Two years and three years, we've had one debate.
You know, it's amazing if it made you break three years,
but you finally got it.
And this is the guy who did it, we're gonna be talking to it.
Well, on that note, why don't we bring him into the media?
All right, welcome to me.
Thank you for coming on PSR5.
Hey, it's a pleasure to be here.
Yep, thanks for the invitation.
I look forward to this conversation.
I want to, before I read your bio, I also want to remind everyone
we will be having a Q&A.
So, put your questions in the chat, all caps,
question, and address it to Denise or to Steve.
And when I am doing the Q&A on the back,
I'll try to get your question.
And if you put a little super chat in there,
we'll try to move you up to the top of the question list.
But first, I'd like to read a little bit
about our special guest tonight.
Denise is a physicist and interdisciplinary scientist.
He holds a master of science degree in physics
and a PhD in physics from the University of Toronto.
He was a natural sciences and engineering research council
of Canada International Postdoctoral candidate
in national scientific laboratories in France
and in the Netherlands.
He then became a National NSERC University Research Fellow
in Canada and the lead researcher and professor
at the University of Ottawa for 23 years,
where he attained the highest academic rank
of tenured full professor.
He is an interdisciplinary research scientist
and has published over 100 articles
and peer-reviewed science journals
in many different areas of science.
He is presently co-director and researcher
at the non-profit Correlation Research
in the public interest.
And we are grateful to have you here tonight with us.
And Steve, you mentioned that debate.
So, and I watched it, and I want to play a little clip
from towards the back end of it
before I let you guys get started.
Awesome, awesome, great.
It's glaringly obvious in India, for example,
that there was no excess mortality
until the vaccines were rolled out
and then there was massive excess mortality.
We need to try to go on.
No, no, no, no, no, okay, you just mentioned India, though,
but then Tracy was mentioning all the other countries
where excess mortality rose before or not in line
the vaccine rose.
And we've been addressing it in detail.
More than half of the 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere
that we have good data for do not have excess mortality
until you roll out the vaccines.
More than half.
The ones that do, it's the peaks that I've been showing you,
these incredible assaults against people and so on,
and we discuss it in detail.
And don't forget that in the paper,
there's an entire chapter on alternative interpretations
that others would put forward without proof,
and we address each one of them.
It's all in that paper.
So it's not like we've been just barring from our minds
that other things could be killing.
For example, some people have been critical of our work
by saying, but these people that you're injecting
have comorbidities.
Of course they have comorbidities.
You're in the real world.
The point is they died the same day that you injected them
and or they died soon after,
or a bunch of them died soon after.
The point is there was a vaccine rollout, okay?
And people with comorbidities can be killed
by these injections.
That's the point.
We're not trying to say it's pure toxicity problem
of a healthy young athlete.
No, we're saying in the general population,
in real hospitals, in real countries,
with all the propaganda and all the governments pushing
to inject everybody, and that this is the thing
you have to do, and this is why you'll be promoted,
that there's a real danger that many,
like 17 million vulnerable people were killed.
So you're saying your paper shows for the Southern Hemisphere,
which is the focus of your paper,
that the fact that in every case that you look at,
vaccine rollout is associated with higher access mortality.
And for the Tracy's point,
when the other countries that you didn't focus-
Now, just to point out, good evening,
this is Giga-owned biological.
We're just doing a quick study hall tonight
on this recent broadcast.
It's actually might still be live, but I reset it now,
where on Steve Kirsch's little Thursday night thing,
we have Denny Rancor.
Now, interestingly, they're discussing this debate,
which I haven't really watched yet,
that occurred between the two guys on the top
are supposed to kind of be hosts or moderators.
And it's supposed to be between Tracy Beth Holk.
I think that's who that is.
And that's Denny Rancor over here.
Sorry, I'm not a good weatherman right here.
So the guy in the upper left corner
is the co-author or co-producer of the blog
and podcast called Illusion of Consensus.
Now, the reason why I find Illusion of Consensus
to be kind of an interesting thing
is because they started it in May of 2023,
not that long ago.
And I'm not really sure if I can't go back before May last year
and find myself still using the words Illusion of Consensus
and I'm not gonna do it
because I don't wanna find out
or I don't wanna think about whether
some of these people are bad guys anymore.
But I do know that this guy sort of came out of nowhere
and in fact, one of the first places that I saw him
which is really interesting
was on the Brett Weinstein podcast.
And so he was promoted basically
into this sort of little network of bros with shows
and he now has this thing with J about Acharya.
So that's where this occurred.
So now we have Steve Kirsch promoting J about Acharya
and this character's podcast,
which was already previously anointed as cool
by having been interviewed by Brett Weinstein,
which is just interesting.
It's just interesting.
So on you're saying, also you would find one there
if you're saying if you use the proper excess mortality
figures or you're saying that sometimes-
Yeah, I'm saying that we're gonna put out a paper
in the next two months or so
that we'll have 150 countries
where we did this analysis throughout in great detail
with state of the art methods.
And it shows that this is a consistent phenomenon.
It's helping me a lot.
I got to be right back.
Oh yeah, don't worry, go ahead and finish your dinner, Steve.
Don't let me interrupt your dinner.
So yeah, we had a debate.
It was a, you know, personally,
it was a very painful experience for me to have that debate.
It lasted three hours.
It was done, it was set up in a rush.
I didn't want to miss the opportunity.
So I gave in to a lot of the conditions of the debate
that were not favorable.
And I was angry when we started the debate.
You guys didn't see the backstage discussion.
But I was very susceptible to the seat.
But I thought, well, I've just got to do the best I can
and see what happens.
Tell me more.
What was unfair?
Oh, I don't want to get into those details
about how it was done.
But no, I don't want to mean mouth how it was done.
But, oh, unfair.
Well, clearly the three of them
were had a position which was opposite to mine.
Rob himself told me he was certainly biased.
You could see that in his prelude
to the written critique by Tracy,
that he was extremely biased against our study.
And he said, yes, I'm biased, but I'll be objective now.
And so on.
I mean, it was that kind of a situation.
So we did what we could.
I did the best I could.
And then, thankfully, I had the opportunity
to write a very detailed written response
to every point in Tracy's critique,
where I unpacked her critique.
And I responded to every single point in writing very clearly.
So people are welcome to read that.
It's on my website.
And it's on sub stack.
It's entitled, My Responses Tracy Beth Hoeig's Criticism
of our 17 Million Vaccine Deaths calculation.
It's all there.
And I appreciate having done that,
because there's a lot of fact checkers out there
that are spewing out all kinds of garbage.
And a lot of it was echoed by Tracy.
And I was able to address it in detail, point after point.
I'm not saying that Tracy made only fun comments.
She also made some a few very pertinent scientific comments,
which I'm grateful for.
But it gave me a chance to address the fact checkers.
Yeah.
No, I don't want to be a creep.
But I don't really care much about this interesting little
debate they had.
I think it must have been, for the most part,
all about the 17 million deaths.
And not about whether there was any evidence for spread.
And if I watched that video and I spent an hour and a half
watching it and find out that they wasted my time
by not discussing the fact that he has oodles of data
to show that for some reason or another,
the virus doesn't spread from county to county
or from country to country, I'm going to go bananas.
And I'm almost sure that that's what happened on that debate.
And so what I'm watching this for, what I'm hoping in this for,
I have this set at 1.5 speed.
I hope that he covers that in this discussion.
Let's go.
Suffice it to say, at the end of the day,
you weren't persuaded by her arguments.
Would that be fair summary?
Oh, her argument was that our paper was untenable,
had no value, that it was full of holes.
She used the term that you needed to do a sanity check
if you were going to believe this paper.
So her argument was that it was a worthless paper.
So she had, she was supposed to prove or demonstrate
that there was something, an error in it or some logic
that was incorrect or something.
And she did not do that whatsoever.
And my response is, well, here are your points.
One after the other, it's like a big shopping list.
And some of them are just flippant, ridiculous, silly things
that you shouldn't have said.
And others are good scientific points.
And here's my addressing each one.
So you have not, in any way, invalidated our paper.
OK.
Yeah, so, but Tracy does bring up one good scientific point
that I acknowledge, and it's a good point.
It's an important point.
And it does not invalidate our paper.
But it's still something that is needed in the analysis
and in the thought of what's going on here, which, of course,
we have considered and so on.
It just wasn't explicitly written in our paper.
Do you want me to get into that?
Like technically, what is the one key thing
that she had a reasonable point on?
I think that might be cool, right?
So basically, she said, cut right to the chaser.
Yeah, let's cut right to the chaser.
She basically said, listen, she said,
there has been a study done in Qatar
where they had all the national data for the entire country.
And they had not only the death certificate data,
but they had the vaccination status of every single person
who died.
And by status, we mean like.
Steve's getting very excited here.
I anticipate he's going to have something fun to say here.
Hang on.
Each dose that was given, when it was given,
they had everything.
And she said, well, look at this paper.
She didn't say this clearly in the debate,
but if you read what she said and you read the paper
and I was able to infer that, hey, there's a good point here,
although she didn't say it this clearly.
But basically, what it is, is if unless the Qatari scientists
are being completely dishonest and are making up data,
then what their study shows is that even if you interpret
every single death that occurred after the vaccine
that they report, as being due to the vaccine,
it's still a small number, okay?
So her point is, given that small number,
which works out to be something like 10 or 20 deaths
per million injections or per million people injected.
And so she said, well, given that small number,
how it's completely incompatible with what you're getting,
right?
And so that's the kind of opposition
that is really good to make,
because you're comparing two very different kinds of study.
You're comparing a study where you actually know
the vaccine status of everyone who died in the country
for the entire period that you studied it for,
to a study that does all cause mortality
and looks at temporal correlations between rollouts
and temporally associated peaks in the all cause mortality.
And you quantify that, okay?
So it's very different approaches.
And she's saying, you're not giving the right,
the same answer, they're not the same order of magnitude,
there's gotta be something wrong here.
And so we looked at the Katori paper in my response,
and we were very critical of it,
that it didn't apply to a real population in a real country.
The average age of people who died was very young,
whereas we're looking at most people who died,
things like that.
And they were all young males,
and they were all immigrant workers in Qatar.
It's like in their study period, nobody all died.
And no Katori's died that had been vaccinated.
In other words, it's a fountain of youth.
It protected, if you got the vaccine and you were old,
you couldn't die of all costs, right?
Okay, so I tried to get the data.
I tried to get the data on the Katori paper.
Yeah.
Guess what happened?
They won't give it to you, they won't give it to you.
Exactly.
They actually say in the paper that.
You can't get it.
To protect privacy, we're not gonna give this to you.
Yeah.
And also I've got to protect the privacy.
That's really important.
As we learn to use human, yeah, especially for the dead.
You can't got to preserve the privacy of dead people.
So the authors were funded by the usual suspects.
And that the...
No.
Yes.
And that the independence of this study.
And that the results were just really surprising.
Like nobody all dying and stuff like that.
So what did she say to that?
No, no, no.
You see, the problem is she did not,
she didn't clearly put this to me during the debate
or in her written thing.
I had to construct what her best argument would be
given the shotgun shot list that she put out of her.
And then I addressed her best argument
as I construct that it would be.
Got it.
I got it.
So I have some good news for you.
I have the data from New Zealand.
Yeah.
And I have the...
