next round. And I feel as though that is now being kind of replaced
with the DNA story, if only because they needed more of this same thing because the spike didn't
hit it as well as they hoped it was something like this. I totally agree with you. And I'm always
looking to see, you know, how how anyone might be trying to absolve the technology itself,
just in the broad sense, right? And so how how can you clean it up, right? It's almost like
this idea. Well, well, that was the first generation and and of this technology. And well, we got
something wrong here, but you know, we fixed this with we fixed this manufacturing process. I'm so
happy to hear you say this. Oh my gosh, or or or you know, we fixed this law or what have you
and how these things are produced. And and to me, it's very simple. It's very simple because
what you see is you see the big money is plowing ahead with this
by building all the facilities, the factories all around the world and so on. And they're doing
it in a manner where the they're assuming that the acceptance of the population is a foregone
conclusion. You don't invest billions and billions and billions of dollars into facilities. If there's
a question, if the population is going to basically rise up and say absolutely not, and no one's going
to take the product, they're assuming that they've won the war on on the population accepting these
products. Now it's just a question of how do they bring people there, right? Because obviously with
the COVID vaccines, the I mean, we're down to what 10, 15% of people taking it. So they need to
figure out. Oh, I think you're so right that we are not where they wanted us to be. They really
did not want us to be where we are. And so now they have they're having a trouble adapting their
plan because their plan was to go all in. And and I don't think they have many alternatives
other than to continue doubling down until enough of us say no. Yeah. And and you know what? It's
fascinating because when you look at the way the last booster has been marketed by let's think
about that, right? Well, first they went with this the by valent booster nonsense where you get
you get two types of spike, right? And but you know, every time they they roll out a booster shot,
there's a significant drop off in uptake. And I think once the initial booster uptake was only
down to like 40, 50%. I think they probably knew that they had a problem. Yeah. And then every
since then, you know, it just drops and it's down to 25%. It's not down to 15%. Right. Now,
there was a huge marketing push with this last booster shot. And again, a lot of people didn't
catch it and notice it. And I'd kind of gone back into the literature and try to figure out what
they're thinking. And the marketing was this, they were trying to remarket the boosters as an
annual shot that you take with your flu vaccine. And it's just as safe as the flu vaccine. And
and it's an annual shot that you get at your doctor. And wouldn't it be convenient if you just
got both shots in one visit? I mean, they're both safe. They're doing it here too. Absolutely. They
are. Yep. Right. And I and I see there was a lot of money actually that went into this marketing
campaign of the double shot. I mean, we had we had the we had the Toronto mayor, Olivia Chow,
you know, at a press conference, say, I got I got my two Jabs, you know, go get your double
jab. Just get your double jab. And this this idea of the double jab, the two different
band dates, two different colored band dates to show you got well, you got one flu and you got
one COVID, right? This was a marketing campaign to try to bring the uptake at least to 50%, which
is what they were talking about. Well, we managed to get uptake of the flu vaccine to about 50% over
time. If we, you know, change the marketing, maybe we can get everybody else to taking these
mRNA products back to 50%. And maybe that's just the first step. They're like, well, if we can
get everyone to 50%, maybe eventually we could figure out ways of getting, you know, the uptake
higher. But but when you see, like, I mean, they've they've plowed ahead with this technology to
like this technology, as far as they're concerned, is here to stay. It's it's just how do we
remarket it to make it palatable. And you're right. I mean, I am concerned that the DNA contamination
as as honest as some of these individuals are. And I believe they are honest in the work that
they do. Absolutely. I do believe that the sudden
what do you call it? The the sudden exposure and the wide exposure of this DNA contamination story,
where a lot of news outlets are covering it, I can tell you there's an in there's a there's a
rebel news, for example, has never given me an interview in the last sort of seven years that
I've been fighting corruption here in Canada. And it's a huge news story for them. They ran
with a huge interview on the DNA contamination story. They will not touch any story about
turbo cancer. They will not touch, you know, all the work that I had done about, you know, Canadian
doctors dying suddenly or any of the sudden deaths that I've been covering. And yet they did a
huge interview on the DNA contamination story, right? Because that apparently was greenlit to
get out there into a broader audience. So I am worried that that is actually being that
story is being used to effectively rehabilitate the mRNA platform where
maybe they clean up the DNA contamination or their manufacturing processes. Maybe they come up
with us with a different manufacturing process instead of DNA plasmids and E. coli or whatever
it is, right? And then suddenly the technology is as good as new. And look, it actually, it works
great. We just have to fix, you know, my friend, my friend has been arguing that one of the directions
they may go is one that they've been seeding in our heads for a long time, this personalized
medicine. And so if they have to make a personalized RNA vaccine for you, then there's no FDA involved,
right? Because it's just made for you. And that's one possibility of where they are taking this
idea that the now that we got lucky and the pandemic proved that this stuff works like a charm,
we might as well just roll it out everywhere. I mean, it's it's frightening. It definitely is
frightening. It is. It is. And you're right. And in that regard, the personalized aspect,
as far as I can tell, they're bringing it through these the cancer vaccine, right? So the mRNA
cancer vaccine is a personalized vaccine, right? It is tailored to your specific tumor.
