You watched us all go to sleep And then you woke, we're just counting cheap But the end is near
Good evening, good evening, good evening everybody and welcome to a wonderful Monday here in Breton.
It's looking lovely and oh, I'm getting back into the swing of things.
Thanks again for that time off last week.
I really appreciate it.
I hope you're able to catch up on some previous episodes because boy, that catalog is growing and I hope you're enjoying what you're seeing.
We have an excellent, excellent, I'm gonna say a third time, excellent guest here tonight.
This is gonna be Denis Rancourt with Dr. Jonathan Cooey.
Dr. Jonathan looks great.
We can see him right now.
And Denis is going to reconnect.
I think he's going to have an issue with his camera, but we're going to be good to go.
It's going to be a very intellectual conversation.
And please, don't worry about going into the deep dive.
You can always rewatch this episode.
You can pause.
You can look things up.
You can check out their websites.
You can pull up Denis' report to follow along.
But for now, this is going to be one heck of a conversation.
I know that Denis has been really busy.
We've had him on before.
And there he is.
I can see him right now.
He's looking great.
We've had him on once before, we've had Dr. Cooey on, I think this is our third time, possibly even fourth time having him on.
So I'm really excited to bring them both together.
Just a few weeks ago, we had Dr. Cooey on and we're having conversations about, oh, he went over my head on some places, but I did have to rewatch it.
But trans infection was a word that came up a lot.
We were talking about some shedding and we're talking about Denny himself.
So when that part of the conversation came up, I'm like, hey, well,
I kind of, you know, I don't want to say Denis owes me an interview, but I reached out to him when his report came out and he said, when we find some time, we'll make this happen.
So I reached out again after Dr. Kouy mentioned that he's a fan of his work and he understands it well.
I thought, let's try and bring it together.
And Denis responded right away and said, absolutely.
I would be more than happy to come on and have a conversation with Dr. Kouy.
So here we are.
We've got both gentlemen here and let's not waste his time.
Put your intellectual hats on.
It's going to get great.
Good evening, Dr. Cooley.
Nice to see you again.
Oh, sorry.
I had to get my volume up there.
There you go.
You sound great.
Good to see you again, indeed.
Thank you for inviting me back.
I'm looking forward to seeing Denny as well.
It's been a long slog since the first time I saw his first paper.
I think the first thing he published was in May of 2020, but I don't think I saw that until
maybe August or September of 2020.
And I, I still, you know, was, I, I still hadn't really processed the possibility that they could have lied about it.
I was still, you know, trying to learn the virology myself.
So, um, I, I wasn't ready for the results that he had there, although I had some hints from other people like Knut Witkowski and other people that, that there, there might be data there to be had.
Um,
So yeah, I've been following Denny for a long time.
I was really happy when we first met and I've watched him throughout the whole deal.
It's awesome.
And here he is.
So, Denis, thank you so much for joining us.
And I do appreciate you working out your schedule and finding some time for us.
You are a busy man and rightfully so.
You want to go ahead and say hi to everybody and welcome to the show again.
Hi to everybody.
I'm very happy to see you both, Jason, Jay.
Jay, you've interviewed me on your show previously.
We've had a chance to connect a couple of times.
And Jason, you've also interviewed me previously.
I'm really happy to see you guys again virtually in this way.
Yeah, I really look forward to it.
I mean, I love Jay's work.
I love his ideas.
I think a lot of his ideas are very exciting and very on point regarding viruses and this so-called pandemic.
So I'm really looking forward to a discussion and to this exchange, wherever it may go, wherever it may lead us.
I like how you're so open with this conversation.
I really appreciate that.
And I'm excited.
You posted a couple of times on X, and there's a lot of excitement around this combination to come together.
The three of us haven't been on the same screen together, but separately, we've all been on different shows, but I appreciate you all making the time.
Now, I had a follower on X remind me that Trump is speaking live at 8 p.m.
this evening, Eastern time, so that we're
We're going to have a lot of competition here.
He's actually decided to speak at 8 p.m.
today.
So that might explain the if you have small audience numbers that might be part of it.
I'm sure he scheduled it to specifically disrupt this conversation.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well.
He went through all that trouble, went golfing and all that kind of stuff just to mess up with this show.
But there's a lot of people that watch on the replay, so I do expect everybody that wants to see it will get to see it.
But yeah, that is kind of exciting what's going south of the border.
If you want to talk about any of that, we can maybe get into it.
where we left off with, I'll just call him Jonathan, with Jonathan on this conversation was when you came out, Denis, with this report, there was a lot of people who kind of did their summaries and analysis of it.
And one of them, I believe, was Dr. Malone.
And there was a bit of a speech that Jonathan was mentioning, and he didn't fully agree with that.
So that's kind of what we were talking about on the episode with Jonathan.
Just to clarify, there's been a couple of reports.
The one that I spoke about and that had been published when I spoke in Romania, which Malone saw,
was a report about 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere.
But since then, we've published a very large report that is about 125 countries worldwide.
So that has come out since, and that's an even bigger report, it's huge.
And it's got like 600 figures and yeah, I mean, it's just, it's enormous.
And it pretty much confirms everything that we thought we were seeing in that first paper.
And, you know, this is, we're at paper or report number 30 now.
I've been doing this, as Jay mentioned, since 2020.
So we've got a lot of material out there.
And we've been making all our methods very transparent and all of our arguments, we try to explain as clearly as possible.
And sure, there are a lot of disagreements with things that we do and things that we say.
But that's what this is all about.
Yeah.
Yep.
So that, so correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan, that's where we kind of left off on this conversation was, uh, the accuracy or the analysis done by Malone.
And you had some questions around that.
Yeah, it's, um, I guess I'm just kind of frustrated because, uh, having been familiar with Denny on a, on a cursory level, I mean, his papers are dense enough where nobody's really an expert on them, but them, but, um,
The point of these papers is well taken and you don't need to be really deeply read in to see the signal that is apparent in a lot of the figures, especially in the first few publications that I became familiar with.
And so, I guess what frustrates me the most is I was very excited about that meeting in Romania.
never mind the weird, dubious nature of having to have an international COVID summit with Americans and Canadians in Romania, but besides that,
Maybe they needed an excuse to go on an elaborate vacation, I don't know.
But that meeting was a place where I thought a lot of very pivotal people in the American movement were going to finally hear Denny's presentation and also maybe able to have breakfast with him at a hotel and talk to him in detail and find out that there was really no evidence of spread across borders.
the correlation between poverty and other things in the United States is so much more stark than what would be maybe expected by something that was spreading.
And I just found it absolutely, it took all the wind out of me when that COVID summit occurred.
And then Jessica Rose and Robert Malone came back and wrote substacks about the 17 million people that were killed by the shot.
didn't speak to anything about what happened in 2020 and whether there was, you know, evidence of this initial contagion.
And I found that really frustrating and I still find it very frustrating because I think in the best case scenario they are sort of giving you attention and making it feel as though you're being heard, but I don't think the most crucial part of
your message for me is being heard.
And it's fine to say that the transfection hurt people.
I could have predicted that.
It should have hurt a lot more people, except I think they rolled out various levels of dose and even some placebo, probably.
So for me, that was never in doubt.
What was in doubt for me and what is really the main newsflash is that if we go back to 2020 and 2021, we can't find great evidence for
for the biological phenomenon that they claim started all of this.
And that, that to me is something that we only have a year or so to, to look in the rear view mirror and still be able to see something useful.
And at some point that's going to be over the horizon in the back window.
And it's not going to be something that college kids or even young adults, like young parents are going to be able to look back on and usefully reconsider.
And so I feel like it's an emergency.
Yeah, it's true that the first months of the declared pandemic were very pivotal because they gave really striking evidence that there was no pandemic and that the peaks in mortality had to be due to something other than a spreading viral respiratory disease.
That's true that it's very striking in the first months
after the pandemic was declared in March of 2020.
But it's also true that if you look at all the data in all the countries that we've now studied through the entire COVID period and beyond, there is only, you can only conclude that there was no spread of any
respiratory disease.
The evidence is contrary to the hypothesis of a spreading disease, absolutely contrary to it.
So I would argue, and we did argue in several of our papers, we've been saying this for many years now, we have proven that this was not a spreading respiratory pandemic.
The data is inconsistent with that, and it's hard data that you cannot deny.
So the notion or the theory that this was a spreading pandemic has to be abandoned if you're going to be scientific about this.
It has to be abandoned.
Now that doesn't mean that there weren't excess deaths.
There was a huge excess mortality and we've shown in great detail
that it's correlated to things like all the assaults that were done against people.
You can go jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you can go sub-jurisdiction, you can go down to the level, you can look at as a function of age, as a function of sex, and down to provinces and small departments in every country.
And what you find systematically is that it's the assaults against people that directly correlate
uh to this excess mortality and that the and and and there's a very strong correlation with the booster rollouts in many jurisdictions as well and it's a stunning correlation so this is this is what we see and we see the opposite of spread because the mortality events and the mortality peaks refuse to cross jurisdictional borders they follow politics they don't follow biology and you know we know a lot about
how these things are supposed to spread from a theoretical epidemiology point of view.
I mean, I've written peer-reviewed published articles on theoretical epidemiology.
And so if you believe the theory, we know how these things should spread and how long it should take between, you know, a seed coming into the society and an exponential growth of deaths and so on.
We know all these things.
The data is incompatible with these ideas, completely at odds with these ideas.
There was nothing spreading.
There was only assaults that were different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, different in magnitude and in kind, and they caused death.
And they caused death mainly in the elderly and the frail.
and mainly in the poorer strata of society.