Everybody's death.
I have the death records for everybody.
And I have the death records if you were vaccinated.
So I can tell you that these vaccines,
you may be surprised to hear this, they are not safe.
And you know, I can't get an epidemiologist on camera
to talk about the data for some reason.
I just can't figure it out.
To save my life, I cannot find a pro-vaccine epidemiologist
where we can have an honest discussion
about the New Zealand data.
Because the New Zealand data, the beauty of the New Zealand data
is that it's public information now, thanks to me.
Thanks to Barry Young.
Because he gave it to me, I then obfuscated it,
and then I took the risk of publishing it.
And so it's out for everybody to see.
It's so much work.
You know, Steve, my research team and I
are doing the heavy lifting.
I mean, as scientists, we're doing a really big job here
and we have for many years.
It's so much work to really do a rigorous job
of analyzing this kind of data and trying
to figure out all the caveats and everything.
That before we launch into yet another country
or yet another database, we have to be as sure as we can
that it's not corrupted in any way.
And for that reason, I've kind of been avoiding
the New Zealand data because I don't know
that it's complete for the country over the time period
that they're saying it's not certified
by a national government.
And that kind of, you know, it's just so much work
to work on this data.
It's just like, well, I would rather work with data
that no one will say can have any problems with it, you see.
Yeah, that's fine.
You know, personal preference, I can tell you
that I have spent months with this data
and I analyze it all sorts of different ways
and it's like nobody could have faked this data.
And it all matches up.
I mean, I can go to each record.
I've got the full records.
I've got all the records.
I can match them up with real life.
I can verify every single record.
Yes.
I don't understand how is it anonymous,
but then you can match it up in real life
every record up in real life.
I don't know what he's even saying there.
It's really like he's trying to tempt Denny into,
well, I have the perfect data set for you, the buddy.
I got the perfect sirloin steak
that you're just going to want to try and grill yourself.
I don't really get it.
I don't get it at all.
This data set, he also tried to tempt CHD
into doing some analysis on it when I was there.
And yeah, I don't know.
I feel like he's been pushing this data set
on a lot of different people.
CHD with Brian, and he's got a staff scientist there
by the name of Carl that he works with.
Carl's extremely skilled.
And so I think given how long Steve has had this data set,
how many people he's offered it to,
how many people have had the opportunity to look at it
and haven't really seen what Steve thinks that he sees there.
I would be very curious to see what Denny would find,
but I have trouble with the initial aspect of it.
There were so many weird things
about the way that this whistleblower came forward
and the different context and requirements
that were needed.
I just,
I don't know how to say it any other way,
but I don't trust anything that comes out of that country
after what I saw for the last four years
of how that place works.
There's only like, is there 17 million of them down there?
Maybe it's 17 million, but it's somewhere between the Netherlands
and Norway, right, in terms of total population.
This is not, so we're talking about a highly corruptible system
that was already highly corrupt when their prime minister
was that lady with a rather large,
she had kind of a big mouth.
I mean, it's like physically wide with a lot of teeth visible
when she talks.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about that data set.
And statistically, this thing is perfect.
You look at the all-cause mortality of people
who got the shot and died.
I mean, these things match up to what New Zealand mortality is
within 10% or 20%.
Obviously, they're higher if you've got the vaccine.
You see what I mean?
I think Denny's about to react to it right here.
Within 10% to 20% is a very wide window of variation.
That's not really matching up to previous years
if it's between 10% and 20% on.
But these things are really match up.
I mean, it really matches up.
And the consistency over the data set.
And statistically, this thing is perfect.
You look at the all-cause mortality of people who got the shot
and died.
I mean, these things match up to what New Zealand mortality is
within 10% or 20%.
Obviously, they're higher if you've got the vaccine.
But you look at Denny's face.
Did you see it?
Denny's like, wait, what?
They match up between 20% and 20%?
Like, that's not matching up.
Watch Denny's face.
Each record.
I've got the full records.
I've got all the records.
I can match them up with real life.
I can verify every single record.
Yes.
And statistically, statistically, this thing is like perfect.
Like you look at the all-cause mortality of people who got the
vaccine.
And you look at the all-cause mortality of people who got the
shot and died.
I mean, these things match up to what New Zealand mortality is.
You know, within 10% or 20%.
You know, obviously, they're higher if you've got the vaccine.
But these things are really match up.
I mean, it really matches up.
And the, you know, within 10% or 20%, you know, obviously, they're
higher if you've got the vaccine.
But these things are really match up.
I mean, it really matches up.
I mean, it really matches up and the
Data because really matching up is what you really want when it comes to data. You want it to really match up
Listen if you died in the first year versus the second year on
Frickin believable. I mean this data
Look at this day. I'm sorry that this is so technical. I hope you guys don't mind
I'm gonna wait until I do the subtitles on this to break it down
Technically this I know it's really dense right now, but just try to keep up
Hey, you say there's no way that this data was tampered with this is this is honest
Awesome thing
Completeness is another you can have it depends on her depends on how you analyze it, right?
If you analyze it on a perdos basis the completeness doesn't matter
Because it's random
Yeah, we probably don't want to go there why is it on a perdos basis the completeness doesn't matter
Because it's random. It's it's a yeah
We probably don't want to go there because we'll spend a lot of time talking about
The caveats in analyzing this kind of data because you know, that's some that's what we do and there are a lot of caveats and
You know, they they contact they contacted my he tried really hard to get him to take that data seriously
That was pretty funny. I mean it matches up really nice
hosting provider to
Try to take my server down
And the hosting provider then said hey, we got this request and they sent me the request
So I know who they are so I reached out to these guys I emailed all of them
I I found I called them and
And you know left a message. I've got that
And these guys don't respond. They said oh contact us by you know, we're in
Yeah, it's the lawyers. They write and the lawyers say so what happens is that they have the hitman lawyer who
This is the guy who contacts my hosting provider saying oh, you know, yeah, take notice of this this order
Which by the way, we don't have any jurisdiction over you, but they never say that right so they say check out this order and
You know, please take down the the stuff and then they say well, you contacted the wrong firm
You have to contact this firm so in nanoseconds this guy contacts the right firm
Who's the interviewer again? Who who whose time are we wasting who whose interview is this and whose dinner?
Did we interrupt? I don't get what's going on here. It's everything is flipped then I get it and
I contact this guy here nothing from this guy
Then I keep contacting them and then I get this note from the senior partner at the law firm
And he writes me and he says oh, it's because I texted him or I texted
Anthony who's the hench the hitman who who goes after
My hosting provider
So Anthony basically is out of the picture now because he's the lower level guy in the law firm
So the top partner on the breaches then is tech he texts me back. He says
I'm taking over now. All your conversations should be with me
Don't see see any anybody else but me and contact me by email
So I send him emails. They said okay fine. How about your way, you know Burger King. Have it you're right
And and so
Then he
Send them all these emails and he never responds. Yeah, of course
It's typical they the first thing they do if they can do it especially when they don't even have the jurisdiction
They try to intimidate you and if it doesn't work then there's nothing they can do. So what's talking right right?
Yeah, but I said I take it down. I said look I don't want to spread this information
I don't want to reveal any one of the identity
How about I just want to have a zoom call with Margie
Papa show show me that there's a problem with the data and I'll take it down. Yeah. Yeah, I said hey look
You got an N. H. I and you got a
We use MRN's because we we obfuscated the N. H. I number so
Why does he use the term obfuscated the the number I don't
Is that the right term it could be I maybe I don't I've never used that term to describe
the
You know the changing the randomizing of numbers. Oh, give me the number
You're an activist and you think like an activist their lawyers trying to get it down period, right?
And and so you're saying well show me that it's wrong. Tell me it's wrong
I mean, that's a typical prank that activists do whereas this lawyer guy his job was to try to impress you or intimidate you
Make you worried make you consult your own lawyer who might say well
You this way and this way and
But it didn't work
They have to crawl back and right right well, but but I told him hey, I'm happy to negotiate
With Margie about taking my site down and of course in the negotiation
I'll be like okay, you guys officially publish the data. Yeah, that's on my site the whole data
Back to your point of the whole data. You publish the whole data set. I'll take my site down
Right, right, you know, I'm a very small guy work. That's not how that's not what it's about. You know that of course
Of course, but that's the way it should be about right because if they they think I did a poor job obfuscated
Then they should say fine. We'll we'll do a great job obfuscating and the public should know because this is public health information
It should be public. I mean you're you're totally in support of your your you did you did a service
You put it out there in the hope that some scientists will pick it up and start to
Yeah, analyze it and see if some of your statistical analysis
You know, maybe it's not the best and so on. You're hoping that people get involved with the data, right?
And you know, I may get there someday, but we've just got
That's cool. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, you know what but you know what I'm learning about this is that
I'm I'm still looking for the honest scientist because the honor the honest epidemiologist, right? You're looking at because you're
No, I know I know but are you but are you saying I'm not an epidemiologist? No?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, let me
know what I said.
No, no, no, no, no, that's what you said.
Pro GPAT, seen epidemiologist, I didn't finish.
There's a looking for the honest, pro vaccine epidemiologist who will look at this data.
Well, that's what I want.
Most most won't say that they're pro again, so they'll say they're just looking objectively
at the science.
Yeah.
put it that way. But you know, we've had two theoretical epidemiology papers in my group
published in peer-reviewed journals now. So I'm not letting anyone suggest that I'm not an
epidemiologist. Oh, I'm not suggesting that you're not. I know I'm kidding you, you know that.
So okay, so let me ask you, you left as a full professor at the University of Ottawa. Why did
you leave? I didn't leave. I was fired. Really? Tell me more. It was an academic freedom battle.
It was huge. It lasted a decade. What was the story? Well, there's what they said and
and the thing they don't tell you, which is I was very, very critical of the university
administration and very vocal and very expressive. And I had a blog and I was just constantly pointing
out that they were using the university institution to for their own benefit and for their own
political devices. And so I was very critical and they I got it got under their skin, I guess.
And they decided to take me out even though I was a full prof and with tenure. And you know,
do that though. There's isn't I thought if you're a full professor with tenure. Yes. And unless you
like, shoot someone, you know, or get rid of a crime. You understand about power
is that they can fire anyone anytime. It's a corporation. Now, will it stand up in court?
If it's challenged, that's where tenure comes in. But they have the power to take you out
one day to the next, like any corporation. Well, after that, after that, you must go to court
or your union, if it's unionized, you and your union go to court and you say that that dismissal
is not warranted. And this man has tenure and et cetera, et cetera. And you fight it out. Yeah.
So we we fought it out for a decade. We fought it out for decade. We went all the way to the
highest appellate court in the province and everything went back and everything. And we were still in
appeal when we finally settled. Oh, wow, you finally settled. Is that a confidential settlement
agreement? Of course, of course it is. And so that that that 10 years after 10 years, we settled.
Oh my gosh. Oh, wow. Yeah. Okay. And there was there was one element that could not be settled,
because it's not allowed in the law to settle it, which is that I was in the process of
litigating against a doctor for breach of professional ethics. And you can't settle out
a breach of professional ethics. So that case went forward. And my union didn't want to take it on.