Right. When you look at the literature that they put out on it, it's they say, well, you know,
we take a sample of your tumor and we run it through our whatever, you know, processes and
they they figure out which, which, you know, genetic sequences they want to use from your tumor.
And then they produce it, they produce a special vaccine batch just for you. And then they give
it back to you and they inject you with several shots, right? They're actually the, you know,
the guy who fell for this, unfortunately, recently, he's got a great for glioblastoma.
As an Australian, I believe he's a pathologist, Australian pathologist Professor Scalia.
And he this summer, you know, a big time guy in Sydney, like a huge professor,
run some huge institute in Sydney, and he gets diagnosed with a great for glioblastoma.
And so, of course, it doesn't say could be related to the vaccine or whatever, nothing, right?
And basically what he does is he, he sets up a collaboration with Moderna to receive a personalized
mRNA cancer vaccine outside, I believe it's outside of their trials, which they're doing
for melanoma. And they're doing a special treatment for him to tailor the technology
to treat his glioblastoma. And he's basically now coming out saying, well, this is first in the
world. I'm the first in the world to get this, you know, personalized treatment and so on.
I would recommend people look into that. It's a fascinating story.
Wow.
Scalia, S-C-O-L-Y-E-R. Professor Scalia, I could look up his first name.
But it's, and it's, it's, they're doing it very publicly. Professor Richard Scalia.
And they're being very public about it. And it's fascinating because I don't know if,
again, I don't think he's part of their trial, part of their clinical trial,
phase three trial, because they started phase three trials on these personalized
cancer vaccines, but specifically for melanoma. But they're adopting it in his case to glioblastoma.
This is where it's headed, right? I mean, I mean, this is where they're pushing the technology.
I do not know. I don't know.
I don't know. This is really great that you said this because I did not know that Moderna had
already done it. That was already doing it. That's cool. Yeah, yeah, they're doing the,
I believe it's phase three trials, and they're doing them in Australia for melanoma.
I believe it's in partnership with Merck as well.
Now, I also see the push, and I don't know how you feel about the self-amplifying mRNA
vaccine. I feel like it's probably a bad idea if it works. But anyway, I get their,
their sales pitch is silly, right? That, well, we won't put as much in you, and then it'll make
copies of itself. That's horrible marketing. It's horrible. I mean, my God, like if people
don't want this, it's not because, you know, they were upset that they got, you know, too much RNA
with the Pfizer and Moderna. Like, you know, they're upset because they got injured or,
I mean, this idea that, you know, we'll only give you 20% of the, you know, of the genetic
material, that that's a horrible sales pitch. But I guess they need a sales pitch of some kind.