That's clear.
So yeah, Jay, you're upset that people are not hearing and seeing our ideas.
I'm more upset than anyone.
I work very, very hard, and I try to do really good, rigorous science.
And I'm always upset when my ideas are not received, and when people, it just flies over their head, or they don't want to hear it, or they don't want to talk about it.
It's uncomfortable.
It doesn't fit completely with what they want to do.
And so they just don't mention it.
That's the story of my life as a scientist.
That's the story of my life.
And so I am very upset since I was a young man about all this.
As I've gotten older, I'm less and less upset.
I'm kind of accepting my fate, if you like, that some of these things will be heard by some people and great.
And it's just such a privilege to find someone who really understands what we're doing and who appreciates it and who sees it intellectually and can say, wow, you guys really proved this.
You really showed it.
I'm so excited to have learned it.
I'm very thrilled when I meet people like that who I know have understood it.
But I'm realizing it's a very rare thing.
And it's shameful that a lot of thinking scientists are refusing to admit that we may very well have demonstrated that the idea of a pandemic in this context is incorrect and that we've disproved it.
They just don't want to go there.
And so that's upsetting and I am I have told them personally and directly in personal messages that I think that they're You know, there's no excuse for them not recognizing these things and I've made them very uncomfortable.
A lot of them don't talk to me or Stopped messaging me ever since I've been saying this more and more Frequently at least in the personal level and I and and I have to admit Jay has kind of
encouraged me or shamed me into, or I don't know how to say it, catalyzed me into being a little bit more aggressive in terms of getting people, telling people that, you know, hey, you have the intellectual capacity to understand this.
You can spend some time looking at our papers.
We think we've proven that there's no spread.
So deal with it, you know.
That's where we're at here.
So yeah, I'm frustrated too.
So we're co-frustrated, I would say.
Yeah.
I think the thing that I'm trying to bring to the table now after, I don't know if I've realized it, but I've finally been able to vocalize it well enough, is that the fifth generation warfare that everybody's talking about is a group of people that ignores data like yours.
and agrees to ignore it.
Now they might not have to overtly say that they're ignoring it.
They might not have to say that Denny Rancourt is a bad guy.
All they have to do is mention your name and make it seem like to the social media audience that they're listening to you, that they've taken in your ideas and they've factored them into their reality.
And I think that some of these people have to be considered part of
of this control mechanism.
And that's what frightens me the most, that I think a lot of people aren't willing to accept this idea.
We need to make this step forward to realize that in 2009, they thought about this, but they didn't have social media in place.
And in 2020,
the way that they locked down and the way that social media was in place, the way that the conversation was almost artificially taking place on Twitter with some artificial censorship that was too obvious to everyone, and then those same people have slowly but surely titrated us to the place where we are now, rather than
getting here very quickly when they could have, when Knut Witkowski was speaking out in the United States, when you were publishing your first paper, which I think was in May of 2020, or early?
Yeah, the very first definite paper where we, I think, proved that there was no spread and that this was an assault, was the 2nd of June 2020.
That's when it was published.
It was published on the internet and we
talked about it everywhere we could.
I'd done some things before, but the first real major paper with data and everything, that was the 2nd of June, 2020.
With regards to people controlling the narrative, I think that there's two different kinds of control.
There's a control that's very direct, that is the government and the corporations and the paid agents and so on.
And then there's the control that is more of the type of because how people were indoctrinated into society, into their profession, into what is acceptable, what is not, within their specialty and so on.
That indoctrination, I would say, I would call that, you know, professionals, indoctrination of professionals is very, very powerful.
and acts and and we all the professionals all the people with advanced degrees and who have worked as scientists we've all been indoctrinated to to a large degree by this system by graduate school and and and by the professional schools and so on and by the the mere process of advancing our careers that's also part of our indoctrination
There are a lot of punishments along the way when you don't, when you make a mistake in terms of what you say.
And there's a lot of rewards for saying the right thing.
And so it's inevitable that we're all largely indoctrinated and largely, we largely self-censor.
So there's a lot of that going on.
There, you know, there's people who just feel that they can't say that the existence of viruses has not been demonstrated because they would be branded
as heretics they would be they would be seen by many many people a lot of people just drop them and a lot of people would think of them as being crazy so they just they they just know that so deeply they would never go there you know i'm not someone like that because i'm willing to entertain whatever ideas
I'm willing, I honestly believe I will look at anything.
Now, I do have opinions and I make up my mind after I've looked at things for a while.
And there's things I don't want to look at because I don't think it's worth my time.
You have to decide how you're going to use your own personal resources.
And so there's a lot of theories out there that I just am not bothered
Go in even though some people feel that this is the answer to everything and you have to do it I'm just not gonna do it because I'm not interested and for reasons it's it's your own judgment how you're gonna use your own resources right and your own mind and so there's a lot of this going on, but I I think a lot of the control of
is organic, if you like.
It's systemic in the sense that it's related to how we're all interconnected and how we've all to some degree been indoctrinated.
I would say that the most effective control is of that type.
Of course, the government agents and the funded agencies play a big role because they set the agenda, they decide what will be published in the scientific journals, they decide what will be taught in the medical schools, what will be the curriculum at university, and so they decide all these things.
It's incredible.
But then we take it up and we allow ourselves to be indoctrinated by it all.
And then we carry it and we defend it.
So that's kind of my understanding of the resistance that we're seeing, if that makes sense.
Yeah, with that said, is there an opportunity for some people to kind of stop self-censoring and come out?
Like, do you think there's a large group of people who want to, but they're just scared still?
Yeah, and I think Jay plays a big role in that kind of thing, you know, because Jay is a thorn in their side.
He will shame them.
He will name them.
He will point to them.
And that, those jolts, I would call them civil jolts, are the kinds of thing that can get you to reconsider.
that can get you to, you know, oh, wait, maybe I'm making a mistake here.
Like I know that when I personally went out and challenged people, some people responded and they were defensive and they were
more thoughtful and they understood that they might be making a mistake and they might suffer the consequences eventually for that mistake.
So by jolting people and by interacting and by being bold in this way, it can change people.
Well, it'll change some people and it can have an impact, I think.
Is that your intent, Jonathan, is to shake them up a bit, get them to realize a little bit of public shame?
Or are you just calling a spade a spade?
It's calling a spade a spade, but I don't have much hope in most of the people that I cajole.
I guess I'm hoping that, and I've kind of changed my tack in the last couple of weeks, but I think up until recently, I have been kind of playing the game wrong in the sense of trying to take
follower away from Robert Malone is a very small number of people it's like a million people or two million people so trying to you know fight for those people's attention and convince them that they shouldn't trust Robert Malone because he worked for DITRA before the pandemic because he has all this history and yada yada yada is still not really
Sending the message that needs to be sent, which is that the national security state already knew that that social media was going to be an opportunity here and the national security state already knew that that RNA doesn't pandemic like they.
They would like us to believe that there is a molecule that started in a mud puddle in Wuhan and it has perpetuated itself despite our best efforts to stop it when Brett Weinstein was still talking about zero COVID in 2021, and they still thought it was a viable endpoint.
This molecule, despite our best efforts, is still circulating the globe now in an endless number of variants and being tracked with high fidelity with sequencing technologies.
This performance, that's the best way that I can describe it, this performance, this exaggeration of fidelity,
that never made any attempt to differentiate itself from a background or prove to us that the signal they claim to be measuring was not here before 2020.
They don't even care about that.
It's just the signal and the signal is what it is because all these people agree.
And so you can't question some parts of this mythology because certain key people agree.
And if these key people continue to agree from 2020 until now about the proprietary special nature of the spike protein,
the idea that this could be a laboratory virus and that laboratory viruses can go around the world even better than natural ones.
These basic presumptions upon which this entire theater is based are agreed upon by a striking number of people on all sides of the aisle.
The blue and the red or the lab leak or natural or the gain of function or
or whatever, these people all agree about this fundamentally incorrect biological idea that an RNA molecule, if it has just the right sequence, can really cause a lot of trouble for even decades, because it can go endemic.
And there's just no evidence of this in the literature.
I think that they all agree on some of these outlandish notions that, you know, if you're coming in from another planet and you haven't been indoctrinated into human created genomics and all of these fancy techniques and so on, you would say, wow, how did they come to believe these wild things, you know, like, wow, and they have a lot of faith in it.
and you'd have a hard time understanding it.
But being human and seeing these people and chatting with them and so on and seeing how they operate and reading their scientific articles, you can see that it's all the result of their indoctrination into the field.
People are indoctrinated to believe in the technology of PCR.
They are indoctrinated to believe that you can actually
in a directed way quantify molecules in this way, large molecules and so on.
They believe this in great detail and they do not have the background or the inclination to go in and look at to what extent is this reliable, to what extent is it real, what are the errors involved that are possible.
I mean after all this is what chemistry this is really complicated stuff incredibly complicated stuff in terms of the reactions that are occurring in terms of what you have to believe to believe that end result of that little signal in in in the final you know uh uh length separated molecules in your gel or whatever you know yeah I mean everything you have to believe to to uh construct the entire genome of whatever organism
it's really wild stuff there's a lot of stretch there and the whole and you're driven to believe that because pharma and and the financiers that are behind it want you to believe it they want they they it's one of their pet things this genomics thing they want us to believe that the character of of humans and every every species on earth is completely determined by this genetic code
that it determines your health that you can look at the sequence and know uh what susceptibility as to what diseases you might have they want you to believe all this crap in part because it's their kind of pet theory but also in part because they can use it as a vehicle to uh enslave you into the pharma industry and sell you these these uh
drugs and medications for all kinds of conditions that they will say we're sure you have exactly this condition and therefore we can give you the exactly this targeted magic bullet drug that costs a mint but hey do you want to save your life and you know your insurance should pay for it and so on so it's all all that is tied together and what you realize when you look at the development of science you realize to what extent even the well not even but the Nobel Prize
is propaganda it is an integral part of the propaganda system so when you get when if you want to know um the the the technical people the scientific people what how are they trying to indoctrinate scientists and and students what are they trying to pursue if you want to look at that just look at the nobel prizes you know you've got a nobel prize for inventing this vaccine
that supposedly has saved tens of millions of lives.