So I was self represented. It lasted four years or more. And I won. I won a huge victory
against a professional who had worked for the university in this in this context. So there you
go. So can you tell us what that victory was specifically? Well, the victory is public because
it went to court. So what was the what were the particulars of this particular? Well, it was a
hitman psychiatrist who was hired to secretly in secretly evaluate me. And he gave an opinion
to the university that on the basis of psychiatry, I was a dangerous individual.
So so this means that you are not a dangerous individual.
Well, it's a thing. According to the court, you can you can prove that his that he had to
breach professional ethics and did a bad job. And it was all wrong and use bad data and everything.
You can prove all that, but you can't prove that I'm not dangerous. You see what I'm saying? So
you still yeah, I got it. I got it. So yeah, I got it. I got it. So the point is that you still
could be dangerous. It's just that his opinion now has to be discarded that you are dangerous.
You can still be dangerous. I could be talking to a dangerous guy.
His opinion has to be discarded and he has to be disciplined for having made it under the
circumstances that he made. Congratulations. Yes. Thank you. How do you how do you
monetarily support yourself? Wow, like 30 questions about donations.
30 questions about it. How do you get cashflow? How do you get cashflow for your papers and
you're not employed by a university? I don't I don't need people's sponsor. He doesn't need
money. I don't need money for my personal life. But okay, I do I do need a research team and the
research that we do, which is very expensive. And so I'm looking to make that sustainable.
And I'm hoping that the correlation nonprofit corporation that we created will someday find
you know, donors and we need to be become sustainable within a couple of years or we'll just sink.
Okay. And what does sustainability mean? You have to raise a million dollars a year or
a dozen a year? No, no, no, it's very modest. I figure if we I mean, if we had a hundred K a
year, we could do all the research that we have the time and the energy and intelligence to do.
Yeah. Yeah, that's great. Okay. So we're bottle we're bottle necked right now with that with
that funding. Yeah. Okay. So if anybody wants to
where would they go to to contact you? Oh, well, they can start with looking at the correlation
website. So it's correlation dash Canada. I want 100 k a year. That's all I'm asking for is
they can cast a donation. Come on, no, they can look at the client, they mess in with me.
And then if they're serious about making bank transfers or negotiating something,
they can just contact us. Okay. So my next question is, how long have you been a misinformation
spreader, Denny? All my life. No, I mean, well, how about
so you you've realized that the narrative for your entire life, you you've realized that you've
been lied to by the government? Yeah, I mean, I could go back to my childhood and I knew that
the stories that adults wanted us to believe were not true. And I was very vocal about it and so on,
you know, I mean, it starts young. And what was your first, you know, disillusionment? Was it like
Santa Claus or what was the, you know, like that? Well, I wanted to have answers to everything.
I wanted to have answers to everything from a very young age on, you know, I, I didn't tolerate
very well when my parents couldn't give me answers to questions like, how did I get here? And, you
know, what did they say? Yeah, what did they say? How did my mother was very religious? And so she
would give me the religious explanation, which was of some satisfaction to me in my youth, you
know, in my very young age. But but but it but it but it it appeased me, but it didn't answer my
questions. And I kept the questions alive. And so when I eventually went into science,
you know, as a young as a young man, I figured I need to get some answers here. And from what I've
been studying and reading this, I decided this even in high school from what I've been studying
and reading physics is the discipline where I'm most likely to be able to answer some of these
questions. And that way I can, you know, get grants, be funded and try to figure this out.
So that was the start of my interest in physics. But as an interdisciplinary scientist, I would
often change fields. And every time I changed fields, I would discover that some some or the
main paradigm in the field was incorrect. And I was very vocal about it. And so people would welcome
me into the field. I would go to their conferences and then I would start asking questions and then
I would point out that something didn't go well. And then sometimes they would excommunicate me
and call me on the phone and yell at me that none of my students would ever get jobs and that they
would never recommend me to speak at a conference, etc. etc. If I publish this next paper that I then
would publish and or or they would say, wow, this is great. We're really happy because it
contradicts our main competitor. And we don't like these guys and they're getting most of the
funding right now. So we're going to invite you to conferences and you're going to be our guy
because you are, you know, really smart and you're able to prove that they're wrong. So let's go.
So I found that I would get, I would get noticed and attention and become part of the in-circle
if I was, if the research that I was doing authentically was against a group that some
others wanted to attack, you see. Yeah, got it. Got it. Yeah. Okay. So we're in your career. Yes.
Have you have you ever found something that? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. This is wrong.
Yeah. You said it was wrong. No, no, wait, wait, wait. And that nobody benefited from this and
they embraced you. You know, for example, you suppose you were looking at autism and you found
that, Oh, vaccines cause autism and you published a paper on it. Were you ever embraced by the
scientific community? Because oh my gosh, you know, we've been struggling for whether vaccines
cause autism are not for for tens of years. Yeah. You've you have a question. Right.
So I understand and become known and recognized on a speaker at conferences in the new field.
Maybe in my career, I don't know, five or six times. I'm very interdisciplinary. And I,
it's very broad what I've covered everything from planetary science to theoretical physics.
You name it. So I have never encountered a situation where people were happy because
I'd actually discovered something. So what you have to understand is that scientists are looking
for funds, grants, and social status and social status within the discipline and power and influence.
And that's what they're looking for. And the bigger you are, the more you're looking for that.
And so we at one point, we did make a major discovery. We solved a long standing problem in physics.
My students and I, and we after, you know, almost a decade of working on it on and off with other
projects, we solved it. We started trying to write about it. We submitted to the top journals.
The reviewers wouldn't have it. We ended up having to submit to more specialized journals.
It got published. Then a few people who didn't quite like the leaders in the field got us into
a few of the conferences. Well, it was so antagonistic that a very brilliant student of mine who had
worked with me on this problem gave up physics. He just went into the private sector. Yeah.
And I at that point, essentially disillusioned by the response because it should have been a
scientific response and it wasn't exactly. And I discovered then finally after, you know,
I was in maybe mid career and I thought, wow, they don't want to know. They are not interested
whatsoever. And at that point, I stopped putting my emphasis on physics and I shifted my research
towards environmental science, environmental biogeochemistry. And I started learning about
bacteria and nanoparticles in the environment and that kind of stuff and became really well
known in that field and invited at conferences and everything. But I just was so disgusted
with the whole thing. I mean, we solved an important problem. And it was a lot of fun.
And intellectually, it was very stimulating. And I discovered that nobody wanted to know the answer.
Can you tell us what the problem and answer was? I can tell you what the problem was, but
the answer is let's say complex. But could you simplify it for our audience and do it in like
two minutes? Yeah. So there is a metallic alloy that exists in the world that was discovered
by a man named Guillaume, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering it. And it's called
Envar. And that comes from the word invariable. And that's because it does not have thermal
expansion. So it is a metallic alloy that you can use in manufacturing that has no thermal
expansion at the temperature. Yeah, it was an amazing discovery. And it became it became a
challenge for physicists and material scientists to understand why. What is the mechanism whereby
this apparently simple metallic alloy has no thermal expansion? And that became known as the Envar
problem. And it's been around for 100 years or more. And my team and I proved that every single
dominant hypothesis and theory about why it operated could be proven experimentally to be wrong.
Wow. And we postulated a solution that was consistent with everything. And we did theoretical
calculations to show that our solution actually worked on the basis of quantum mechanics. And
we did that. And we were published. One of the papers was published in Physical Review B,
which is a top physics journal and so on. And then the people in the field, there were hundreds
of researchers in the field, they wouldn't read it. They didn't care. They would keep
pushing their own theories and so on. So we were really upset with it. So I remember discovering
the effect. I remember I was in my office and I've been struggling with how this works for like
a decade. And I finally clicked on a key aspect of the problem. And I ran down to my lab where
there was a few students working late that night. And I said to one of them, and I remember him,
he's in contact with me on Twitter now. His name is Ricardo. And I said Ricardo,
I said, I just figured out the in-part problem. I think I've got it now. This is it. We're going
to write a paper right away. And Ricardo wasn't working on the in-part problem. He was working on
something else. And he looked at me and he made a big smile and he said, well, that's great to me.
And he didn't ask me what it was about. He didn't ask me to explain it or anything. He just said,
that's great. I'm happy for you. And now I'm just going to keep doing my stuff, right?
So I thought, wow, even the people in my inner circle don't care, right? It's time to go into
environmental science and I always did that kind of thing. Okay. So can you tell us what the
solution is? Why doesn't it expand? Yeah. And did you actually do an experiment to confirm?
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. This was the correct mechanism? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We did lots of experiments.
Okay. So what's the answer? Why doesn't it expand?
How do you put this in a few words? The magnetic structure of this alloy is one where
some of the magnetic links between neighboring iron atoms in this metallic alloy couple,
in such a way that the little magnetic moments on the atoms are opposite each other. This is
kind of local anti-feral magnetism. Okay. And this is how they want to be, but because of other
neighboring atoms in the alloy, they're forced to be aligned. And because they're forced to be
aligned, they, they repel each other to not be as aligned as they would be. And as a result,
that repulsion cancels the contraction that you get when you, when you cool. Okay. And it
exactly cancels. And you say you have to have exactly the right, we call it magnetic frustration.
You have to have exactly the right kind of topological mixture of these moments fighting it out within
the material and, and, and so on. So I, I use that when I, then I discovered it basically a
perfect storm. Yeah, that's the, that's the kind of thing it is. And then I, that knowledge,
I was able to use to demonstrate the magnetic solitons, why, why and how they move and how you
can explain how they change the effects of magnetic materials. And that's what that paper is what
eventually got me hired at the University of Ottawa. Wow. So anyway, that's, that's, that's
the kind of thing. That's awesome. Okay. So let's switch back to, uh, to COVID vaccines.
So are there any benefits from the COVID vaccine? Do you think there are any benefits whatsoever
from the COVID vaccine infection, hospitalization, or mortality?
48, did you, did you find any 48 minutes in? We are finally back to the COVID vaccines and we are
asking if the COVID vaccines have any benefit. Um, so again, 48 minutes in, we're finally back to
this. And now hopefully we're going to eventually get to the data besides the 17 million people
in the shot. Anything that shows a core benefit. You see, Steve, there's a premise in your question
that I don't agree with. Okay. And the premise in your question that I don't agree with is that
there was out there something to get a benefit. Something? No, no, I'm not assuming. No, but I don't
think there's an benefit at all. I just, no, no, no, no, no. I'm trying to be objective and say,
let me explain the benefits of your question is. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. So our work has shown
conclusively that there was no particularly virulent pathogen. I don't care if it leaked from a lab
or if it arose naturally or anything like that, there was no particularly virulent pathogen.
And there was nothing spreading. We can prove that there is no spread here. So there is no
spreading. And the patterns of mortality are inconsistent at odds with the accepted theory of
spread and epidemiology for a respiratory disease. And they are in can only be explained if you
acknowledge that excess mortality occurred when you assaulted people. And assaulting people is
not just by vaccines. The a lot of the very vicious assaults were simply the protocol, the
treatment protocols. Absolutely totally. So we can correlate, we've shown maps and little
gif films and everything where you try to see a spread and you don't see it. What you see instead
is apply this protocol, big peak and mortality doesn't spread, doesn't exist anywhere where you
don't apply the protocol, etc. Especially in adjacent countries, you'll have adjacent countries
where it's where high mortality and the country next door has nothing.