Yeah, I think it's a little bit too much orchestration for me too, the idea that they can, you know,
they're basically then, you know, not getting into the debate about whether viruses exist as we
are told they exist or not, but they're basically creating a virus if they can put an mRNA into
your body and get it to make copies of itself. That's a pretty, it's a pretty, I think it seems
like a pretty serious, I don't know why I don't like this phrase for this thing, but it's like
gain a function almost, right? I mean, it's transmission, but transmission on turbo, if they
can do that. So it doesn't sound like a good idea, indeed. Yeah, exactly. And I think what, I mean,
if this, they claim this works, but assuming that this technology works as they say they do,
I think it actually opens up even more questions about the entire platform, right? Then we had
with just the original idea. And this kind of brings me back to, like you said, the focus on
spike to try to exonerate the platform in the sense that, well, if we just put a different protein
in there, a different sequence, then it's going to be okay. All the problems with the spike protein
will disappear. I assume that's why nobody's questioning the use of it for RSV or pneumonia
or any of this other thing, because they assume, well, that's not a gain a function protein,
it'll be fine. I mean, otherwise, how can you rationalize this that it will just work? And you
can replace existing or create something that doesn't exist, I actually is what were most of
these things are there. They're quote unquote vaccines for targets that we have never been able
to vaccinate against before. The RSV one really drives me nuts because it feels like
marketing with fear to old people. And they're doing it on TV here in America, and it's just
awful. It's really awful. Yeah, so I think you're absolutely right. I think
there will be a push, a very strong push to exonerate the platform in one way or another.
And again, I am assuming that the vast majority of the problems we're seeing
with the COVID vaccines, we're going to see the same problems with the RSV vaccine,
we're going to see the same problem with an influenza mRNA vaccine, with a CMV vaccine,
with an HIV vaccine, if they come out with one. I think a lot of the problems,
again, I'm hypothesizing here, but my hypothesis is that a lot of the problems are going to be
the same. If not, if not, most of them, or maybe even all of them. Yeah, I don't think there can
be almost any doubt. I mean, I came out really early because we used transfection in our animals
all the time. And so we expressed proteins in the brains of rats and monkeys and studied the effects
as the protein came into expression. But we also understood that that wasn't an augmentation
that the animal would live through. Eventually, the immune system would come in and take those
neurons out. And so if you wanted to see the anatomical place that you altered the protein
expression, you had a certain window where you could do the experiment, you could watch the animal,
you could do the behavior, you could do the amino histochemistry. And if you did it within that
window, you'd get a nice stain. And there would be these fluorescent neurons. And you could say,
look, we transfected neurons in the amygdala and fear freezing behavior changed. And so that means
our protein is involved in fear freezing behavior. If you took that same experiment and let it go
for more weeks, the neurons that you transfected would all be gone. And the effect on the behavior
would all be gone because those neurons would have been removed from the circuit. And so you
wouldn't be able to affect the behavior anymore. And that was just given. We just understood that
the limitations of this technique are that once you transfect these neurons, the immune system
will eliminate them. So when they started to explain on television that they were thinking
about transfecting people and calling an investigational vaccine, I was like, wait a minute,
this doesn't make any sense. And when the first person selling it on PBS NewsHour was Bill Gates,
I was livid. I was like, you got to be kidding me. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
And so I went from being completely bought into everything and wanting to be an academic superhero
to wishing I could take those many years back in some respects. And so what are you going to do
now? What are you up to now? You're still happily retired. And so you can choose to spend your time
as you will. Do you have a family? Are they're all behind you? How's that all work?
Yeah, my family's behind me. I have two kids. They understand to some degree what's going on.
And I think I think that's important. You know, sometimes my wife's like, don't tell them that
or don't show them this and this. I'm like, I, you know, they have to understand you, you know,
you can't shield your kids with, you know, from things that are going to affect them.
Obviously, you know, through their adult life and in their future. Because I think we are,
we are headed in a new, well, I mean, I shouldn't say, I mean, we are in a new, we are in a new
paradigm. And it's, and I think most people don't understand what that paradigm is. I think there's
a lot of focus on it being like a biological warfare or gain affection and so on. And I don't
think that's the right paradigm. I think we are in a basically a genetic.
Oh, that's the right word for it. Um, genetic manipulation, genetic modification.