You've got a Nobel Prize.
I'm going to say this, people are not going to like it, but you've got a Nobel Prize for PCR.
You've got a Nobel Prize for discovering that the ozone layer is being depleted by some chemical whose patent is going to run out and you're going to replace it with something else now.
You know, all these things,
Not all Nobel Prizes.
I mean, some are there are the exceptions that prove the rule that there is a hard science behind it.
I can name many Nobel Prizes that are extraordinary discoveries and everything.
And there was a time where it had to be a real discovery.
You had to have discovered something.
demonstrably real, but more and more of these Nobel Prizes, as we get into a more and more advanced totalitarian state, as our Western society decays and so on, they're so obviously becoming just part of the propaganda.
And they have been for a long time.
So that's just me just going off the deep end, but all this to say,
Scientists will believe these crazy stories because they're indoctrinated into it and because they've learned the technical side of manipulating those concepts.
You know, you talk to these, you talk to immunologists and they do the gymnastics of molecules and reactions in your body in their minds.
They're really good at it.
But they're not very good at admitting that what they're proposing is a small fraction of everything that's actually happening in your body.
And that we can barely guess all the more important things that are also occurring.
You know, you can give so many examples of this.
For example, there are medical conditions that were thought to, some people argued were virus, caused by viruses.
And eventually it was discovered that it was nutritional.
And then if you look at those discoveries about how important nutrition is in certain conditions, they actually bring it down to saying that it's a deficiency in this specific molecule, a specific vitamin, B1 or B6 or whatever.
I mean, when you look at the science of how they decided that it was this specific molecule, it is as tenuous as the science when they decide that it's a viral cause.
um so you know what they should be doing instead is admitting that this is very complex and that someone who has access to resources and is eating well and is in a in a fairly high social status in in the society and who's eating uh whatever they want basically um is going to have none of these health problems
But if you're stuck to eating one or two stable things and you lose everything else, then God knows what specific molecule you're deficient in.
There's probably a whole bunch of them.
It's probably a cascade effect.
There's probably all kinds of interactions that are way more complex than just deficiency in one molecule, if you see what I mean.
So the question of health when it comes to deficiencies
is way more complex than even the nutritionists will tell us when they talk about specific nutritional deficiencies.
So that's just another example, one of my pet examples, I guess.
I could just go on and on like this.
There's a lot of data now out there, though, that complements this from the perspective of toxicities that actually, you know, in history, we've been enriching things with different additives and such.
If you don't need vitamin A, it's not good for you.
And if you don't need the vitamins that you're fortifying your diet with, it's not necessarily anything but a kidney workout.
And so a lot of this sort of assumption that, you know, you can take a multivitamin and it's got to be good for you, over time, over decades, can be a pretty bad assumption, I think, especially depending on what food you eat, whether they're also fortified with some of these vitamins.
I think that's, you know, part of the sort of oversimplification of everything that goes on in America is due to the way the FDA regulates or doesn't regulate things in America.
America is probably the worst example of it, but I would guess that even in the EU there are plenty of examples that people could complain about.
A great example of what you were talking about earlier is ulcers and how ulcers were cut out of people's stomachs for almost a decade after they figured out that ulcers were just bacterial infections.
They could be cured with antibiotics.
They took like 10 years for
the surgical removal of ulcers to kind of become not cool.
And, you know, statins is another story like that.
And I think one of the things that I've stumbled upon recently that I would be happy to hear your interpretation of or your thoughts on is that there seems to be a plethora of literature that goes back decades that they realize that the use of pure oxygen to
I don't know, address any number of medical conditions from a heart attack to a stroke to a traumatic brain injury, whatever.
They have discovered across many different modalities in many different countries over many, many years that applying pure oxygen in these scenarios increases mortality in these intensive care units.
And one of the things that we pretty much did in the United States, and it can be documented because
organizations like FLCCC and people like Pierre Cory are, I mean, they were on the internet telling everybody that people were coming into the hospital with a low pulse oxygen
pulse oximeter reading, and so they put these people on oxygen because there weren't enough ventilators.
The whole idea was that Trump was even going to speed up the manufacture of ventilators, and even Elon Musk was going to convert some of his factory production to ventilator production.
And this shortage of ventilators led to a lot of people in a lot of places in America in 2020
to as a stopgap measure, if you will, were given oxygen in the hallways of hospitals, given oxygen with a full face mask, the same thing they might have done to a lot of people in the UK.
And this is known already for a decade to cause
acute respiratory distress syndrome.
And so it's interesting because I think one thing that your data also showed, or maybe you may have observed and not directly reported, was that the vast majority of mortality is in the hospitals.
Not very many people die at home.
And this could actually be a trend.
There's also this thing that I wanted to ask you about.
So this kind of goes into the same range of questions there.
But when you were on my show, I think I asked you this before too.
Is there anything in your data that would take into account a population pyramid that wasn't really a pyramid shape?
So in other words if the United States looks something like Japan or maybe even worse It had some kind of little population bump that was about to age out That they would have seen coming for 30 years or more Could they have planned something in your mind where they would have just taken advantage of this known?
increase in all-cause mortality and just kind of swept a couple peaks together and called it a a
called it an event when in reality, they knew this was going to be a five year period or a 10 year period of increased mortality because all these people are getting old.
They've been crying about it for 10 years that this was going to be a Medicare financial disaster.
And yet somehow or another, conveniently, this thing seems to show up pretty well, well timed with that bump in the population pyramid.
Yeah, no, I don't think that it's easy to
get a peak in all-cause mortality from a structure in the age population.
That's just a very hard thing to do.
What I mean by hard thing to do is the effect is relatively small.
These peaks are very sudden.
and they're directly related to immediate intense assaults.
But if they're relative to the background, if they're a certain fraction of the background, then you don't have to explain all of it, you just have to explain some of it.
The thing is, we're looking at excess mortality, so we're looking at
everything above that would have happened normally if you didn't assault, okay?
If you didn't have those assaults.
So then, how is that calculated?
How is your excess mortality calculated?
Does it take into account this population period?
Yeah, that's the point.
That's the point is there's two ways to normalize that excess mortality.
You can express it as just the number of deaths in this particular jurisdiction, or you can express it as a percentage of the deaths that would normally have occurred.
And we can talk about how that normally would have occurred means.
But when you express it in that way, it's called a P-score.
And when you express it in that way, you're already taking into account the intrinsic vulnerability of that population.
because the mortality of that population is higher for those reasons, you see.
So you're expressing it as a percentage increase of the higher mortality in that jurisdiction which has that population.
So you're normalizing out a lot of these effects when you express it in that way.
And so we do it both ways and we compare and we see the effects of the age structure.
So you can actually see quite dramatic differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on the age structure for sure.
And then when you normalize in the way that I just explained, the great majority of that disappears.
okay you because you're already taking that into account in a sense so that's what that's an easy way statistically to handle that but more importantly I think that the thing we have to realize with regards to mortality is that I believe I've come to believe through a lot of reading and research and looking at the data that
is that the dominant factor that determines mortality more than anything else is a sudden change in your social and physical and biological environment that corresponds to a sudden increase in biological stress on you.
And biological stress, which I've been learning more and more about, which includes psychological stress, is a real killer.
And it acts very quickly.
And if you're elderly and fragile, it's even quicker.
It can be orders of magnitude quicker.
So biological, which includes psychological stress, I think, is the biggest determinant factor
in terms of survival and how whether or not you're going to get sick and how sick you're going to be when you do get sick and this is really well known from a lot of animal studies including humans but a lot of animal studies have shown that the the biggest factor in terms of the health of the individual is the the um
dominance maintaining stress that they're subjected to in their society, okay?
So, the biggest indicator of whether or not you're going to be healthy and you're going to live a long time as an individual is your status within the social structure in this hierarchy.
and it's a dominance hierarchy so the people on top are keeping you in your place by constantly aggressing you and there's a lot of studies that show that that that aggression has to be random it can't be regular it has to be unpredictable it has to be irrational if if it's going to do its job it has to be that kind of stressor and to keep you in your place within that dominance hierarchy and and this has a tremendous effect on your health now
That's the overall determination of who's going to be healthy, who's going to live a long time.
And it's correlated with access to resources, of course.
But the stress itself, the actual physiological, biological stress itself is the thing that kills you as an individual.
And now, having said that,
When you have upheavals, like a war, or a sudden economic crash, or a pandemic, in quotations, that stress increases dramatically.
Like there's a discontinuity in that stress.
And that kind of stress, which is discontinuous, which basically makes you question your place in the world
and your survivability and all of this, when it hits you that hard, that is an extreme killer.
People are known to develop cancer within weeks of events like that.
And
that's an extreme killer and this is really well documented there's a lot of studies in this regard and it's something that of course pharma doesn't tell you they don't teach in medical school they virtually don't you might have one day on stress that's it but the in terms of biology evolution
and social animals, that is the biggest determinant of health, period.
That's the overriding thing.
Everything else, everything else, nutrition, toxicity of the environment, you know, there can be toxic spill events.