Exactly. So I think we were the ones who really argued that and who really showed it. And starting
in starting in our first paper, the second of June 2020. You'll remember that one where we argued
that this was a mass homicide, that the peaks that were occurring, that the virus was way 2020.
We were the ones who really argued that and who really showed it. And starting in starting in
our first paper, the second of June 2020, you'll remember that one, where we argued that this was
a mass homicide, that the peaks that were occurring, that the virus was waiting for the
political announcement of a pandemic before it decided to kill anyone. Exactly.
There's nothing happening on China. Yeah, the virus is very smart. Yeah. And Steve was so aware
of this virus being very smart that he started the, the, the early treatment foundation or whatever
the hell it was called and organized, you know, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars
for the research and funding of early treatment for this, you know, nothing burger that there
is no evidence of spread. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And in June of 2020,
he put out a paper that showed that there was no, it was just a mass casualty event.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. That's why Steve has spent the last four years talking about this, right, Steve?
It's listed, the virus listens to the mainstream media and then decides whether to kill people or
not. It is a political virus. And not only that, when the virus is created, it's created with a
passport. So it does not cross jurisdictions between states, between provinces, between
countries, it does, it has completely different behaviors depending on which passport it has.
Yes. And it can cause incredible mass amounts of deaths in one place. And as you said,
right beside it, nothing but then later, a year later in that place, a big peak that corresponds
to what they're doing now, you see. Yeah. So we have demonstrated that there, there is, there was
nothing to be saved from other than the medical establishment and governments that we need to
be saved from those things. Right. And so if you want to make a vaccine to save us
from those things, it has to be a difficult, difficult, the treatment protocols. Absolutely.
Totally. We can prove that there is no spread here. So there is no spreading. And the patterns
of mortality are inconsistent at odds with the accepted theory of spread and epidemiology for
a respiratory disease. And they are in, can only be explained if you acknowledge that excess
mortality occurred when you assaulted people. And assaulting people is not just by vaccines.
The, a lot of the very vicious assaults were simply the protocol, the treatment protocols.
Absolutely. Totally. So we can correlate, we can, we've shown maps and, and, and, and little
GIF films and everything where you try to see a spread and you don't see it. What you see instead
is apply this protocol, big peak in mortality, doesn't spread, doesn't exist anywhere where you
don't apply the protocol, etc. Right. So especially adjacent countries, you'll have adjacent countries
where, where high mortality and the country next door has nothing. Exactly. So I, I think we,
we were the ones who really argued that and who really showed it. And starting in, starting in
our first paper, the 2nd of June, 2020, you'll remember that one, where we argued that this was
a mass homicide, that the peaks that were occurring, that the virus was waiting for the political
announcement of a pandemic before it decided to kill anyone. Exactly. Nothing happening
until the virus is cleared a pandemic. Yeah, the virus is very smart.
Yeah. He keeps trying to interrupt him. And he keeps trying to claim in a really annoying sort
of Brett Weinstein kind of way that he's always known that. That's why it took him so long to come
out and say this, right? That's why it's taken him until now to say it, right? 50 minutes into his
podcast, he's decided to say it. It was more important for him to first tell us a story about
whatever he told us a story about that I can't even remember something about a lawyer
instead of letting this man talk instead of getting this guy's message out succinctly and
cleanly as possible. It is absolutely appalling to watch this egomaniac work his his enchantment
where it's is it supposed to be some kind of privilege to hang out with him. That's why he
can eat while he podcasts with people. Why he can ask how they make their living. How do you
make your money? Did he really ask him that? He really wanted to tell him him to tell him how
much he settled for. She whiz. Now you ask why I didn't sign an NDA and take $8,000 as I left
or was laid off from CHD.
Now you know, because I would interview with somebody like Steve Kirsch and he would be all,
oh, well, I guess it was pretty good. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Why do you make a living now? Oh, yeah.
This is the worst. This is the worst because
Denny's trying his best. Denny's doing his best. Denny's being a gentleman and he's getting it
out there. There's no evidence of spread. First paper 2nd of June 2020. Mass homicide. Excess
mortality happens not only with transfection, but whenever the protocols are released in different
places, perfectly said, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, yeah. Like you've ever said that, Steve.
It's listed the virus listens to the mainstream media and then decides whether to kill people or
not. It is a political virus. And not only that, when the virus is created, it's created with a
passport. So it does not cross jurisdictions between states, between provinces, between
countries. It does, it has completely different behaviors depending on which passport it has.
Yes. And it can cause incredible mass amounts of deaths in one place. And as you said, right
beside it, nothing. But then later, a year later in that place, a big peak that corresponds to
what they're doing now, you see. Yeah. So we have demonstrated that there, there is, there was
nothing to be saved from other than the medical establishment and governments that we needed to
be saved from those things. Right. And so if you want to make a vaccine to save us from those
things, it has to be a very toxic vaccine that you inject into the people who want to do that.
It has to be a, wait a minute, it has to be a toxic vaccine that would save us from the assaults
that they're, that they're, Oh, you mean you have to basically kill people with the vaccine
so that you're saving them from the assaults by the government? Yes. No, he meant,
no, he meant you would use the vaccine on the people in government. You dork,
you use the vaccine on the people that would want to do this and then you make it really toxic.
That's what he said. Man, oh man, you think the guy that invented the optic mouse would be able to
have a conversation. My goodness. That's a convoluted joke. Okay, wait, yeah, yeah, got it. But
as far as you can tell, there was no benefit from the vaccine from these vaccines. Is that a fair
statement? There was nothing to be saved from. There was nothing out there to be saved from.
That could be solved by the vaccine. There are people did get Steve is having a little bit of
a breakdown. I might need to load up. I don't know how I don't have the old. I don't have the old
file here. Shoot, I got to change that. I don't have my. No, I don't have my my funny sound effect.
There would be with the oblivion sound effects that would help a little bit because I think Steve
is about to have a little tiny bit of a there's going to be some kind of gear grinding here. Hold on
infected with COVID. Right. Some people were infected with COVID. Here we go. Is that a fair
statement that you're saving them from the assaults by the government? Yes. Okay. All right. But
sorry. That's a complicated joke. Okay. Wait. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. But as far as you can tell,
there was no benefit from the vaccine from these vaccines. Is that a fair statement?
How could there be a benefit if there was nothing out there to be saved from?
That could be solved by vaccine. There are people did get infected with COVID, right?
I don't know. I have no evidence of that. Oh, I do. I mean, I got infected with COVID.
I had a lateral flow assay test. When I got sick and started having symptoms, my wife had symptoms,
she checked herself positive. I then caught it from her. I started to have symptoms. I tested
myself positive, treated myself with so he's told this story before that there was he actually
witnessed a chain of infection, which included lateral flow tests that were positive for his
wife before they were positive for him. And that temporal positivity indicates, you know,
along with the test, the testimony of symptoms indicates that indeed there was transmission in
his household. So I hope that that Denny's going to take a swing at this one. It'll be interesting.
I hope he just tells him, well, that could also just be random. How could there be a benefit
if there was nothing out there to be saved from? That could be solved by vaccine.
There are people did get infected with COVID, right? I don't know. I have no evidence of that.
Oh, I do. I mean, I got infected with COVID. I had a lateral flow assay test.
When I got sick and started having symptoms, my wife had symptoms, she checked herself positive.
I then caught it from her. I started to have symptoms. I tested myself positive, treated my
wife at symptoms. I mean, I got infected with COVID. I had a lateral flow assay test.
I have no evidence of that. Listen carefully. I mean, I got infected with COVID. I had a lateral
flow assay test. When I got sick and started having symptoms, my wife had symptoms, she checked
herself positive. I then caught it from her. I started to have symptoms. I tested myself
positive, treated myself with a recommended protocol. It took a couple of weeks for the
test to go negative. The test was indicating something that was correlated with mine.
It was indicating something. Look, I don't question that these PCR tests as bad as they are.
Well, there's not a PCR test. There's a lateral flow assay test.
Okay. What was it measuring? Anybody's or presence of antigen?
A lot of tests were approved for presence of antigen.
A lot of tests were approved on an emergency base.
A lot of tests were approved on an emergency basis and are completely unreliable. I've written
about that. But your personal experience and how you understand it is not something that we can
debate. But people get sick all the time. There are viral respiratory problems of all kinds
all the time in so-called influenza, which they supposedly can test for, can cause you to have
memory loss, loss of taste. All the weird symptoms that people are talking about have
occurred and are documented. I don't know. I'm not personally convinced that there was something
particularly new or special. I'm just telling you my position.
Sure. The other thing is I have looked at the scientific literature and continue to research
it for firm evidence that it has been demonstrated that you can spread a viral respiratory disease.
In other words, that you can cause infection in a person using a virus. And I have not found
any scientifically. Okay. For example, if you look at the work of Professor Sheldon Cohen,
an American who spent his entire career trying to infect college age university students in the
US when you were allowed to do that with what he thought was influenza. He had, you know, he had
cultures, he was culturing this stuff and he would put the fluid, either vaporize it into their
into their noses or deposit it or drop it in or into their eyes into their nose every way that he
could. Did he try injecting it? No. And he, no, he's not injecting, he's trying to stimulate how
you would catch it. You know, that the idea, what he found was, and this is really important.
The people who got sick are the ones who had a significant psychological stress in their life.
Wow. And this, these were the biggest factors that determined whether or not you were going to get
sick is psychological stress that you were experiencing in your life and social isolation.
So the college students that were didn't have a big social network and were socially isolated.
Wow. And, and, and were stressed, they got sick and the more isolated and the more stressed they were,
the sicker they got when they did get sick. But there was no relation to the, to what he was
trying to do. Yeah. No, that's right. That's fascinating. And there are many, many studies
like this. There are studies. Dennis sounds like Denny sounds like he's a no virus guy now.
Denny sounds like he doubts the transmissibility of RNA pathogens. Uh oh.
There were at the turn of the century, there was an island in the US where they had a lot of military
personnel and they decided to do an experiment to see if the 1918 contagion would spread and
they couldn't get it to spread. They were, they were, they were forcing the soldiers to be in the
same bunks and then sleeping side by side and you know, they may have asked them to kiss. I don't
know. But they couldn't get the thing to spread. There was like thousands of soldiers on this isolated
island. Right. And they could never get us. Yeah, but you, but you have it there. There are many,
there are many, uh, yeah, but yeah, but yeah, but I mean, conversely, yeah, but yeah, but
conversely, you have lots of examples where doctors swear that yeah, but it happened in my house.
Epidemologists through, throughout the last 100 years who have written on the basis of their
careers that these things don't spread. Right. Okay. There's conversely, what about the cruise
ships? You know, we had these cruise ships where someone, someone, someone was, was diagnosed with
COVID. And so they, they locked down the whole cruise ship. And then, uh, days later, you have
hundreds of people on the cruise ship that now have, uh, you know, they, they turn positive. So
how do, how do you explain that? Oh, here we go. It's not hard to explain that you just have to,
have to admit that it cannot, that it doesn't have to be explained by the spread hypothesis.
And, and the epidemologists have been saying this for a hundred years. They said, look,
look, it's grinding right now. Oh, it hurts. Oh, yeah, but we know the phenomenon that in the same
household, people will often get a similar respiratory disease. That does not spread. That
proves that these individuals are subjected to the same conditions and are subjected to each
other's stress and are subjected, you know, and so that, that there's the ability to it. This,
I mean, you've got a bunch of old people locked onto a ship. What do you think's going to happen?