A friend of mine, a friend of mine, Mark Coolack would say that they inverted us and
changed us into experimental animals. They might not be experimenting on all of us all the time,
but that's the plan. Um, I actually had another friend of mine shock me this morning and explain
that you can think of Israel as, as, as Gaza being a weapons lab and Israel is being a medical
lab. And there isn't really much to say that, that says that's a very bad characterization because
it kind of is. You know what, you just brought up something, uh, something very fascinating. And
I want to jump on it right away before I forget because there's, there's a clip. So there was
an interview that Jordan Peterson did with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli president. It wasn't that
long ago. It was maybe, I, maybe now it's been, you know, six months ago or this, this is very
ominous. I don't like that guest list at all. Oh my goodness. No, but, but this is, this is
fascinating. And at, you know, at some point I ran across this clip completely by accident.
It was about a three minute clip of Benjamin Netanyahu talking about how he procured the vaccine.
And, and the reasons behind it and so on. And the, and the final, the piece of this,
which is about three or four minutes long, was clipped out of the interview. And it's not available
on YouTube. And I, and I, I sat through the whole interview and I'm like, okay, where's this?
Where's this thing? It was edited out. They edited it out. Oh, but the clip is out there. And, and
I'm telling you, it is like the best three or four minutes anyone will spend, you know,
listening to Benjamin Netanyahu, because what he goes on to say is that, well, first he wanted
Israel to be the first one to get the vaccine. So he made a special deal with Pfizer. No problem.
Then he says, well, we have pretty much the entire population on a digital,
digital healthcare system. So then he says, well, we knew exactly what the vaccines were doing.
Because everyone's healthcare was digitized. So they knew what the vaccines were doing. And he
just says it openly like that, right? And then he says, well, we basically handed everyone's
digital health information to the pharmaceutical industry. And then he says what, what actually
is the plan going forward? And what he says is that on top of this medical digital information
database, we will put a genetic database of each individual in Israel. We'll put a genetic, we'll
get the genomic, you know, we'll get the genome of everybody in Israel. And then he laughs and he
says, oh, well, we might have to pay like the people who don't want to give us a DNA sample,
we might have to pay them to, you know, incentivize. But he said we're going to get the genetic
information of everyone and put it on top of this medical database. And then he literally says
we're going to give it to the pharmaceutical industries and they're going to run it through
their AI algorithms. Exactly. To develop a whole host of new drugs.
That's the whole plan. They have been thinking this for decades already that the human genome
project actually started out with this, this ended with this revelation after sequencing the genome
and coming up with all these markers that the only way they enter any hope of cracking the actual
code was to sequence every human they could possibly sequence. And it's fascinating that in
this three, four minute clip, he lays out the whole thing. And he basically says, you know,
like he says, yeah, some people will not want to give their DNA sample. So we'll just pay them.
We'll just incentivize them. I can't believe it's taken me this long to hear you speak this
stuff because it's really almost, I mean, it is dead on balls accurate for where I find myself
thinking they really have. And it's not just me, you know, there's a couple other people. I really
want to give credit to my friend Mark Coolack because he really had me not seeing it fully and
not had me seeing it but helped me to see it more fully as as why because that's also what dispels
this myth that they're trying to just depopulate because they don't want to just depopulate. They
want to reduce population and use us as we go. There's a they need to collect the data as we go.
They can't just kill us all and burn us. That's not what they want at all. Why would they do that?
They're missing out on millions of possible data points. And I think if they if you think
even more darkly about it, if the goal from global governance is to get us down to a billion,
then this is the last opportunity they have to collect this many examples of the human genome.
It's like how many games of go or how many games of chess can you play before you figured out the
game? That's what the human genome and medical data attached to it is. It's examples of the same
game and they imagine that if they have enough of these games that the AI will solve the problem
and then they'll be the futurists that they think they should be. I really imagine that this mythology
is why what's propelling this. In 10 more years, the computers will be enough or in 10 more years
will have enough data. And they've been saying that since the 80s, unfortunately.