Of course, there are all kinds of accidents that can happen, everything.
But I'm talking big picture.
Big picture, everything, nothing else matters.
That's what's going to determine
who the sick individuals are in a society.
And what I've argued, Jay, I don't know if you're aware of the fact that I've written this, but I argue that there's an evolutionary reason that stress induces ill health, because it stabilizes the dominance hierarchy.
And the dominance hierarchy in social animals is something that is a great advantage evolutionarily.
so a society that has a stable uh dominance hierarchy is much stronger more individuals do better they can access resources in the environment they can compete with other competing species better and so on and so the i've argued that it's not an accident that stress debilitates you to that extent
It's actually, there's a long term evolutionary reason for that, for coupling it in that way.
It's advantageous to do it.
We're built, we as humans are built to inhabit dominance hierarchies.
And that is stabilized by biological mechanisms.
And so that's how I've come to understand this.
Yeah.
So that's one idea that I've put out there that I think is very promising and very important.
What portion of the excess mortality in your estimation we could attribute to, well, what I would call murder or manslaughter?
I don't know about dominance hierarchies.
I've been in lots of dominance hierarchies before, but right now I still feel like there's something that we're overlooking, and that is that we all acknowledge that there was a national security state before COVID was declared that had a very vested interest in all of us believing that it was important and that what it did was vital to our survival.
And the COVID pandemic has served no other purpose in my mind than to coerce us into teaching this to our kids.
And so for me, I really want to know how much of this was actually just malfeasance.
And it feels like to me that's something that is still kind of going under addressed.
If there was nothing spreading in 2020, then I guess it was murder.
And then what happened in 2021, I guess also then is murder.
And at some point in time, we're gonna have to call it what it is because the rest of the world that locked down, like in Australia and New Zealand, thinks that they didn't have any death in 2020 and 2021 because they locked down and they avoided what happened in the United States.
But if what happened in the United States was murder,
then they didn't really avoid anything, and they were told that murder was something else.
And I think that story is still... I mean, I'm not going to talk about dominance hierarchies until we decide how much... Well, I'm going to try and respond to your point, and to try and answer to some degree from my perspective.
going to have to bring in dominance hierarchy again okay this is how i would do it you see the dominance hierarchy that i was talking about is kind of the the steady state uh structure of health in the society and but the thing is this dominance hierarchy in any animal society including humans
um there's an optimal structure of that dominance hierarchy that optimizes that that gives you the strongest possible society where as many people as possible are as healthy as possible okay and what what breaks what what makes that thing degrade
and societies become unhealthy themselves.
Pathological societies are totalitarian.
And so the way that you break down that dominance hierarchy and make it into something pathological is through corruption.
And what I mean by that is certain advantaged elite elements will change the rules and the laws and the punishment schemes and all of these things to their advantage.
So this is happening all the time.
And you are fighting that all the time as a society.
But there can come a point where that effect of corruption and that march towards a totalitarian state where everybody's at the bottom and unhealthy and there's just a few people at the top.
What drives you, what allows you to go there
eventually it can run away.
It can run away to a very nasty place very quickly.
And so you can look historically at societies that have crashed in this way.
And there's an amazing book that I've been reading recently by a great historian of populations called The Great Wave.
And it's about price revolutions and the rhythm of history.
And they document, historians have documented this in great detail.
and there's a theoretical physics paper written by a friend of mine and a co-author Joseph Hickey that I often talk about where they do the theoretical physics of the stability of a dominance hierarchy and they and they describe the parameters that are such that that the control parameters that if you step outside of a certain range you quickly run away
to a totalitarian state, you quickly run away to a very bad place that's not good for most individuals.
And I think we're near that edge right now.
It's happening right now.
And the control parameters in this very fundamental physics model that's done from first principles
i've described this a number of times but i'll say it again just quickly there's two control parameters at the at the highest level one is how violent is the society and by that it means how when you when you break a rule
How harsh is the punishment?
Do you go to jail for the rest of your life?
Are you killed?
Is the fine impossible to pay?
And so on.
How harsh are the punishments when you break the rules of this dominance hierarchy?
That's how violent the society is.
That's a parameter you can define in the model.
And then the other parameter is how authoritarian is the society, which means when you're having a conflict or a fight or an interaction with another member in the society or another institution,
if that other institution or member has more social status than you, are they guaranteed to win that fight?
If you can never win that fight in court or wherever, then that is an extremely authoritarian society, and you can quantify that with a parameter.
So you've got these two parameters, violence and authoritarianism, and if you have too much of either one or of both,
You put yourself into a state where dynamically the dominance hierarchy is going to run away to an extreme totalitarian state and away from a stabilized kind of what you would call a democracy where the different strata in the society have some influence on how things are going to be.
how things are gonna go and there's some sharing of resources between the different strata.
So that, I think that picture, that overall picture of society as that kind of an organism that can go into a pathological state and that will destroy itself and that you'll have to start over again and rebuild.
I think that's very important because it directly speaks to the health of individuals.
It's the macro thing that determines the health of individuals.
So coming back to malfeasance,
This is the long-winded answer to your query.
Dominance hierarchy in a healthy society makes you sick, and that's normal.
I wouldn't call it murder or what's the soft version of murder where you don't intend, but you cause the death by manslaughter.
I wouldn't call it those things.
But if the elite have put us in a state where all of a sudden there's going to be hugely increased biological stress that will kill way more people than if they hadn't done that, then I would argue that the people who
put us in that state who transform society to be so pathological and so insane that they can go after individuals in this way, rob them of their resources, rob them of their freedom of expression, do all these things, then in that sense they have put us in a place where that stress is much higher and there's more possibility of that those biological stress and therefore they've killed you.
They have killed way more people than would otherwise have died.
So they're the ones that are responsible for those deaths, I would say.
The people, the more you have played an important role in driving society in this direction, the more you are responsible for the additional excess mortality that is occurring.
That's a macroscopic view of the thing, if you like.
That would be kind of my answer regarding malfeasance.
Wow, I'm taking the back of it here.
I just want to kind of put something on the table here for Jay as well.
Jay, you mentioned that we're entering possibly a well-known period where we're going to have a lot of elderly or older
and there was a bit of a spike coming out of that pyramid of yours.
Is it possible that you're right?
They identified that this was coming because the timing- I don't want to be a creep, but I know I'm right because they've been talking about it for 25 years in America.
When these old people get older and they're on Medicare,
They cost about $500,000 every half year.
So the last half year of every Medicare patient before they die is very expensive.
And they were already talking about this with people like Ted Turner on the news.
when Ted Turner was still in the public eye in the 80s.
And they were talking about how, as the baby boomer generation ages out, we're going to have this problem because Medicare cannot afford all these people to have a six-month death that costs a half a million dollars.
So we know this was coming.
There's no question that they've known it's been coming for 30 years.
The question is, how did they prepare for it?
And my assertion is they've used the opportunity to supercharge the biosecurity state into something that is now the governing mythology that overarches everything else.
And I think they've taken advantage of this known
thing that was coming.
It's all across the West.
This prosperity window after World War II brought about a lot of big families.
That's just the reality of it.
And these numbers, if anything, are numbers that are provided to us by the very people that don't want us to know the significance of this phenomenon.
They want us to believe that everything is normal and that just more people than we want to are dying.
And that is preposterous, given what we've known for the last 20 years was coming.
I agree.
I agree that see what I think is that they're going to find a way to kill these people one way or another.
They don't need a pandemic for that.
I don't I don't think that was the main reason for the pandemic.
I think the pandemic
Plays into that.
I think the pandemic is exploited the the pandemic I don't mean that there was a real pandemic the pandemic that was brought in by the US military for its own reasons for the reasons they had that include Corporate profits and takeovers and everything all the all the real reasons of the real pandemic if you like I That we could talk about but
That real pandemic was not mainly meant to be the spear that would kill these elderly people that are a nuisance and that you're going to have to pay for.
And they're a nuisance in more ways than one.
When you're retired and you're financially independent, you become a political agent as well.
So you need to be made dependent on the health system.
You need to be frightened out of your head
and shown that you must behave and so on.
So there's a lot of reasons to go after this elderly population in the Western world.
And there's a lot of reasons to kill a lot of them off and to offer assisted death and all these things.
But they were going to find a solution to that one way or another.
And sure, the pandemic played a role in terms of indoctrinating us into this idea that the government says what you need in order to survive and you follow their prescription.
So it was very powerful indoctrination and training tool.
In other words, it was a very powerful punishment in a dominance hierarchy to get you to accept your place and to not think anywhere beyond that.
Sure, I agree with that.
But I don't think that was the main reason.
I think there was a military and geopolitical reason for this fabricated pandemic.
Not just to restructure the population in terms of... It is ongoing though.
Let's not call it over.
I mean, they're still calling it a contagion that's separate from RSV.
They have used the...
the enormous success of the rollout of this fantastic technology called transfection to make the excuse that people of your age and soon my age are going to need an RSV vaccine and an ammonia vaccine and a shingles vaccine.
And so they have fundamentally shifted the way that health care is given to these old people.
And I want to just circle back again and remind everybody that I think one of the main ways that they can kill old people is just giving them pure oxygen when they don't need it.
And I think everybody that ever enters a hospital needs to understand this as a fundamental
It is a medical malpractice to give you pure oxygen in almost any context except for the absolute acute hours after a stroke or a heart attack.
And even then, there's plenty of literature out there which suggests that the target of your
arterial saturation should not be 99%, but should be between 94 and 98.
And the mortality rate of those groups is the lowest by far.