All right. Okay. So I'm going to switch topics real quick. Um, yeah, with respect to, to COVID.
Okay. So, um, I'll claim so we can have a discussion about it. Uh, and, and I actually actually believe
this, that, that there is a COVID virus that has been sequenced. It's in GenBank and it's unique.
And it's a, it's a novel, uh, viral pathogen. Okay. True.
Oh, he's taking the Kevin McCurran position, taking the high road. Here he goes.
Standing behind a whole wall of Illumina sequencers humming away. It must be true.
Agree or agree or disagree? Agree or disagree? I do. COVID-19 is a real virus. Agree or disagree.
Oh, man. I didn't, I ran out of time. I'm sorry. It was too much pressure.
What an interview this is. Why don't you get another bowl of pasta or something and let Dennis talk?
Uh, and, and I actually actually believe this, that, that there is a COVID virus that has been
sequenced. It's in GenBank and it's unique. And it's, you, it's a novel, uh, switch topic.
Is this a, is this a testament of faith? I actually believe this says, says Steve Kirsch.
Stop lying. Listen to this. Um, yeah. Uh, with respect to, uh, COVID.
Okay. So, uh, I'll claim so we can have a discussion about it. Uh, and, and I actually,
actually believe this, that I'll claim and I actually believe this. I'll claim it so we can
have a discussion about it, but I actually believe it. It's really a thing that I believe.
I'd like to take this position because I want to have a discussion about it, but also
because it's something that I believe. Well, interesting Steve. What an interesting thing to
take a position on. This, I mean, you, you've got a bunch of old people locked onto a ship.
What do you think's going to happen? All right. Okay. So I'm going to switch topics real quick.
Yeah. Uh, with respect to COVID. Okay. So, oh my gosh, I almost twisted my mental ankles here
because he twisted, he's changing topics so fast. It's like he, he crossed me out. I'll claim
so we can have a discussion about it. Uh, and, and I actually actually believe this, that, that there
is a COVID virus that has been sequenced. It's in GenBank and it's unique. And it's, you, it's a
novel, uh, viral, uh, pathogen. Okay. True. Agree or agree or disagree?
I, I do not. Well, let me put it this way.
I have, I plan to get in there and find out exactly what they're doing. Okay. But
in my beginning research, he plans to get in there, but he hasn't gotten in there yet. It's
something that I also heard earlier that he from himself to me that he plans to do it. So I do look
forward to him diving into it. So far, my deep dive into this whole thing has brought me out with
several conclusions. Um, most of which revolve around the fact that a lot of these people are
grossly overextended in what their fidelity of understanding is and what they claim it to be.
I haven't, I haven't really met a person yet talking molecular biology with any kind of humility.
It is the powerful molecular biological methodologies that are indisputable at this stage in Emily
Cop's presentation. It is the molecular biology that's indisputable at this point
when it comes to the extremely rare features of this novel coronavirus. And this rare features
have been high fidelity sequenced millions of times in the last four years. And I believe this,
I'm not just going to take this position. I actually believe this says Steve Kirsch.
Do you agree or disagree?
I agree that it's remarkable that we claim to have produced 15 million snapshots of a
continuously evolving genome, which supposedly hijacks our own cellular machinery to replicate
itself. And it has done so successfully over the last five years that we've been able to track
several waves of genetic mutation as they cross the Earth, as they cross the Earth. And the only
reason why these genetic mutations so uniformly cross the Earth is because we're such a globally
connected society with an interlinked set of economies and a highly mobile population.
Right, that's the mythology that we're arguing about here. That's the kind of thing that we're
really trying to say here, right? That's what he wants you to agree or disagree.
Which on the topic, what I'm finding is that the genetic sequencing methods are highly
unreliable, patchy, fabricated. I mean, you name it. So, okay, you, you, you,
Oh, we got to get Kevin McCurnan and, and, and Denny Rancor on the, on the Vaccine Safety Research
Council podcast to let him duke it out there. And that'll be, that'll be pretty exciting.
Wow, that'll be like Ryu and Ken on, uh, on Street Fighter. That'll be nuts.
Do this. Like one, one, one area that I did do some reading on was this whole notion of these
new variants of concern that are supposed to arise. Okay. The science of that, let me tell you,
Steve, the science of that they never used to do this before, before COVID. And there are hardly
no site, rigorous scientific papers that demonstrate that this is even a thing.
What it is is government websites with nice graphs of prevalence of different variants.
And when you look at the fine print and how they actually do this, what they do is they,
they ask a bunch of labs to send in their genetic sequencing bits and pieces,
and they look for pieces that are more common. And they assign that to a variant of concern.
And they don't look at all the others anymore, even though they get hundreds,
hundreds of different sequences and so on. And then they design a PCR that will detect those
pieces in particular. And then they send those out for people to measure it. And then they confirm
through that with a very small sample that that's the prevalent thing that's happening. And then
they draw this beautiful graph. Now, I've, I've read the fine print. I've looked at the papers.
I know a bit about, I know a lot about molecular science and how you measure things in science.
Okay, I used to teach that at the gradual level. Yeah, I used to teach spectroscopy,
diffraction microscopy. I had an electron microscope in my lab. I had spectrometers in my lab. I was
the head researcher. I know about that stuff. Okay. And I can tell you, the science of these
variants and their prevalence is garbage. It's garbage science. It has no value whatsoever.
Now this could be something right here. This could be something because according to Kevin McCurnan,
these 15 million sequences, whether you like it or not, whether some of them have been done with
the Arctic primer set or not and have a bias because they were done with the Arctic primer set,
you're going to have to accept the fact that a good portion of these have been done with good
old-fashioned saying or sequencing. And that means you're just going to have to suck it up and believe
that these things are real. Now we can go open his sub stack and you can read those words for yourself.
But I assure you, that's the argument that he makes. He says that, yeah, there could be a lot
of bias with PCR because we use the same primers or we use primers that are that are going to pick
up things. And if they pick up things, then we're going to assume that it's picking up those things.
And so that does bias this, but it's not everybody who's using the Arctic primers. Some people use
saying or sequencing. I almost feel like we should look it up right now just so you see how
intense this is right now. We are at the cusp of having somebody move this ball forward farther
than it's ever moved before because we were pushing on the exact same part of the dam that
he's now pushing up. This part where you say that this whole variant thing is way out of control.
This next strain analysis is way out of control. They are implying a fidelity that is impossible
for them to have. We know from attending the basic virology lectures of Vincent,
Rach and yellow, that a consensus sequence is a consensus sequence that might not even exist
in nature. It's like a best guess average. And yet these sequences are deposited into this website
and charted on next strain as though they reflect a definitive molecule that has been found and
purified. And of course, this is part of the sort of bedrock objections to this kind of discussion
of virology that Stephen Lanka has been pushing forward for years that I suspect that Doosberg
has been pushing forward for years. And now the latest people to push it are the Bailey's
and and Kaufman and Colin who on most of these issues with regard to the actual RNA viruses,
the stuff that they purport to find in the wild, they've always been 100% right.
But don't tell me for one second that they've been playing this 100% for our grandchildren when
they've also attached themselves to things like frozen water memory and tried to confuse frozen
water emotional memory with the kind of electrostatic emotional memory residents that
Luke Montane was trying to look at specifically with regard to DNA.
So this is a really crucial time for us to be able to accurately remember what happened over
the last four years because with a subtle tweak with just a guy goofing off on too much coffee
going, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Claiming that he somehow knew that the protocols have
always been murder and that he's regularly advocating for the justice that those families
deserve when he's clearly not when he's not doing the addition subtraction multiplication
and division that leads to the conclusion that if there was no evidence of spread,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The virus has passport. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
I'm borders. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But if the virus isn't spreading, then what do we need early
treatment funding for Steve? If the virus isn't spreading, then what do we need? What do we need
two shots of Moderna for Steve? Why did your cleaner and the cleaner's husband and the cleaner's
cousin die, Steve, if there was no spread and the protocols were the only thing that
killing people that if you do all the addition and all the subtraction in the division and
the math stuff, you know, that you're so good at because you got the New Zealand data and
you've been analyzing that data in all different ways.
Well, let's just do the basic math on all cause mortality on what happened in New York
City.
Jessica Hawkins data that she's been trying to get more thoroughly looked at.
Not much math that you got to do there.
That looks like a bomb.
And so if there was no evidence of spread, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And yet you were involved in the funding early treatment and propelling this, this idea
in the background that there was a national security priority that needed all hands on
deck, including people scrambling to come up with patentable combinations of drugs under
the guise of repurposed.
I mean, ladies and gentlemen, this could be a moment here.
Go get them, Danny, go get them, Danny, go get them, Danny.
I know a bit about, I know a lot about molecular science and how you measure things in science.
Okay, I used to teach that at the gradual level.
I used to teach spectroscopy, diffraction, microscopy, I had an electron microscope in
my lab.
I had spectrometers in my lab.
I was the head researcher.
I know about that stuff.
Okay.
And I can tell you the science of these variants and their prevalence is garbage.
It has no value.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
Variants are garbage.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
CDC official says, Oh, at that time it was Omicron.
Oh, at that time it was Delta.
It's crap.
It's complete nonsense.
You're in a, we're in Lala land here.
Okay.
So that.
Where's yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, I get it.
I understand.
Yeah.
Where is that?
We got to move on quick, I think.
Oh, at that time it was Delta.
It's crap.
It's complete nonsense.
You're in a, we're in Lala land here.
Okay.
So, so that's the variance in.
Okay.
But getting back to my original question.
Do you believe that there was a novel pathogen that was introduced into the world.
Somewhere around.
Yeah, 2020.
You know, honor, honor.
Do you believe.
Do you believe in the novel pathogen?
Tell me now, do you believe?
Because if you're not going to profess your faith, you can leave this temple now.
About 2020.
Do you believe that a novel pathogen?
At this stage of my, at this stage of my study.
I am not at all convinced that viruses.
Has a.
Pandemic causing agent exist.
Oh, bingo.
No, no, but that's not what it.
But that's not what I asked.
I asked whether there's a novel pathogen.
That was introduced in 2020.
Yes or no.
I don't see any evidence for it.
I don't see any reason to postulate that or any evidence for it.
Okay.
So now let me give you some evidence for it and let me see if you can go.
Oh my gosh.
This is totally going to be a wizard.
This is going to be amazing.
I almost feel like I need to find more, more to drink or something, but this is going to
be amazing whether there's a novel pathogen.
That was introduced in 2020.
Yes or no.
Get him Danny.
I don't see any evidence for it.
I don't see any reason to postulate that or any evidence for it.
Okay.
So now let me give you some evidence for it and let me see if you can go and
dispute that evidence or agree with me because let me see if I can change your mind.
Okay.
I'm going to.
I know this is hard.
Now he's going to change bread into coronavirus.
He's going to show him the proof.
Because you're a smart guy.
Okay.
So talk to a paramedic.
Oh, talk to a paramedic said, I've never seen anybody who, you know, they do these, the, the, um,
SPO two measures, you know, they do that on the, on the finger.
And is that something to do with the viscosity of blood or something like that?
Yeah.
Well, um, the, the, the cause is we can, we can argue about that.
But the point is that the paramedic has been doing his job for decades.
Yes.