Yeah. No, and I mean, it's it's it's fascinating because I mean, as as I mean, he's he's the
president of Israel. He obviously has, you know, direct access to to Pfizer, for example, and he's
laying this out and he's and he really like to him, it's a matter of fact, it's a foregone conclusion
that this is where it's headed. So it was just a fascinating like it blew my mind when I saw
the clip. I was like, Oh my God, he's just he's just laying it all out. Did you speak or give a
talk at the NCI at all? Or did you how do you how is that going in Canada now? I gave a talk a
long time ago, but I heard now they're some they're going to put out a report or something. I don't
know where that is at. Yeah. So I did give a report to NCI. It was more focused on things like mandates
and the way the government was manipulating data. And even the even all the doctors that have now
taken, you know, four or five, six shots, dropping dead, dropping, you know, dying,
suddenly developing all kinds of bizarre cancers and so on. I did give, I think it was almost three
hour testimony. Oh, wow, good for you. They, you know, they put it into the report, the transcripts
in there, they put out it's like a 5000 page. Oh, there's there's a link in the chat already. Great.
Thank you. Yeah. So so yeah, that's that's all on record. That that's all out there. And I gave
some some documents as well. I did give sort of a I guess you could say a primer on on the
turbo cancer and what I think that is or as far as as we know up to this point and what might be
happening. Are you also can you confirm this for me from your own perspective? I know you're not a
practicing cancer doctor now, but I've heard many people explain it this way and I don't really
explain it very often because I'm not a cancer doctor. But is it a is the the prevalent thinking
that your body is always managing that problem? And so if you stop the management of it, you could
release. Is that how you see it? The turbo cancer is not really that now we have a new kind of
cancer, but so much that your immune system has become so lack of vigilance that it appears to
be turbo. And in a normal healthy person, this would never happen. Is that kind of how you're
seeing it? I think that's part of it. I don't think it's the full full answer because I'll tell
you so so this is the idea that you have sort of ongoing surveillance, carried out by the immune
system. And then if you damage that surveillance in various ways, then a cancer could potentially
you know, grow in a completely uncontrolled manner which which which which would explain some of
the behavior. There's more to it though. Okay, I'm excited. So the the component that I'm
very concerned about which I and I don't understand it is there has to be a local effect.
And it's basically where the lipid nanoparticle delivers the genetic payload
in certain locations. There there is a local effect. I think there's a reason why
you know, a lot of these are bone marrow cancers or cancers of the cancers of the pancreas,
cancers of the testes, cancers of the gallbladder. When you think about that argument, I like that
argument a lot. Thank you very much. When you think about lipid nanoparticles being cleared by
the liver, right, the hepatobiliary system, how come we're seeing stage four calangiocarcinomas
in young people, stage four, you know, pancreatic cancers, gallbladder cancers,
colon cancers, how do you explain that, right? And I mean that that that gives you the entire
clearance pathway for the lipid nanoparticles, for example, right? But then you also have
testicular cancers. Well, we know there's, you know, accumulation of lipid nanoparticles in
tested testes. And so, and again, no one talks about this really, but beyond the damage to the
immune system. And again, there's various mechanisms of that, which is a systemic thing,
right? That's a systemic issue. I believe there's a local issue. And it's a problem of not this,
it's not a problem of the spike protein. It's a problem of the lipid nanoparticle delivering the
payload in sufficient quantities to a certain location. And there's a local effect. I see
that is carcinogenic. So that's my that is at least my feeling that that is a crucial part of it.
And so there you can go back to where the lipid nanoparticle, they're almost not talking about
it, but they know that they they do a preparation to it that makes it appear inert. But as soon as
it delivers, it's it's payload, it becomes this very cationic, dangerous compound again. And there,
if you had DNA damage or nicking or mitochondrial damage, all this other stuff that we don't understand,
I think it's almost too convenient that we're always talking about the spike.
And the thing is, is if if if the lipid nanoparticle is a big part of this,
all of these cancers, then the entire platform is dead. Yes, absolutely, it is. Right. Which is
why I think there's such an aggressive effort to suppress any talk about turbo cancers or
cancers being caused by the vaccines, because like I said, it's someone's going to stumble
upon something. So are you worried that that's what the SV 40 is about? Like this whole, you know,
SV 40 is in the DNA. And so then they can blame the cancer on that when it's, you know,
I think the S 40 SV 40 is a red herring. Yeah, I've been feeling that. I'm not going to look,
I'm not going to exclude it. I'm not going to say no way. That's not a possible mechanism.