And so this fundamental inversion of how to treat people in the ICU during COVID in America is something that is completely overlooked, but there are hundreds of patients that we know of
that their primary care started with a day or two of high flow nasal or full face oxygen.
And this is what led them to have the progression of symptoms, which was misconstrued as COVID.
So we've gotta be, I agree.
And I agree that dominance hierarchies and locking people down and making people scared, this all can increase all-cause mortality, but mistreating people in the hospital for pneumonia by giving them high-flow nasal oxygen and not antibiotics, because, of course, antibiotics don't work on a viral pneumonia, this is how they created the illusion that then was
you know, spread around the world.
There were different peaks of mortality at different times and in different places.
So a lot of different things happen in different places.
OK, we have to keep that in mind.
But you're talking about peaks that were used as kind of the screaming point at the very beginning when the pandemic was announced.
Northern Italy, New York.
But people are still receiving high flow nasal oxygen today.
So they are still administering this as part of a standard protocol, which should have been known to be bullshit in most contexts Right before the pandemic there are hundreds of papers.
I just spent a day reviewing 32 of them on my program that were from 2018 alone But just to back that up a little bit just so I can understand it more and also to bring another point because I I have a
personal knowledge of a case where the person did develop a very serious bacterial pneumonia and they would not give them antibiotics and the person as a result could not breathe and so the thing that allowed that person to survive until an MD could be found to come and administer antibiotics was oxygen and it did allow that person to
I think the person from what I heard would have just not been able to breathe whatsoever, would not have obtained enough oxygen if they hadn't aided them in some way as an emergency way of prolonging their life for the couple of weeks it took for
an MD to come into the house, give them antibiotics and a few other things that aided in the delivery.
And that person was feeling better immediately and survived and I think would have died.
So there are probably many stories like that.
So if you know you're gonna have a lot of respiratory conditions and our data shows that although the cause was biological stress,
an associated condition of all these excess deaths was a respiratory condition, okay?
And that can be seen in a lot of high-quality data.
And it's normal that one way that a stress-induced illness will often include a respiratory condition.
And so it was definitely happening.
A lot of people coming in having trouble breathing.
So they're not diagnosing them in the usual way to find out if there's bacteria fungi and everything they're not giving the treatment that they should give that's targeted for the actual condition that the person has and The person's having trouble breathing and more and more trouble breathing.
And so they're giving them oxygen I'm not saying it's a good thing and you're saying in a lot of cases it would have been very harmful I don't know about that but because it's not in my knowledge base, but
I could see that this was their protocol and it did kill a lot of people and a lot of people did die in that way.
Now, it's important to comment on something you said earlier.
Not everyone died in hospital.
There, even in New York during that peak, a lot of the deaths were home deaths, okay?
A significant fraction of the deaths were home deaths.
There was more, a higher fraction in hospital than is normal, but there was still a lot that were home deaths.
In New York City, it was do not resuscitate orders and that kind of thing that led to the home deaths.
And the do not resuscitate orders were pretty unique for New York City.
So that's the reason why I make that statement.
If you want to talk about New York City, it's kind of separate.
Right, right.
New York City is separate, but we've got that kind of data for a good number of jurisdictions.
And a lot of people, whether it's France or Latin America, died at home during these peaks of mortality.
There are some really huge peaks of excess mortality that happen later on after the beginning of the
of the announced pandemic where it's really stunning that a lot of people were not dying in hospital.
You know, they were dying, not institutional deaths.
And for various reasons, like there were all kinds
home remedies that were being suggested by the government.
There were all kinds of things happening.
So from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the situation was very, very different.
That's one of the things you realize when you study 125 countries is, holy smokes.
There is a lot going on here from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and time to time.
What about the jurisdictional difference between 500,000 people getting killed in America over four years by the opioid pandemic and not so many in Europe or not so many in maybe Canada also has this problem, I don't know.
But in America, we lost about 100,000 Americans every year of COVID and nobody talks about it but people who've lost people to opioids.
And that to me is a problem because a lot of these people are dying way before expected age of death.
We're talking 40 year olds, 30 year olds.
And so this is another one of those things where this signal should be computed differently in America, or at least it should be aware of this.
You know, in our data, all we're looking at is all cause mortality.
So we don't know if the person who died, what medications they were taking, what habits they had, what, you know, we don't know most of their circumstances.
And there's only some recently some new databases that allow us to know the vaccination status of the individual.
which we're analyzing in great detail.
But generally speaking, with all-cause mortality, you just know the age and the sex and the location where they died, often whether it's in a hospital or at home and so on.
That's all you know.
And despite that, as a function of time, like if you're doing it by day or by week, you see these very definite peaks that are absolutely excess in the sense that you never get a peak like that at that time of the year.
and they're narrow and they're well-defined.
And then you go in and you say, all right, so in this time, during that peak, what was going on?
What do we know about this?
And this is the nature of our work.
So there's a lot of things that others will see and be able to talk about that we're just blind to.
MDs who are in their offices and they get a lot of cases of people being poisoned and it's a specific poison and they can document it and all of a sudden there's way more poisoning of a certain type.
Well, probably that signal is imperceivable in all-cause mortality.
because it's happening locally due to a toxic spill or whatever.
So there are a lot of things we just don't see.
There's things we see and there's things we don't see.
And so a lot of these conversations we can't have on the basis of our data.
But what we do see in all-cause mortality are things like heat waves, earthquakes, economic meltdowns of the system.
droughts that affect people's ability to feed themselves and so on.
All of these sudden events that happen in society that can cause death, in principle you can detect them.
And so one of the things we pointed out right away is that all these declared pandemics of the CDC from the past, that scientific articles have been written about estimating the number of deaths in those pandemics.
Well, guess what?
We don't see them.
There is no anomaly.
in all-cause mortality for the past pandemics, you know, 2009 and so on.
These big pandemics that dozens and dozens of scientific papers have been written about estimating these huge numbers of deaths and there's no signal whatsoever in all-cause mortality.
So that tells you something.
So this recent declared pandemic is different in that they did things that really did cause excess deaths.
and you can really see it.
But, you know, in many jurisdictions, you don't see any excess deaths.
You know, there are, I forget what the number is, but out of 125 countries, there's maybe a third of the countries that had absolutely no excess death for the first, in 2020, at any time.
okay there's just nothing happening until they start rolling out the vaccines until the government start getting more aggressive until they have these campaigns they're basically they were i think they were uh pressured you know their arms were twisted to start doing things and uh only then did they start having deaths
So all of this data is in our papers.
You can actually see detailed by time excess mortality for 125 countries.
And you can see all the ones where nothing was happening.
And you can see all the ones where you have these peaks.
And neighboring countries, immediately neighboring countries have nothing, nothing whatsoever.
And what we've done since is we now have high resolution geographic data that we're going to be publishing very soon.
And we also have mortality where you know the vaccination status as well, which we're going to be publishing soon.
So these are our next two papers.
Hopefully get them out before this conference that I'll be at in Calgary at the end of October.
Is that the injection of truth number two?
Yes.
Do you have to meet in a lot of dark alleys to get this data?
Or do you have special connections?
Or how does this really work?
You seem to really be able to get the vintage stuff.
To be honest, it's all there.
You just have to find it.
You have to dig.
know you have to dig and it's it's in uh national and provincial places uh sometimes it's in Chinese sometimes it's in all the different languages right and you just have to it's it's it's it's just the work of digging it up but for the the last paper on the 125 countries that was relatively easy because some researchers
have been extraordinary.
There's a project that actually tabulates all of the data that is available by time, by week or by month.
and they make it all available to anybody.
So our work was greatly simplified in that case.
And we can add to that all the specific countries that we had studied in more detail.
So that's how we- Are there countries that you get the data from and you don't have to do a lot of work versus other countries where it's just always a nightmare and you know that the data needs all this massaging
Oh, massaging, no.
I don't mean massaging like changing, but I just mean like there's 50 states in the United States.
It's hard for me to believe that that data is all homogeneously collected and displayed and whatever.
Well, it's mortality, and mortality is the thing in Western societies that states count, and are set up to count, and are institutionally and legally set up to count.
It's the one thing they want to know, and it's the one thing they've been doing well for over 100 years.
So there's a lot of civil servants that do this and that have been doing it the same way for a long time.
So it's not easy to start manipulating it in a
in a smooth way, let's say, I think.
And so I tend to trust the data that I get from the different states and the national data from the US, for example.
It's generally speaking, as far as we can tell, very high quality data.
The same goes for Canada, except that Canada is a lot slower at getting it out.
And the same goes for, I mean, there are European countries that are just amazing.
England and Wales has been a leader, right?
They invented epidemiology.
They've been doing this for a long time.
France is amazing.
You've got data back to 1900 in France.
It's just very detailed.
And we've written about, we've written articles about France just because the data is so amazing.
You can go down to the postal code level in France and get that kind of spatial resolution.
Germany is very good, and so on.
There are a lot of nations that provide extraordinary data.
And so this allows us to see what are normal features of this kind of data, the seasonal variations, the heat wave peaks, the correlations with economic difficulties.
And once you start to get a sense of how it all works and what are the kinds of events that can cause excess mortality, you start to develop a feel for it.
And you can kind of spot when something's off in the data.
And so we often have spotted anomalies in the data.
artifacts I would say and these artifacts were later corrected by the same national institution that simply gave an update and then and then the artifacts were removed you see they were
were corrected and the behavior became more normal.
So that's common too.
The artifacts you get are lateness in reporting.
So maybe there's a province or a state or a department that is just, you know, they fired a lot of people, they're slow, there was a strike, whatever, and they just don't report data for a while.