He's never seen anybody survive with an SPO two of like 50.
And so he's measuring these people with an SPO two of 50.
And these people are like, you know, just like normal people.
I'm not familiar with SPO.
No, see, the question becomes, and, and if there's a paramedic in the audience or in the, in the chat, please, please tap it in.
But is that a normal thing to do?
Do you normally look at the blood oxygen level with a little infrared fingerprint on the way to the hospital? Is that a normal thing?
Um, is that something that was standard before the pandemic?
Or is that something of a device that they started selling us during the pandemic as something not only to move and buy?
But to legitimize this idea that there are measurements to be made and, and other things besides, you know, putting a thermometer under your tongue.
Because I kind of have the feeling that that's what that little device became is like this extra sort of, well, if you don't have one of those, you better get one of those.
I still think just if you want any advice just for free advice, you know, this is a million dollar piece of advice.
If you're going to give a gift to anybody who's having their first baby, please don't buy any bullshit.
Just buy them a digital thermometer that can be swiped across the forehead or read the infrared in their ear.
There's nothing better for a new parent than be able to check the temperature of a crying baby and at least know that it ain't that.
Anyway, here we go.
Two is I don't know if you're measuring oxygen, a dissolution in the blood or viscosity.
I don't know what you're measuring there.
Yeah, no, no, it's not it's not viscosity.
It is the oxygen saturation of the blood.
Okay.
And so they have these these spio two meters.
You haven't seen these faint these little devices.
You stick on your finger.
Yeah.
Okay.
So as a paramedic, but it's an SBO two meter, meaning that it uses a light to do something to measure your blood.
It's not like it.
It's it's got to be calibrated.
It's got to have some kind of error range.
You know, it's not some kind of ultra accurate thing because it's sampling your blood directly.
I mean, so it's it's a little.
It's a proxy measurement.
Yes.
He's never in his career.
Nobody's ever heard of this stuff before.
And with these COVID cases, he's saying these cases, the cases where there was a high value of this indicator.
The person wasn't bad.
What you're saying?
Well, if if someone is an SBO two of, I will say Albert, I saw that.
And I will say, Denny spoke to me in private.
And when we talked about this 17 million number from his perspective, it's an ultra underestimate.
He didn't want to have a high end estimate.
Like it's it's definitely meant to be conservative so that, you know, it nobody could really.
That's why the debate with Tracy Beth Hogue was so weird because he he or he could have easily.
They could easily show that their their projection, you know, is is conservative.
So I'm sure you found that for a 50.
They normally be dead.
So in the cases where this that this paramedic has seen, he's seen SBO twos of a 50.
Those people were dead.
No, they were fun.
Well, no, they had, if they had COVID, they could have an SBO two or 50 and they'd be like, like normal.
He couldn't believe it.
He's like, there must be some.
So imagine a scenario where somebody was exposed to a toxin or a.
Transfection, and it changed.
The reading on one of these things because.
It's it's not really clear to me how low this number can go.
But if you have that number at 50, my guess is that you're not getting you're not walking to the ambulance.
You're not walking to the hospital.
I don't.
But again, I'm way out of my league here.
So I'm not going to.
I'm not going to.
I don't want to.
Did I forget to do that, darn it?
That's that's too bad.
I don't want to.
I don't want to make it about that.
I just keep listening.
Nothing wrong with my meter, you know, so that they tested in the hospital and they verified this.
He's it's it's this known thing.
I'm going to put you in touch with with this guy.
But this is this is well known on lots of paramedics have seen this and they've never seen it before.
Well, if it wasn't if it wasn't a novel pathogen, how would you explain that?
And by the way, all these people tested positive on the the PCR for COVID.
Right.
And all these people tested positive.
You see, this is where we know that there's hand waving going on.
He doesn't have that data.
They don't have that data.
The paramedic took them to the hospital and knows for sure that they all tested positive during New York City.
They didn't even have tests for the first month or so.
Like, I don't even know why we have to have these kinds of bullshit discussions where people say that.
Oh, I talked to this one guy and he says that all of his friends said.
And so I don't know how you're going to argue with that because I've also got my housekeeper and her two cousins.
And it becomes a real waste of time, you know, because really we should just be talking to Danny and asking him more about what his data can show us.
Super frustrating.
So here's my answer to that and many similar anecdotes.
Okay.
Clinicians, whether they're paramedics answering emergency calls or clinicians in hospital receiving patients that come in or whatever.
Clinicians are seeing people come in with conditions they haven't seen before.
But the biggest impact on a person's health and physiology, blood chemistry, everything is experienced psychological stress.
This is not debatable. This is scientifically known. There's no doubt about that.
The thing that the biggest.
So from a panic attack, for example, if they told you on the news that something was spreading and you thought you were getting it and you introduced, you induced yourself into psychosis, like a real panic attack.
Could you have a lower? I don't know.
I don't know.
But that's, I think, what Denny's getting at here is that these, this is possibly a James Giordano prediction.
You see in a few cases and then you tell everybody and you'll have every hypochondriac and every worry well.
Banging on the door.
The determinant of your health is where you are in the social hierarchy, in the dominance hierarchy in the society.
And the reason that's the biggest determinant is because you are subjected to stress or aggressions to keep you in your place within the dominance hierarchy.
And it is random aggression. It's your bosses. It's all that your superiors. It's the way people look at you. It's all that stuff.
And that's stress, especially if it's random and it's increased.
I thank you for that comment in the chat. You can't hypervate on that yourself in the hypoxia. That makes sense.
Has absolutely devastating consequences on your health.
So you're looking at a period where the government has decided to assault everyone, scare them all to hell, physically assault, get them to go and get tested, get them to this, lock them down.
If they test positive, they're basically brought into a treatment cycle and so on.
You're telling everyone we're all going to die from this pandemic and you're running around locking people up and changing all the rules in society.
And not only that, you got these people on the internet who are running around saying that a billion people are going to die and that's 15 days of lockdown is not nearly enough.
We need to do 60 days of hard lockdown.
You got these people on the intellectual dark web that are saying that we didn't lock down hard enough and that's why we were still not at zero COVID and that zero COVID is still a goal that we should get to.
We have these people on the intellectual dark web that are saying that if everybody just took Ibermectin and fluvoxamine for 60 days, the pandemic would be over.
You're preventing people who normally have work in the black market or whatever their activities are from doing any of their activities and they're now infectious, poisonous, dangerous people.
You are stressing the society out like completely unusual circumstances.
Now in these completely unusual circumstances, there is going to be a lot of unusual health problems.
And it's going to be complicated and it's going to be all over the map.
And the system that is most affected by your immune system being affected by distress is your respiratory system because it's the biggest organ other than your skin in contact with the environment.
It's a fragile organ and you're breathing in air or not breathing in enough air or whatever.
And air is loaded with crap.
Oh, he just shook his head.
No.
He just shook his head.
No.
Or not breathing in enough air or whatever.
And air is loaded with.
Oh man.
He's putting bacteria.
I love it, Denny.
I absolutely love this.
I love where he's going.
I love what he's doing here.
He's doing exactly what I would do if I had thought of it in this scenario.
He's trying to explain that you have the surface area of a tennis court in your chest.
And that surface area of a tennis court is about one cell thick from you being the outside world.
Like there's, it's a very fragile barrier between your blood and the outside world.
And at this interface, your immune system is working constantly, constantly.
It's not a sterile environment.
Most of the time, except for when a novel pathogen comes in the mail from Amazon.
Wow.
Where's the, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, but when you are stressed, you don't even need the air to be dirty.
You already have an entire universe of potential pathogens in your respiratory tract that can
become lethal if they go into your lungs and you have a weakened immune system.
Oh, really?
That sounds like those two doctors that we covered back in like May or April of 2020,
the dudes that had like the, the one guy with the dark hair that had like the almost wind tunnel
tested hairdo, those guys were awesome and everybody made fun of them.
And they were the most fantastically spot on point people ever.
Talking about the fact that there's an ecosystem of microbes that are already present.
That you, you are, you know, like this is not just some sterile environment.
Oh my gosh, this is just brilliant.
This is just brilliant.
He's trying to read his, his little chat down there to see if his handlers have any,
have any hints on how to get this train back on track.
It ain't happening.
Transmitting anything.
You've got a zillion different pathogens and, and, and, and what pathogens you have in your mouth
or in your intestine or anywhere is completely different from person to person depending on
what you eat, what your habits are reading habits are everything.
So this is a complex system.
And the biggest knob that you turn to decide whether or not people are going to be sick
is experience psychological stress and social isolation.
Wow.
It's like really neuroscience there.
He's doing neurobiology now.
Stress to animals gets sick.
That's it.
I love it.
I absolutely, I absolutely love it.
This is some of the best stuff that I've seen in, in six months.
It turned up experienced psychological stress and they socially isolated everyone.
Of course you're going to have a myriad of medical problems, especially among the frail,
especially among those who already had that problem.
So we showed in the United States archive that the people who died were in the poor states.
The more poverty there was in the state.
Go down.
That was correlated.
Those are the people who died.
Who are those people?
They're also the same people who normally get 50%.
Sometimes twice as many antibiotic prescriptions.
You really should look at Meredith Miller's presentation that she did on my stream.
It was a really good take from a psychologist perspective on what they did to us and how
they did it.
And this is perfect to cue in with the idea that this kind of stress and isolation led
to a lot of the sickness that we attributed to COVID because we were using tests to to
attribute it to COVID.
That's going to be a lot of unusual symptoms that clinicians are going to say and clinicians
are subjected to the same propaganda.
We're all going to die from this novel pathogen.
And so they're wearing those glasses and that's what they see.
And then let me finish.
One more thing.
And then some of these clinicians decide to use ivermectin.
And guess what?
ivermectin is extremely powerful in aiding bacterial lung infection.
It's antibiotic properties for bacteria that infect the lung are tremendous.
So you've got this clinician now saving people's lives who have a bacterial infection and
they're not allowed to prescribe antibiotics and they save them with ivermectin and they
make the connection that therefore ivermectin saves you from COVID.
Now this stuff is happening on a large scale.
What I'm trying to tell you, Steve, is I don't believe these anecdotes.
I don't believe what clinicians say.
I know from reading the historical documents that entire medical establishments in England
and Wales can be fooled by newspaper propaganda and can start writing things on birth certificates
because they read about it in the paper.
So this is not new.
And so I do not believe this crap.
I'm sorry.
I respect for medical people, but they have to start recognizing that it's easy for them
to fool themselves.
Okay.
Let's just leave it here because suffice it to say I totally disagree with your assessment.
Suffice it to say that he totally disagrees with his assessment.
I'm not sure that there was a novel virus that killed millions that millions more were
saved from and that likely came from gain of function that somebody created it and that
it could come again.
He believes it.
He totally disagrees with the idea even though there's no evidence for spread.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Even though there's no evidence for spread.
But that's fine.
You know, we can have the and I think that's good that we can have these disagreements
and it will get to one of my points later on in the interview here where we want to talk
about how do we determine truth here?
Like this is a perfect example here.
Look, I know lots of people and heard lots of stories from completely independent people
who are like blown away by these SPO2 measurements and that these people who are experiencing
this and they've never seen it before.
Are these individuals, have they been hyphenating for the last hour?
No.
No, no, no.
No, but I don't want to belabor this point.
Yeah.