I just I feel it's a red herring. And I don't think I just don't think it explains a lot of
what I'm seeing. But like I said, someone someone may stumble at some point
upon maybe more about, you know, the lipid nanoparticles. And it doesn't have to be one
explanation either, right? They could all be contributing to your right. Yeah. Yeah. Well,
and the thing is, is I've said this in other interviews, is that, you know, we're most likely
looking at multiple mechanisms occurring in different people, because again, the behavior is
different. So, so I see certain patterns, right? I'm trained in pattern. I mean,
radiology is a pattern recognition specialty. Like, you know, if we're honest about it. Okay.
And so I do see patterns where, for example, some people will, you know, they'll have a
Pfizer or Moderna and like within three, four months, bam, they've got a great for glioblastoma.
And it's always like that. It's always that three, four month time period, right? And then
it'll kill them in in about in less than a year. And I've seen a lot of those, right?
So you see the ones where they'll kill you in a matter of months, those, those processes. And
it doesn't matter what you throw at them. The oncologist, they can throw all kinds of chemo,
all kinds of radiation therapy, all kinds of immunotherapy. Nothing works. Nothing
works. This thing is just on fire. And there is nothing the oncologist can do to put it out.
And you're dead in a matter of months, sometimes even weeks, but let's say usually a matter of
months, right? But then you've got situations where someone is, you know, struggling with this
cancer for a year, year and a half. And it seems that there's partial response to chemo or maybe
you get like a short term remission where this thing appears to go into remission for a couple
of months. And then it comes roaring back. And then it's, you know, it's usually more aggressive.
And then and then so there are multiple patterns that are happening, which probably means that
there's multiple mechanisms. And so again, I don't know if I don't know if they have the ability to
track any of this. I don't know if they can track any of these reactions through lots,
lot numbers, for example, I don't know. But there's certainly it looks like there's multiple
mechanisms at play, but I'm very concerned about the local effect that the lipid nanoparticles have
on particular tissues. I'm glad that you said that because it is really, there's no doubt in my
mind that there has to be some we need to attribute some aspect to to all of these things. And so
it's really important. I really, I really think that's helped me understand this better. That's
really great. It is one hour and 29 minutes. And I don't think I ever asked you to stay for a week.
So I can have you back anytime you want. I'm actually so pleasantly surprised that your take
on this pandemic that, yeah, I don't know how it is that I haven't met you before. I guess it's
because that's by design. Everybody with with the humble humility to be skeptical but not be
certain seems to be separated from and only the people who are certain they know what's going on
are rising. And so I really am so happy to talk to someone who isn't certain that what they know
is going on, but just certain something is going on. So I can't compliment you enough for for
risking your retirement and comfort speaking out on behalf of Canadian citizens. I hope that
you can continue to do so. Is there a place where you're findable? How do you spread your word? Do
you have a website or anything like that? Yeah, no, I really, you know, I really enjoy this conversation
and I appreciate, I appreciate, you know, sort of being able to explore these things and just
kind of kind of see, you know, where where it takes us, you know, where the discussion takes us.