In Canada we've got a real problem with the
Province of Manitoba that's been extremely slow with providing its data.
So you get this gap, you know So there's things like that.
There aren't there are difficulties with the data, but overall It's not manipulated like an election would be manipulated.
You can't they don't They don't manipulate elections.
Come on, Danny.
No, don't talk so crazy
But there's a lot of data that you can design and manipulate and filter in different ways.
But mortality data is about as robust as you can get, I would say.
It's not perfect.
And if someone can show me where they manipulated data, I'll look at what they've got.
But our starting position is,
Yeah, they've been doing it for a long time.
And there's no reason to believe it's any different.
You know, if they wanted to manipulate data, they should have manipulated in a way that we could see that this was a pandemic, or that were the deaths were much greater in certain places where it would have been politically convenient to do so, you know, I mean, there's a lot of manipulating they could have done that would have made life easier.
When they know that people like me are going to get in there and actually look at the data, you know,
Are you making your data available?
Like your data sets that you created?
Yes.
Every, every time we do a study, we see it.
We, we spell out exactly where the data is available.
Okay.
And, uh, I kind of want to go back to something I was trying to get to a moment ago.
So Jay, I totally believe you data all the way from 1900 with France, the Western world, absolutely been watching this.
They knew what was coming.
I concur with that.
But I also kind of agree with Denny that this wasn't the primary reason.
The primary reason was all these deaths.
What if the primary reason was to get what they've always wanted, which is a controlled class or compliant class, a class that will do whatever they want.
And like Winston Churchill said, never let a good crisis go to waste.
So they were anticipating this issue coming up, financial or otherwise, they knew it was coming.
So maybe they took advantage of that, not only to
to do this, not so much experiment, but to tackle the problem of the cost of elderly people.
And that's kind of the best way I can put it right now.
But they also wanted to end up with a class of compliant people.
So two birds with one stone, or maybe a bunch of different reasons that the military industrial complex... They're always assaulting us so that we'll be compliant.
That's what a job is.
That's what the tenure track is if you're a university academic.
That's what, you know, the medical system itself, its main purpose, I would argue, is to serve the state in this way, to make sure that you are dependent on the state and that you are obedient and that you believe that
the the the uh mental picture that they have of your own body even i mean they're always doing this well i think if you want to go big picture you have to think in terms of geopolitics i mean
we're looking at uh an empire let's call it that that is having some serious problems right now it has it will no longer be the top absolute empire economic and military and it it it it is being challenged to accept that reality and it is not accepting it and it is deciding to go to war instead of accepting it so you've got
A hot war in ukraine, which is a massive war like we've never we haven't seen a long time in europe We've got a huge war that's brewing in the middle east and threats of war and both of these wars are threatening to become nuclear and this is just the aggression war
side of it.
There's also essentially a naval blockade that's developing around China.
They are deciding to put military pressure on developing blocks and nations rather than accept that there would be actual development economic and cultural elsewhere in the world that would not be completely crushed by this empire that is used to having its way in all of Africa, all of Latin America,
most of asia and so on you see so these geopolitical changes are huge and one of the biggest threats uh to this system that wants to go to war is the western middle class the western middle class is used to thinking by uh
be independent thinkers, they have economic resources, they can be independent, they can be critical, there's still a political structure.
That western middle class is a huge threat to this warring deep state that wants to actually bring us to those places.
They would rather destroy rather than accept being sharing the power on the planet.
So I think those are the big things we have to look at.
Now, how do you destroy the middle class, the Western middle class?
Well, you allow unlimited immigration and you remove freedom of speech, you remove political influence, you remove the possibility of actual free elections, even though they are themselves selecting most of the candidates.
You remove the bank account freedom, the ability to have your own money, your own resources.
You remove the ability for them to grow their own food, to have farming, to have these various things.
You remove even the concept of ownership of property and other things where people could survive and be independent and be critical of the system.
The working middle class in the Western world
is considered the enemy in the same way that Russia and China are considered the enemy, okay?
And Iran.
So there's an axis of resistance there in the developing world, and they're at war against that axis of resistance, and they're at war against their own populations in this way.
So I understand this pandemic and the injections,
as being part of the program to solve this problem of their enemies.
Okay.
Yeah.
And I was going to add another one that you add to destroy the middle classes.
You destroy the nuclear family.
So you have ideology come between family.
Hey, are you vaxxed or not?
And then you also have the indoctrination of children and it destroys a parental child bond.
You destroy that one as well.
Like you're listed off a whole checklist of things that will destroy.
Add another one, which is education.
Make sure that nobody is actually learning anything, that they're all just being indoctrinated and repeating what the doctrine is.
and not able to think and not able to have the confidence to advance alternative ideas or whatever, like totally make them stupid with this indoctrination system that's called education.
Gut the educational system, take away freedom in the classroom, take away all of that, that's part of it as well.
And I was a witness to that.
I saw it.
I fought it.
I lost my job over it, you know.
But yeah, all those methods are being applied.
And the medical, I think, establishment is a big part of how they control us, for sure.
Yeah, dumb them down and then numb them down too.
So marijuana, hard drugs, get rid of certain laws, especially Greetsy, and then you have the fentanyl issue all over the US and other places.
So you dumb them down, you numb them down, and they will comply a lot more and become dependent.
I think this is all a bit of a circle.
The dependency on the government and what will the government look like?
Will it be globalist government?
WHO, I think, is responsible for a lot of this.
minding these countries lockstepping, like you mentioned, there were some that had no issues and then all of a sudden they did.
The WHO is and has been for many, many decades completely controlled by the deep state, the USA deep state.
The UN itself was created by the United States and has been controlled by it ever since.
In fact, that quote I just used from Winston Churchill resulted in the UN.
That's what the quote was for.
Yeah.
so and and the UN uh was was structured on principles of freedom and equality of nations and sovereignty and those principles are now getting in the way of the empire they're very difficult to deal with so what they did recently was uh to start scrapping that and replacing it with what they call the the rules-based order
the Western rules-based order.
So they're bringing that in in a big way, and that is being recognized for what it is.
And so there's a huge geopolitical fight going on right now, and it's a fight for the privilege, if you like, or the right to develop as a nation and to have sovereignty.
and it's happening in Latin America, it's happening in Africa, it's happening in many, many places.
Our world is going to be transformed by these wars more than any vaccination campaign, more than anything the governments could do.
this is going to completely it's going to destroy the US economy the the structure of the US economy and When you destroy the US economy the wealthy and the elite make sure that they get far more they see it as an opportunity to enrich themselves and Everybody else becomes much poorer This is how it goes and they and they put things in place so that it will go in that direction so
uh the the id system the banking system it's all structured in this way they are they are driving us towards a meltdown of these stable democracies and into major wars and it our lives are going to be uh the next decades are going to be really horrendous
And the only thing I think that could save us, the thing that's saving us and that's slowing this down a bit, do you know what it would be, what I would say?
No, it's a tough question.
Resistance, information, people getting stuff out like the show, what would it be?
Yes, there's all that.
But that's small compared to, I think, a much bigger impact.
The real thing that is slowing this down and having an impact
is the ability of nations like China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, and some other countries, and the BRICS, and so on, to succeed in not being demolished and torn apart by the designs of the empire, and to continue to develop and to integrate among themselves, so that they can protect themselves.
so that they can shield themselves from the monetary instruments that are controlled by the US, and they can continue to develop.
That is what will save us, because if they can do that, and if they survive militarily, we will have no choice, meaning the empire will have no choice but to adapt and to accept its place in the world, which is one among other powerful nations.
and to and to adapt that instead of being based on exploitation and and and and slavery and all these things like it's doing now in Latin America and Africa it will have to adapt and that adaptation will give us room as middle-class people and even as professionals as well to survive and to adapt and to find our place and to have political influence until
Until we get to that place, that turning point, it's going to be very hard on us.
They're not going to give us any freedom or anything.
So a parallel empire.
So another empire basically parallel coming up will give it a bit of a challenge, slow it down?
I'm looking further than that.
They want a Western world
where they are the absolute boss, they destroy Europe as a center of power, they are the absolute masters of the Western world, and they eat away at the rest of the world as much as they can, and hurt
the other nations as much as they can in the hope of destabilizing them.
That's what they want.
Are you saying they like America or are you saying they like what?
I'm saying they like the deep state.
And I think the deep state from what I've been reading is essentially at its core, the CIA.
So it has nothing to do with the weaponized piles of money that descended from like the Dutch East Indies company in the city of London and the Vatican and all the people that in the United States that have more loyalty to these weaponized piles of money than the United States.
It's only 200 years old.
It seems weird because there's a lot of people who want to blame the United States when the United States in a lot of people's American minds has been a vassal of the crown.
And we never really won our resolution, a revolution in the first place.
And we're surrounded by countries who never revolted to begin with.
You live in one that never revolted.
I don't know how you can say empire and call it America when the only empire that has been continuous for the last three or 400 years is the English one.
I don't really get it because there's a lot of American historians that believe we never really won the revolution.
So to say that this new state and this, it feels very not accurate for a guy like you.
Okay, it's not my area of expertise.
The only research work I've done in that field is to write that very large paper in 2019 about geopolitics since the Second World War.
and where I talked about the tectonic shift that occurred at the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the huge acceleration in so-called globalization that occurred after that and all the indicators.
So I wrote a very large research paper about that.
And in doing that research, what I discovered and came to believe is that nations,
and systems administrations and well their dominance hierarchies basically are extremely powerful when you control uh an army
and that's based on an ideology.
Sure, there can be corrupting influences by wealthy people.
And sure, there's people leveraging to make profits and to have safe havens in different places in the world.