But I just, I don't want to drop it saying.
No, no, no.
We have a disagreement.
Yeah, I got it.
I got it.
I understand it.
I'm, you know, I think about it, but I think in this particular case, you're incorrect.
And, but, but we should, you know, explore this further.
I'd love to have enough.
I mean, I think you're incorrect.
I think we actually did land on the moon, but we're going to leave it here now.
And we're just going to agree to disagree.
It's a little more important than whether we landed on the moon or not.
This is really about fundamental ways that we have been governed over the last three years, the last four years, the last 10 years, the last 20 years.
And if we are at the stage now, we are, we are going to reevaluate our foundational understanding of disease with respect to transmissible RNA pathogens, then it's a little more important than I think you're wrong.
And we're going to agree to disagree.
The whole reason why three billion shots of transfection were rolled out around the world is because he thinks there was a novel pathogen still.
The only reason why any college kid is ever going to be forced to take this shot to go back to campus is because he still believes, or at least says that he still believes that there's a shot needed because there is a freaking novel pathogen around.
That's been sequenced, as he said, so, so checkmate ish.
I'm going to take this position, but I also really believe it that there's a novel pathogen that has been sequenced.
According to Kevin McCurnan, millions of times.
Millions of times.
Opportunity to convince you that this is that your explanation doesn't fit the facts, which is the important thing, right? Because, you know, does it does it correlate?
Like I was under a lot of stress during COVID, tremendous amount of stress.
I mean, I wasn't getting sleep.
I got an oral ring.
It was telling me, Steve, you're under a lot of stress here.
And I'd be measuring my SPO to my SPO to never drop from 99% during the whole period.
I'm under stress.
I'm isolated.
Like nobody wants to talk to me.
So then why not an aerosolized toxin?
Why not an aerosolized transfection that expresses a toxic protein in your lungs for a certain period of time?
Why not an alternative explanation besides a risk additive self-replicating pathogen?
It's one or the other.
It's either there's nothing or there's this magical RNA.
It's coated in some kind of magical lipoprotein coat that makes it be able to copy itself millions and millions of times in every person and then spread around like kind of like wildfire, but not really, because there's no evidence of spread.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right?
Yeah.
What a confusing, unbelievably confusing podcast this was.
Wow.
Formation spreader.
I mean, the whole thing on this perfect under stress, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.
SPO due to it too, didn't drop at all.
Okay.
But that that's just that that's not a here and a there.
Let me know.
I know.
Look, I know it's an individual thing, but you're brought it up.
The person reacts to stress differently.
An individual's ability to quantify and recognize their own internal physiological stress is near zero.
Okay.
So, yeah, let's move on.
Let's move on.
We can say this for another day.
You know, I want to be respectful of your time here.
I want to talk to you about this JAMA paper.
I read this paper in JAMA.
It's a research letter.
It was in 2023.
I wrote a sub stack on it.
This is a JAMA VA study.
And to me, this was like, this was, this is like the perfect study.
So this epidemiologist at the VA, he's got a really high H index.
He had access to all the VA data and he's doing this study on COVID versus flow.
Are you familiar with this?
No, I don't know which paper you're talking about.
Okay.
But let me, let me describe it because it's really interesting.
He basically said, we're going to take two groups of people that people who are hospitalized
for COVID and we're going to take another group of people who are hospitalized for the
flu.
And we're going to look at the percentage of those people who are hospitalized who die.
Okay.
And he has this baseline group.
He says, we're going to enroll anyone who goes in the hospital for the flu.
And we're going to enroll anyone who goes in the hospital for COVID.
And if you have both, we're not going to enroll you because you're going to be confounded.
But yeah, we'll enroll everybody for one.
And what's the conclusion?
Well, so here's the interesting thing.
He looks at the baseline characteristics of the people, including their vaccination status
for COVID and the flu.
Guess what?
Both groups had identical vaccination status percentages.
Okay.
What is, what does that tell you?
Yeah.
It doesn't tell me much because I, I, I make a point of trying to avoid those kinds of studies.
I do not believe that COVID tests are reliable whatsoever.
No, no, no, not COVID test.
Well, okay.
I guess because they're hot, hot, hot, hospitalized for COVID.
Okay.
Yeah.
So hospitalized for, to me, that's me.
I mean, depending on the.
All right.
You can imagine that it would show a positive result if one aspect of the physiology is reacting
differently or strong, more strongly than, than in another, you know, all kinds of things can be happening.
But do you believe?
Okay.
Do you believe the flu test?
Do you believe that I'm not, I'm not convinced that viruses exist?
Okay.
All right.
We got it.
We got to move on then.
So.
I'm not saying that viruses don't exist.
I'm saying that I'm seriously as a scientist trying to look.
Okay.
All right.
You did.
I got to have this discussion with somebody else.
Let me, let me, let me, let me.
You did just say that, but you're not sure viruses exist.
And not to be.
I'm not saying that viruses don't exist.
I'm saying that I'm seriously as a scientist trying to look.
Okay.
All right.
Let me, let me, let me.
You did just say that, but you're not sure viruses exist.
Not to be a creep, but he did just say that the flu test.
Do you believe that the hospital could go with the.
I'm not.
I'm not convinced that viruses exist.
Okay.
All right.
We got it.
We got to move on then.
So.
Okay.
All right.
I got to have this discussion with somebody else.
Let me.
Yeah.
Let me, let me, let me.
Since Livio is showing up, that means I'm not a time here, but let me, let me ask you this.
It's really important question.
How do we resolve.
Questions in science.
And let me give you a perfect example.
That's really, really important, which is autism.
And I've done independent surveys that are very impressive.
That show vaccines are correlated with autism.
The more vaccines the kid gets, the more likely they are to get autism.
I surveyed the parents to ask them what their experience was.
The parents couldn't collaborate on the, on the results.
And there was a perfect straight line.
It was a linear correlation.
There are a lot of scientific articles about that relationship.
Right.
But we don't have to get into the, into the relationship.
But when I looked at that, I said, there's no possible way that vaccines could not be causing
autism.
And, and I look at that and I say, this is like, it's just not going to happen.
If there's like, it's statistically impossible.
I had 10,000 people in this survey.
And then I heard have other statistics as well.
But it'd be, let's not get into the specifics of this.
My question is, how do we resolve these questions in the scientific community?
Because there are a thousand papers that say vaccines don't cause autism.
And there are a thousand papers that say they do.
And the doctors are all saying, well, we, we.
It would be very simple for him to promote this book because he's had Dr.
Brian Hooker on his show before.
He knows all about children's health defense.
He knows the children's health defense is made up of people that have been trying to
point out that autism and vaccines are intimately linked.
He knows that Dell Bigtree does that.
He knows that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
did that with C.H.D.
knows that C.H.D.
is still doing it because he just had Brian on not too long ago.
Brian even took the time to record some kind of thing for Steve's roast that
that Steve barely even played or or or paid any respectable thank you for.
And so now he's talking like he's the one who's figured out that that vaccines
cause autism.
What about all the moms that actually have autistic children?
What about all the dads like Brian Hooker who's got an autistic child who's is an adult now?
How about how little humility here and hand the ball off to the people who've been carrying it?
Notice that I'm not saying it's me cause it ain't me.
There's plenty of people out there that deserve credit for and promotion of these ideas.
It ain't Steve Kirsch.
Can we have a little humility here?
Brian Hooker is the only guy who drove across the United States on his own and his own car
to meet with somebody from the CDC to get the data that was necessary to show that
African American kids were being damaged and that the CDC had hid the data.
He's the one who did that, not Steve Kirsch.
Not even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did that.
Although he can swing from metal hooks and do push-ups with his shirt off.
He's not the one who did that.
Brian Hooker is.
Unbelievable how little humility this whole community has for the idea that we were all taken.
And any of us that were taken in 2020 by any part of this narrative.
I don't care if you thought it was the right thing to do to raise money for early treatment.
You were running around for something that didn't need running around for and you should have been fighting
for the people that were getting murdered in hospitals for two years.
We all should have been fighting more for the people who were being murdered in hospitals.
Getting so tired of this.
But I ain't gonna quit.
This is who I am. This is what my family is.
We were kicked out of a moving truck twice now in this pandemic.
We're not going to give up and neither are you argue these things.
We don't argue these in debates.
It's not.
Debates.
Decide this.
It is in the scientific literature.
The scientific literature is half of it is fake and half of it is real.
And the scientists can't tell the difference.
So how do we resolve scientific questions like do vaccines cause autism?
Is the COVID vaccine safe?
You know, does a virus exist?
How do we how do we how do we how do we get to resolution of these because like.
I think the way we get to the resolution of some of these things is that we say them the way that they need to be said.
So what I would do is something like this.
I might say intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
I might say something like transfection and healthy humans is criminally negligent and I might ask them or dare them to challenge me to support these statements.
That's what I might do.
Maybe you could just say something like that, Steve.
Say something courageous like maybe that the entire vaccine schedule of America when you compare it to any other western nation has to be considered criminal.
There's no other explanation for the number of shots and how early they are applied to our children other than criminality.
Why not just say something courageous like that instead of saying how do we resolve these crazy questions in the literature when half the literature is a lie.
You just start with the truth then that's how you do it.
You start with the truth.
The vaccine schedule is criminal intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the irreducible complex system of the immune response is a dumb idea.
The autism question has been out for 20 years.
Right.
The autism question was answered a long time ago.
You know, that's the thing.
It's been answered.
The question of safety of the COVID vaccine is already established firmly in the scientific literature.
There are more autopsies than you can shake a stick at and they've been done down to looking at the pathology of the cells themselves using.
Well, you're saying you're saying the COVID vaccines are killing people.
I'm saying that there are maybe.
I don't know how many autopsies have been done in great detail.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And so on.
Yeah.
And they demonstrate using.
A link.
A causal link.
Of a pathologist.
Right.
The cause of death is that they were injected.
Period.
Right.
That's not my question.
Right.
But that's not my question.
The problem is that the science, there are people in the scientific community who say, Oh, that's bullshit.
That was a bad study.
You know, like the Cleveland Clinic study, they'll say, they'll say, Oh, that was a bad study.
Oh, the vaccines are safe.
You should get the shot.
How do we, how do we resolve this in the public's mind?
How do we come to a resolution of what is true and what is false?
Are the quote?
Like, I don't want any scientific questions.
We're not in the business of determining what the public mind should think.
No, but that's, but that's.
People have to.
Yes.
Yeah.
But there's no.
How can we, how can we assist.
The public to determine the truth of scientific.
Questions.
I'm trying to assist the public by doing the best science that I can.
I know how you do it.
And as simply as I can.
You know how you do it.
You teach people.
You teach people the biology and then you let them learn for themselves.
Actually, that's the best way to do it.
You, you throw down a rope ladder.
And you help people up into the tree.
Then you put a, a waist belt around them and clip them to the safety line.
And you teach them some basic rules like, you know, always one hand and one foot for the tree.
And then you start climbing.
This is not.
This is not how science is supposed to be.
This is not what science is supposed to do for us.
Science is not supposed to be.
A closed off library of knowledge that only certain people with keys.
And, and, and the.
The codex can learn.
If science and biology are going to give us what they should give us as a species, we should come to understand ourselves better.
Through science.
We should come to understand our what makes us sacred.
Better through science.
And that's what science used to do for me.