It's it's it's it's rare that, you know, we can get those kinds of conversations. So I really
appreciate that. People can find me on Twitter at MAC SMD and on sub stack MAC SMD dot sub stack
dot com. There's been a lot of effort I could tell you to have me sort of silenced to make sure that
I don't rise or that I don't get, you know, there's a lot of shows that I haven't been able to get
on or a lot of people who won't interview me, a lot of conferences I haven't been invited to. So,
so there is all of that kind of going on in the background and I get it, you know, it's that's
sort of the nature of I don't even want to call it resistance, but it's basically the nature of
of this this this field that we're in. But I'm just pushing, I just push, I just keep pushing
forward. Right. I mean, that's I would, I would think the only thing that I could that I could
offer is that after all of my experience starting in 2020, I would say I've been contacted by no
less than 15 people who never intended to help me and have ended up basically not helping me and
they're not they're not my friend anymore. But at one point, they profess to be a supporter and a
friend. And so we've come an awful long way in these four years. And so now I think it's there's a
there's a lot of the American word is a slog. You just have to we're just gonna have to walk
through the mud now. And there's a goal over there. And we just need to do that slog now. And it
starts with our kids. It starts with young people. It starts with giving all of these doctors the
opportunity to realize without humiliation how well they were taken by this this fear and confusion
and doubt that they put out there and seated. I've been trying to say for a long time that one of
the things that they did it with is a is a hint that the worst case scenario has to be avoided and
it is now possible. And so they scared us into believing that if we didn't conform, that potentially
something could spiral out of control. And that potential has been the fear that they got everybody
in line with in Israel and they got everybody to test in America. And so that's really
it's going to be a one person at a time kind of thing. And as you as you noted, so many people
are in it where it will cost them too much to to snap out of it. And so unfortunately, a lot of
them are going to have to lose somebody and then doubt how they lost them. I just in December
of last year, one of my friends had a aneurysm that nobody expected. He's 49. He has two beautiful
daughters and a beautiful that a perfect family. And it's just gone now. And I have almost no doubt
in my mind that you don't. This is not an it's not a random thing that happened to him. And
unfortunately, because of the way the pandemic went, a guy who I've been friends with for 25
years wasn't really listening to me and didn't really take my my skepticism seriously, because
you know, I was that crazy guy all the time. And it's unfortunate. But yeah, we're we're much
farther than we were in 2020. And yeah, that's true. And so I do but but I think and I think,
you know, as you say, I think we're we are though at a point where the people who will
really wake up are the people who are going to lose
have to lose something. Yes, they do. Absolutely. At the very, very, very minimum, they have to
apologize to a lot of people and a lot of patients. And you know, imagine how moving it would be,
though, if a lot of people would say, wow, I made a mistake, I took this too, but we're never going
to do it again. It would be wonderful, wouldn't it? If you could get the average physician in
America to start there, because maybe even then, then the skepticism of, I don't want to start a
whole another conversation, but you know, the difference even between the Canadian childhood
schedule and the Norwegian schedule and the American schedule becomes very obvious. What's
going on here is pretty pretty creepy. So we have a long ways to go. But I think this is actually
a very good networking moment. And I'm very happy to meet you. I'm very happy to know you're around
on this planet. And I hope we see each other again. Absolutely. Yeah, it was a pleasure. Thank you
very much. Thank you. This is Dr. William Macus. And he's from Alberta, Canada. And he is a new
friend of Gigo and biological. Thank you very much for joining me. I'll see you again soon.
Take care. Yep. I'm going to end this little meeting there. Thank you very much, guys, for joining me.
This has been Gigo and biological. That's the guy that's him on LinkedIn. This is him on Google
Scholar. This is him on research gate. And you can also Google him, of course, and you can find
them in a bunch of places there. He's also on Twitter. And I think on Instagram as well, you can see
him there. I don't know what to say. I really liked his take on a lot of things. I really liked
his his humbleness. I really felt as though whoops, I really felt as though he wasn't necessarily
certain about anything. And he was very, very humble in terms of his, you know, interpretation
of where he is and what his role is in this all, talking about doctors dying to the shot and
nobody talking about them bringing attention to these kinds of things. It's happy. I'm happy to see
that that there are more people who are just trying to sort of move this ball forward
regardless of the resistance. And so thank you very much for joining me. This has been
Gigo and biological, a high resistance. Illinois's information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I'm really happy that this happened. And I have a friend, Kara, to thank for this. So Kara in Canada,
a supporter and my unofficial scheduler. You scored a big goal here. Thank you very much for introducing
me to Dr. Macus. And yeah, thanks for being up there for me with you and Jeff and your family.
Thank you very much, everybody, for supporting me. This is Gigo and biological. My name is Jonathan
Cooey. I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This is the back of my garage.
And I will probably see you tomorrow. What's tomorrow? Tomorrow's Saturday? Is that right?
My gosh, I'm losing my mind here. No, tomorrow's Friday. I'll definitely see you tomorrow. So
it'll be my show. And we'll do a little brief. We'll have some slides. We'll have some music.
We'll talk some smack about what everybody's talking smack about. Lots of sub stacks and all
kinds of stuff talking about Mark and me. So we got to get this biology cleared out. We got to get
this story cleared out. So we'll see you tomorrow because that's what we do here. Thank you very
much.
It's Cara with a C. Cara with a C.