But every once in a while, those people, those multibillionaires, they get taken down.
They get taken down by the Chinese.
They get taken down in Russia.
I think that geopolitics is real.
and that it is the dominant structure on the planet.
And yes, there are these other historically, and there are wealthy families, and there are all the things, and they're tolerated to some degree.
But let me tell you this, there is no large corporation or multibillionaire in the US that doesn't take orders from the CIA.
When the CIA says, jump, you jump.
When the CIA says, we're doing this now, this is the pandemic, we're rolling it out, this is your role, this is your role, this is your role, that's what they do.
That's an incredible amount of knowledge about a country that's not your own.
I think that that's completely wrong.
I don't think the CIA has any meaningful role anymore.
And in fact, they got most of their information from the NSA.
And the reason why we pulled out of Afghanistan so clumsily is because the CIA was cut off from the administration's access to the NSA information.
And they left CIA kind of hanging in Afghanistan.
This is really,
I think you gotta be very careful because the CIA has not had the power that it had during the time of JFK or whenever you're thinking this.
The NSA itself is at least 10 times bigger in people alone.
And it's just absurd to blame it on the CIA.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd.
I'm putting it forward as a hypothesis.
What I'm really thinking of is powerful agencies of that type.
There's not just one.
But the CIA is 17 that people regularly list in the United States, and the CIA is not the most important one.
The CIA needs the State Department to exist.
I mean, this would be crazy.
The DITRA is a DOD-funded little agency that uses the State Department to
I mean, it is just ridiculous to say CIA.
That's the worst answer.
I accept that.
The details of the institutional structures and everything and which agencies are involved and how they're all connected, I haven't researched that.
I don't know.
I'm putting it out there as
a building block of this structure.
But what I'm saying is that these administrations that are tied to nations, I think, are the
are the powerful players here, not wealthy hidden multi quadrillionaires somewhere that are pulling all the strings.
I think those very wealthy people can bribe, can order assassinations, can manipulate things to make profits.
They can help lesser countries by lending them money to get them to do things.
They can do all these things, but in the end,
Russia is Russia, China is China, and there is a deep state USA that has a lot of power.
So who is they from your side, Jay?
Who do you think they are?
I would say that you have to think of it in terms of people that aren't related to a nation state.
I think that the way that Denny is describing it might lead some...
listeners to believe that there are Americans who believe in America and want America to be great.
And they consider themselves patriots by acting in the way that Denny describes and killing Americans or doing whatever.
And that's ridiculous.
I think there are traitors inside the US government who have been working against us on behalf of other people and powers.
And they might be the crown, it might be the city of London, it might be
the vatican it might be black rock it might be
Palantir, it might be all of these things in concert, but the United States government is not run by Congress, in cooperation with the President, and this three-part government is an illusion, that is controlled by weaponized piles of money, and we've known this for a very long time, and the intelligence agencies are very important, but their links
other intelligence agencies are what we need to understand.
Because again, I think the idea that there is an American-centered thing is only an illusion that works for them.
Because these people don't have any loyalties to a flag or any loyalties to a soil.
And the fact of the matter is,
I have loyalty to a soil and to a flag because I'm an American, this is where I live, this is where my kids live, and I do want the American society to be a successful and thriving society, but I don't think there's anybody in government or in the military that thinks the way that happens is by enslaving people or killing people or bioterrorism or anything like that.
Those people
who are responsible for where we are now are doing it in a way to control, demolish what's left of America.
This is the last bastion of freedom.
Canada doesn't have the freedom that America has and there is no country on earth that does.
And so these people know that and they have been undermining this democracy as like it or not, this is the only place where some of these ideals are codified in law.
If America is the focus of anything, it is because of that.
It is not because all the masterminds are over here and they're all working for American flags.
That's ridiculous.
That's not really what I was saying, right?
I accept the thing that you're critiquing, but the thing that you're critiquing is not what I was saying.
Okay, so that's what I I was it's it's difficult to talk about these things partly because you only know I only know some pieces of it that I'm able to put together and then I You're asking me to say well, what is my coherent picture?
What does it look like, you know, and so you do the best you can but I agree with you that it is not The American people
that are doing this.
The empire that is wanting to go to war and that is wanting to do this in a very serious way and that is wanting to kill the middle class and so on is not the American people and it's not based on the American people.
I agree with you that it is an oligarchy, that it is a whole network, like an octopus of financial interests, corporate interests.
Some are
Old and and old money some new money and so on.
I I agree with you I I I also think that the people that we see and that we're critical of like gates and people like that and sorrows Are not the real players that that those are just the puppets that we see I think I think the the power That's behind them is even greater than them, right?
But it is it and it's a network and I agree with all that but I I do not believe that that network
Penetrates significantly into Russia China Iran, for example, okay, and I do believe that it can be Expelled from countries like Venezuela and so on Cuba and so on they do expel these people I mean China expelled Soros like 20 was it 25 years ago?
They just said you're you're out of here.
We don't want any of your foundations We don't want any of that money and they expelled them.
I don't know if they ever expelled Kissinger.
I
Yeah, sure.
It's complicated, and it's not a clear, clean-cut thing.
US ideology and propaganda penetrates into all these places and their influence and the economic ties between the US and China are huge.
They're not about to be severed in any sudden, very sudden way.
So it's complex, but still, my starting point is I believe in geopolitics, I believe that
geopolitics didn't stop to be relevant all of a sudden.
It is very big and it's very real.
And if Russia is able to completely reorganize its economy in order to sustain a war, a war of aggression, where they're using Ukraine as a proxy, and all of NATO in the Western world is trying to find some way to draw Russia in,
and by the sheer military might, thanks to quickly organizing and creating an industry and creating economic ties with other people and so on, the fact that Russia is able to do that, that means that Russia is real.
It is a real entity.
And it's a political entity.
It's a social entity.
And the same for China.
China has done amazing things since Mao.
It has always been completely under the thumb of the Western world.
And it has turned itself around.
alleviated poverty on the scale of more than a billion people and become this powerhouse of a modern state.
This did not happen because some hidden multi-billionaires wanted it to happen.
This happened because they maneuvered things in a context where these billionaires are acting.
I wrote about it in my paper on geopolitics
the US tried to take over China by economic cooperation.
And as soon as they understood that China was circumventing their control and having its own development and keeping its own centers of education and scientific development and so on, then they decided, whoa, this is not going to the right place.
They decided to rework the deal, if you like.
And now they're in confrontation and they're risking war.
So I think those are big realities, geopolitical realities that you can't just imagine that there are these hidden players that control everything.
I don't think that's the case.
So that's my bias.
That's what I've come to believe from what I can see.
But I'm always open to a really good research paper that spells out, like I've read the papers that spell out who these people are and what their historical links are and the lineage and everything.
But then I look at it and I say, OK, but how is that tied to actual real institutional and nation scale power?
And I don't see it.
Okay.
I see people making money.
I see fortunes moving around.
I see, you know, medical schools being taken over.
I see high influence in education.
I see propaganda.
I see all these manipulations.
But ultimately, how is it tied to real power?
And it's probably more tied to real power in the US than many other places.
And so that's why we come back to the US, OK?
And what we call the deep state there.
So those are my kind of pushback thoughts, if you like.
But a lot of people think that I'm very naive with regards to believing in geopolitics.
as being more important than these historic financial forces, if you like.
Okay, that's a good way to put it because while we don't really know, there could be many days and it could be a very complicated thing.
You know, hear stories like the 13 families and thousands of years and they've always had the power.
And you know what, Jason, I can guarantee that no university academics will have research that's funded to find out.
Correct.
So you're going to have a lack of data and papers.
If you created a research institute and you started to fund it, if the government said, we've got to know who's in charge here, and we need all the lines to be drawn, and we need to know who has money where, and where their holdings are, and what they're connected to, and I want us to find out, I'm going to put some people on it, and we're going to fund this thing, we're going to find out, then you would find out.
But the problem is it would become transparent.
Everyone would know, you'd be able to see it.
And so all these politicians, you'd know where their money's coming from and so on.
Yeah, no, I think if that was something that was attempted, you'd see another signal in excess mortality.
Very regional.
That's what I think you'd find.
Yeah, no, there's no way that's going to come out at any time soon.
And I believe Jay is a lot closer to, I think, what's going on here.
It may not be a border issue.
It may not be a nation issue or a state issue at all.
There's a lot of power consolidated in the US, sure, Rockefellers and others, but globally, Rothschilds and others, the City of London.
It's a very complicated issue.
That's why I ask, who's the they?
There may be many theys.
And we're all just kind of focusing on maybe one, but there may be many.
Well, there's some people who advance the theory or the hypothesis that even China and Russia are controlled by these people.
And that there's just one world.
And this is all a show.
And we're just watching this puppet show.
But there's only a few people pulling all the strings.
I'm just not ready to accept that.
I think that's just crazy.
Okay.
I, from, from my observations, the inner workings and the outer expression of what's happening in Russia and China, which I tend to follow a lot.
And I, a lot of trusted.
Analysts and reporters that I read and so on that I know personally, there's just no way that's, that's anywhere near reality.
You know, I just don't believe that at all.
No folks.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That's just no, sorry.
No.
You're a data guy, you need more data.
I can't tell you that the only way that that would happen in my very limited experience is if you had traders on the inside of China and traders on the inside of Russia because my experience can only be drawn from my moving to the Netherlands and living there for a while and marrying a woman and learning Dutch.
trying to sort of understand a culture of 17 million people with a few hundred years of history.
And, uh, you know, you, you can, you can study a long time before you're going to know enough of the language and the history of a culture to, to talk to them in an influential way and have influence on them intellectually.