That's what science always did for me.
Is that it made me appreciate the complexity.
Of what I was looking at under the microscope.
I could so easily imagine like, wow, what am I looking at here?
I'm looking at this tiny little sliver.
Of what makes a mouse, what a mouse is.
And my goodness, what goes on inside the head of my son.
And there were times when I would just, I would be overwhelmed.
Sitting in front of my microscope with a black and white image of a, of neurons from a mouse.
And I would just be overwhelmed with this sense of awe.
That I was even allowed to look at this image, never mind makeup.
Scientific investigations to try and understand what's going on there and, and, and pretend like I was really making progress contributing to some understanding of what was going on inside of this.
And possibly complex thing.
But I loved that job. I really did because it did make me feel that every day.
This reverence for, for, for a little mouse.
And if you can have a reverence for a little mouse, then every time you see your son come in the house, throw his backpack on the floor, you think tears can come running down your eyes.
And none of these people are, none of these people are there anymore with their understanding of what our children are as perfect. They're, they're not there anymore understanding what our babies are as perfect.
These people, they don't, they don't see it.
And I don't know why, but I do know that it is our sacred duty.
We are brought here for one reason and one reason only and that we are the gardeners of this.
We are the tenders of this garden.
And the really weird thing about it is is the most important piece of the garden is ourselves is our, our humanity.
Just like an elephant is one of the gardeners of their jungle. We were supposed to be gardeners of our, of our, our world.
I mean, have you ever imagined what it would really be if, if, if we did it the way we should be doing it?
Imagine if my great grandfather on the plot of land that they had in Cadet, Wisconsin would have planted the right arrangement of oak trees and then carefully trained them over his lifetime so that they twisted together in the right way to make the perfect house.
Not a very big house, but a log cabin made out of living oak trees.
It's not impossible. It's a project that would take you 20 or 30 years, 40 years, 50 years.
But it's not that different than the beautiful trees that you see in Japan where they cut them just the right way so that they grow these perfect cedar pieces of wood so that they can make their perfect houses and they actually just grow these trees
and they, they prune them and they get new wood all the time. And so this, that's where we should be.
At one with nature, trying to find ways to maximize mother nature's productivity and our ability to dwell within it.
And so we are very, very far off course. There's really no question about it. But what's most important to see is that none of these people are offering us a way out.
None of these people are offering us a viable way forward. None of these people have a vision of the sacred biology that can is capable of leading us forward.
Because they see our unhealthy, poisoned, malnourished, screen ridden children as being little urchins.
They see their children as the future, not ours.
Man, oh man, I'm fired up. I love it, Denny.
And you do a great job of that.
We're trying to help medical people, other scientists, communicators and the general public to do a great job with how we do it. Okay.
You're doing an awesome job, Denny. But the problem is that these fact checkers will say that, oh, it's not published in the peer reviewed literature.
He didn't consider this. Tracy Beth Hoegg will say, oh, gee, if this paper was true, they're going to be throwing all this bullshit at you.
He wants to talk.
Let me put your question, though. What you're basically asking me is, what can we do about the fact that the people who have power determine truth and what the narrative is?
Exactly.
Yeah.
And the answer is the same answer that has been around historically since the beginning of time.
Human societies.
Why is Steve excited? Steve excited because he's not talking about the fact that there's no virus anymore. They've gotten him off that topic.
So now Steve can smile again. It's very funny.
They are always organized as dominance hierarchies.
And they can be more democratic where different social groups and social classes have more influence and play a role in determining where the nation as a whole is going to go.
Or they can be very totalitarian where there's no such thing and everybody that's not part of that elite circle is a surf and that's all there is to it.
And so you can have these different structures and the answer is every person and every group and every social class and every professional class.
And if they feel that they prefer society that's more close to the democratic end, then they have to do everything they can to fight to move things in that direction.
And so you have to eat each person has to decide what what am I going to do and most people have to combine that decision with what am I going to do to survive and what am I going to do to make sure that my kids are okay and that I'm okay and so on.
So that the end often you can combine the two in a very effective way.
So that's what people are doing as much as they can.
But overall, the biggest determinant of this societal structure are the big wheels that really control things.
And I have written about this and talked about it often.
It's all about geopolitics.
The geopolitics is what is is what turns the world geopolitics is the reality that will affect your life in the U.S. in Canada more than anything else for on the on the time scale of decades.
Okay.
There was freedom after the Second World War because of geopolitics.
There was changes in society in the 60s and 70s because of geopolitics.
There was a closure and a removal and a back racking against democratic influence in the 80s and 90s because of geopolitics.
There was a sudden increase in predatory globalization at the early 90s because of geopolitics and U.S. corporations were given a free hand to take all the European corporations, Japanese and so on because the Soviet Union had just dissolved.
And so I've written a very large paper about geopolitics and how it impacts our lives and how it even determines what the ideology in the West is going to be.
Wokeism and all of that. The origin of it is geopolitical.
And one can study that. I wrote a big paper in 2019 about this.
That's been Steve does not like this discussion at all because his handlers don't like this discussion at all that it's about geopolitics that it's about land grabs.
It's about resources. It's about controlling waterways.
It's about controlling food.
It's about controlling supply chains.
And so we're supposed to pay attention to like, you know, the slaughter of people in Gaza.
We're supposed to pay attention to the latest variant. We're supposed to pay attention to the latest connections to Epstein.
We're not supposed to be paying attention to the geopolitical consequences of all the nonsense that's going on right now.
We're not supposed to pay attention to what's being changed in our food supply was being destroyed in our supply chain.
How rules and regulations are being changed on with regard to international trade.
These are not things we're supposed to pay attention to. We're supposed to be worried about the who trade the who committee.
The who treaty. That's what we should worry about.
I think I'm going to end it here. I'll watch this later and see if there's anything else that I miss at the end.
If you've seen the end of this one already, maybe you can recommend it as well.
Otherwise, I think we've gotten the meat out of that one. And I think Denny did an absolutely fantastic job.
Had making sure that the main message got out, which there is no evidence of spread.
In fact, what did he say? No evidence of spread. June 2nd. It was really mass homicide.
Excess mortality happens not only with transfection, but also with the rollout of particular protocols.
There was nothing to be saved from. So how could there be a benefit from the transfection?
Excuse me. I did notice that they did not use the word transfection, although they did talk very much about there not being a virus to the great uncomfortableness of Steve, which made me very happy.
How to see the medlers. They don't talk about childhood vaccinations, or if they do, they talk about it like a non.
Just like a thing that can't be solved as Steve talked about it tonight. I'm not really sure how we ever are going to answer these questions.
There was Steve's conclusion. Let's not talk about strict liability for all pharmaceutical products. That would be a pretty easy way to solve that problem too.
Let's not talk about the use of protocols to create mass casualty events as a meaningful data point, even though they kind of did.
Steve has never really talked about it before and doesn't do it regularly. Didn't use the word transfection. Didn't use the word clones.
Attacked people versus ideas? Hmm, I don't know. And unable to summarize across the entire show, that's almost certainly what happened here.
Because even though we said there was no evidence of spread, they couldn't summarize to the point whether that means we didn't need to transfect anybody.
And I wish people would make that point more often.
I also wish people would bring up the point of where the excess deaths in America are coming from.
And I don't always get to it myself, but I noticed that they never talk about any other possible causes of excess deaths.
Like anything to do with the lockdowns, anything to do with opioids, anything to do with suicides, anything to do with depression.
They mention these things, but they don't mention the fact that they could contribute to all cause mortality rise.
They could then be blamed on COVID. So tomorrow, I'm going to try and do a show at noon.
I don't know how well this is going to work for you guys who like to be here late night.
But for my family, it's going to be better if I'm doing a noon show with my slide deck and my late shows as either a question and answer or a study hall with no slides like I did tonight.
So I have a slide deck prepared for tomorrow that I'm going to put on in the afternoon sometime between 12 and two so that I'm done before the boys get home.
And then after the kids are in bed, if all goes well on any particular night, I'm going to plan to do study halls in the evening.
This doesn't mean that there's going to be a show every day at noon, but I'm going to target doing a show every day at noon as opposed to doing a show every day at nine.
And so if that means that I'm going to push a study hall to noon and not do it at night, that's more likely to happen than the other way around going forward.
I think this is going to be better because this is also going to allow me to make videos for my wife's yoga channel.
And it's also going to allow me to put my videos up on sub stack on the same day that I have streamed them, which right now I'm falling behind very quickly because of the way this works.
And so I need to get a schedule where my day is broken up in the right way.
And right now what ends up happening is that I'm working on my stream until the very end and then I decide at the last minute whether I'm going to go on.
And then as usual, I'm up here until 1130 and I'm so excited to have spent this time with you that when I turn the stream off, it's not like I can just go hit the pillow and pass out.
And so instead I have to watch or study or I have to read something and so then it ends up be one o'clock before I go to bed and then I'm not up early and then this whole cycle repeats.
So we're going to try and break that cycle by doing a 11 o'clock noon.
I'm just going to go with my feeling for these first days until something starts to feel like the right time and then we're going to start to schedule it.
So you're going to have to bear with me.
This is a work in progress. Like I said, my wife has been brought on to the operation and so there's going to be more ways to communicate.
You're going to be more up to date when we start to do the the PDFs and we're going to come up with a few more ways to support that don't have to do with PDFs and send all and that kind of thing.
But I do think my PDFs are going to be something that you're going to want to download and they're going to be free anyway so you can.
But the point is I think it'll make subscribing seem a little bit more like something that's worthwhile.
So anyway.
Wow, I wasn't planning on saying anything and then I said that we are going to discuss this.
This this idea tomorrow.
I've got a really interesting one of my favorite YouTube channels that has nothing to do with COVID actually has all to do with motorcycles that he's a Canada guy did this video about self driving cars that I think I can use to teach some biology, which is just crazy
but I teach some biology specifically about about how do I do that like this, this nonsense right here.
So I put this stream or this slide up every night but I have never really taken the time to explain it.
So we'll talk about Neuralink and we'll talk about Elon Musk and the whole AI thing and we'll talk about self driving cars, motorcycles and biology I guess.
So it's kind of like we're revisiting the motorcycles and and compound pose video from JC on a bike or JC in the woods all that long time ago.
So anyway, stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group.
Don't forget that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting your beautiful immune system is dumb and you know where to find me and I will be here again tomorrow.
Remember it'll be in the afternoon tomorrow, maybe for lunch or early afternoon possibly even 11 Eastern but I think that's too early for you West Coasters and then we'll we'll see how we do the evening shows.
You can find me at giggleonbiological.com the archive there is a little bit more up to date and you can find a one time donation there and if you scroll down you can find a way to also do the subscribing thing.
So thank you very much for joining me it's been really fun and I will see you again tomorrow thank you.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Hey that looks better that's better I like that so the guys in gold are not subscribers necessarily but they just made a donation and so I'll update the gold list separately from the active subscribing supporters.
Again your name is bigger it's because you either you know I've donated in other ways to or you know who you are.
Anyway thank you very much these are the people that make this possible I do have to say that I need I need a lot more support than this if we're going to keep this up over the next years to come and I do think it's important enough to try and do that.
So if you can help me by sharing this stream with as many people as you can that would be really really great not driving into important stuff is hard.
That's what we're going to talk about tomorrow I'm so excited see you later.