And, and so it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a,
a multi-thousand year old culture with a different writing and a different language that's not based on anything that's phonetically or
scriptically related to ours, graphically or grammatically, that we would be able to usefully influence that culture without direct help from traders.
Now, that being said, I said it earlier and I'll say it again, I don't think they ever kicked Kissinger out.
And Klaus Schwab seems to have a lot of fun over there when he goes.
So,
I'm not against the idea that they all sit at the same table and they are all willing to tell lies to their prospective countries.
There are some tables where they all sit.
They all participate in the UN.
They all participate in the World Health Organization.
Those are the ones that we see.
I can't believe that the ones that we see are the ones that matter.
No, no.
And there's others which they tell us about as well, which is the... Bilderberg and others like that?
No, no, no, no.
The secret agencies, the police, the CIA and what used to be called the KGB and so on, they talk to each other in a very direct way all the time.
Putin described this in detail when they asked him, well, you know, this is serious.
You guys got to talk.
Are you going to talk to Biden and so on?
He says, well, our people are going to talk to their people.
you know, that's how it works.
But there are traitors, of course there are traitors, there are always traitors who get bought out, who get advantages from... there are spies everywhere.
Israel is amazing at
getting spies by various methods in every place.
They know where everybody is.
They can kill someone with a missile who's sitting in an apartment in a different country whenever they want, you know.
Of course there are spies and traitors, but the point is these influential and powerful and successful nations, it's a full-time job for them to root out these traitors.
to identify them and to annihilate them.
This is what they do.
It's a full-time job.
That that comes with the territory every every nation Does that in a sense?
So for example in canada we go after uh, these people but not we don't go after american spies and diplomats And the ones that are really controlling canada, which is the u.s.
We don't go after them They're not considered spies or traitors or anything.
We don't have sovereignty in canada.
Uh, we're completely
run by a massive, I don't know if you've ever been to Ottawa, but the US Embassy is like the biggest building in Ottawa.
And it's a massive reinforced cement bunker with a great big radar head on, on top and everything.
They basically run the country, you know.
Who was the diplomat that very humorously said, you know, when they asked him, how come there's never been a coup in the U.S.?
And his answer was, well, there isn't an embassy in the, there isn't a U.S.
embassy in the U.S.
I think US power is huge and is real.
We're talking about almost a thousand military bases around the world.
You know, they're not billionaires running those bases.
They have to be run by an administration, by people who think and plan.
There's military intelligence.
There's industrial intelligence.
There's people who figure that they've made mistakes and who would like to ratchet it back, but there's no way they're going to be able to.
But in Russia, they were able to.
In Russia,
Putin as soon as he came into power This is this anecdote is really well known and it's told by a lot of people But he got all the billionaires together in a room.
He rounded them all up.
He sat down with them You've heard this story before right and he said to them.
He said listen I'm not gonna take away your wealth But you've got to be fair to your employees.
You've got to be fair to people and you've got to follow the law and
And of course it was understood, I make the law.
The government makes the law, you've got to follow the law.
And then he proceeded to put more than a few in prison who were not complying.
And that was the end of that.
And so that was how he aligned the wealthy people in Russia.
that were made wealthy because they sold off public goods after the dissolution of the USSR.
So, you know, all this stuff is going on.
Geopolitics is fascinating.
If we really want to try and guess in the next few decades what our life is going to be like, I think the answer is in geopolitical analysis.
Well, if there was no spreading contagion, then COVID was only geopolitical, right?
I mean, from my perspective.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree.
It was geopolitical and military.
Well, gentlemen, on that note, can you just hold on?
What we're going to do is jump over to our members area, answer a few questions and get back to our evening because
I am shocked all the way from the Nobel Prize being, you know, used, you know, we had Barack getting the Peace Prize, you know, Nobel Peace Prize, but he killed a lot of people after getting that.
And also hearing how geopolitically, you know, Dennis,
Denis, sorry, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this because you basically are laying out to them that Russia, China is our savior.
And I got to try and learn this.
I'm not saying I reject them.
I'm saying I'm going to learn it.
They're not doing it to save us.
No, but there could be a path forward.
But the balance they'll create on the planet will give us stability that we'll have more room than we otherwise would have.
Right.
They're giving us more of a runway.
The other effect too is that Russia already is becoming, is taking in the brain drain from the US.
There's more and more people wanting to immigrate to Russia.
people who want family lives, who want farms, who want things like that.
You've got more and more YouTube videos of people immigrating to Russia.
And recently, Russia changed its immigration law to greatly facilitate immigration because it was too much of a headache for people to immigrate.
So they have now streamlined it
much more than before to allow this because there was so much demand for it.
So where the U.S.
was the center of brain draining talent and resources from the rest of the world, that's also changing now.
That tide is turning.
The people who want
family values who want a greater degree of financial freedom and so they're looking at they're looking to other places i i have a lot of friends who've moved to latin america just to get away from all this
And so there's people with talent and who are independent thinking, they want to get out of the US and Canada.
And so there's a lot.
It's very real that these are the big things that are going to affect our lives.
When there starts to be competition,
for real talent, thinking people, scientists, and professionals, they're going to have to treat us well because we'll go elsewhere.
You see what I'm saying?
And that will make education better.
It'll make the working conditions of trained people much, much better.
They'll have more political influence.
They'll have more say in how things are run.
And this is what we saw after the Second World War.
So this will, in a sense,
Once we realize that we're not going to win a war against the axis of resistance, against the developing world, and once we stabilize into the notion that we're going to be a great nation developing, I think it'll be better for people.
It'd be a lot safer, that's for sure.
It's funny that you mentioned that because I asked a good friend of mine, a vet, somebody who's really, really smart.
If you had to leave Canada, where would you go?
Which part of the world would be safe, do you think?
And you said Russia.
I was surprised to hear that, but not after this episode today.
Jay, did you have any other comments you want to give to the public before we move over to the members area?
No, I don't speak Russian or Spanish or Portuguese, so I'm probably staying in America, but yeah, I get it.
I'm also going to stay in Canada.
I think we have to stay where we have the most knowledge and connections, where we can have the most influence and do the best we can.
So I'm going to stay and fight for sure.
Plus I'm a lot older than you guys, so it's not like I have a lot of time to decide where I'm going to go.
Yeah.
My wife's already moved across the world from Nigeria to here.
That's enough.
We don't need to move again.
We're going to stay and fight as well.
Right, Patch?
All right.
So hang on.
We're just going to jump over to the members area.
There's a couple of questions and we'll get onto our evening.
And I don't think Trump had a big effect.
We got some good numbers tonight.
So, uh, he tried there, Jay.
He tried.
It didn't work.
All right, folks.
Thank you very much for hanging out with us.
This is an excellent episode.
Please share it out.
There's a lot of good information in here.
All-cause mortality.
Apparently, there were borders in COVID.
Maybe it understood political policies or there was political influence here.
And I'm really interested in following up a little bit more about what you had to say there, Dini, about geopolitics, Russia.
China and a few other things that you mentioned there.
And Jay, it's always a pleasure to have you.
The audience loves you.
We love exactly how you will stand and then call a spade a spade.
I wanted one thing we didn't do which I wanted to do was get into genomics and and and try to attack knowledge and about about PCR and transfection and so we didn't get into that at all.
So just for that reason, I'd be willing to try again.
And this time I'll try I'll do my best to just shut up, you know.
Not a problem.
And we did that on purpose.
We'll bring you back and we'll do exactly that.
So the next episode will be about that.
Okay.
If Jay, if Jay is, uh, is up for that.
Sure.
I always got time for that.
Yeah.
His eyes lit right up as soon as you said that.
So we'll do exactly that.
So what we'll do is we'll work behind the scenes.
We'll find another date for the two of you.
We'll do a show description and then we'll do exactly that.
So thank you for that to me.
I'm reading about it.
I'm learning about it.
So I'll be, I'll be a little bit better prepared as well.
If we do it later.
Great.
Yeah.
We'll work on some dates that work for both of you.
We'll get that to happen like three weeks or so.
We may be able to find some time.
Plus you're also very busy, Denny.
You're working on another report.
I understand.
All right, public, there you go.
So we're going to move over to members area.
We're going to get some Q&A done.
And if you want to join us there, you can join us by going to thelevineshow.com, get yourself started, download that package and go.
And members at thelevineshow.com, if you want to do it by email, Paul will be happy to answer any of your questions.
And you can also call us at 587-673-9955 to get her going.
Canadian, American, Russian, Chinese, we don't mind.
Come and join the membership.
Public, take care of yourself and make sure you share this episode out.
There's a lot of really good information.
I'm going to have to watch it again and take some notes and then come back for Part Deux, second part of this one.
It's your second dose.
And Denia, I'm looking forward to seeing you in Alberta and Calgary soon.
So make sure that we'll get that information out about the Injection of Truth Part Deux.
You're going to be there, Jason?
I am now.
Yeah, now that you're there, I'm definitely going to make my way down there.
But no, I was going to go.
There's a lot going on in Calgary.
So I'm going to go and check that out.
But yeah, I'll come meet you down there, Denis.
And Pavlik, take care of yourself.
Take care of your family.
You shake the hand of a stranger and a neighbor.
And why do I keep reminding you to do this?
It's because I love you all very much and God bless.
Warning.
Member videos may contain confidential information about ongoing legal proceedings.
Unauthorized publication, distribution, or broadcasting of the contents of these videos outside of the member's area is strictly prohibited.
Violations could result in charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, including but not limited to sections related to publication bans.
This content is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
To become a member,