All right, hopefully this sound check will be better.
We are back with Denny Rancourt from Canada talking about the Lancet paper from September
of 2022, which has basically been lampooned by giving it the Nobel Prize as a backing.
And so now drawing attention to its analysis, Denny has decided to take it upon himself
to see what this analysis really means in real terms.
And so he was just giving us an introduction and we were out of sync.
Still out of sync, it says, well, whatever, we're going to keep going because I'm recording
fine.
So go ahead, Denny, take it away.
Okay.
Well, so as I was saying, the Nobel Prize is a political propaganda instrument.
And that's the general rule.
And when it was announced for some aspects of the developments in the lab that led to
the, I guess, the development of the vaccine that was then injected into billions of times
into people's arms, when that Nobel Prize was awarded, everyone, virtually everyone in
the mainstream sort of sounding echo chamber was saying that this vaccine had saved millions
of lives and tens of millions of lives.
So you had the New York Times saying that blasting it was all front page news and everyone
who would mention it in these leading media like the New York Times, the Washington Post
and so on.
I made a list of them.
I actually cited them in my article there.
They would all talk about these millions of lives that were saved.
And I thought, this is crazy how, you know, there has never been a clinical trial that
has shown or demonstrated or even suggested, I would argue even suggested that you could
reasonably take to suggest that this vaccine had ever saved a life and could save lives
because mortality was not an end point in these trials.
So this was completely outside of science.
This was coming from somewhere else.
And when you look at what the somewhere else was, where was this coming from?
Where were they getting this number of a million or 10 million lives saved?
Well, it turns out that science news, science is a leading science journal and they have
a news section and science news talked about the Nobel and referred to the scientific paper
that had calculated this tens of millions of lives saved.
And that was the paper that you mentioned.
And so they made that link and we went in and looked at this paper.
And it turns out that the paper is just, well, first of all, the research is funded by Gates
and the World Health Organization, et cetera.
That's clear.
And the paper is a modeling paper.
And I would argue that these people, this is not, this is the opposite of good science,
okay, because they did not check to see if their theoretical calculation or prediction
or, you know, counter view as they call it, they didn't check to see if it actually stuck
with something that was reasonable and realistic and could actually happen in the real world.
They didn't make that verification.
They just came up with a number and then reported it.
So I thought that this is really nasty stuff.
And so we looked in detail at how they had done it and what they did exactly.
And we thought, my God, this is complete fabrication.
It's garbage.
Now, let me be clear.
I don't mean that the actual mathematical calculations in the paper are incorrect.
And I don't mean that the principle of how they try to calculate this is incorrect.
What I mean is that they are making assumptions about what to input into that model that are
just wild.
Like, why would you believe that these inputs are valid?
And also, if you do believe that they're valid because Pharma is telling you that they're
valid and so on, then when you calculate the consequence of those assumptions and you
get ridiculous numbers, why don't you question yourself?
You have to go back and say, well, what the heck was that?
How is this possible?
I'm doing a proper calculation with known science and I'm doing it mathematically correctly.
I'm not making, you know, there are no bugs in my program and not making any errors.
And I input what Pharma claims is the efficacy of these vaccines.
And I input what according to testing of people and so on would have been the prevalence
of people who are susceptible to being infected at various times during the pandemic.
I input all of that.
And I end up with a number of people that would have been saved by this huge vaccine rollout
that was actually done in the real society that is just a ridiculous number, tens of
millions of people that would have been saved.
So what we wanted to do in our paper is we wanted to show graphically, if this was true,
what would it mean?
What would it look like?
In terms of hard data, when you're looking at all cost mortality itself as a function
of time in any given country, in terms of hard data, what they're saying, what would
it look like?
And so we made a bunch of graphs to illustrate what it would look like if you actually believed
in their calculation and you just put it on the graph of what that would mean in terms
of all cost mortality.
This is the kind of thing that you get.
Now we started in the paper, we did, in fact, we did 95 countries.
So we did this calculation for 95 countries.
You see, the original authors, Watson et al, predicted for many, many countries, more
than 95, in each case, how many lives would have been saved in each of those countries.
We had data for 95 countries, so we applied their method and their number to see what
it would give on these graphs.
And so we started with the United States because it's a very large jurisdiction that
there's good data and it was spectacular what happened in the United States.
So when I show a graph like the one you're showing now, the top panel is actual all
cost mortality where you have the Y scale starting at zero.
So you actually see the number of deaths starting at zero by week in the USA for the whole country,
all ages.
And you see that as soon as the pandemic is announced, there's a faint vertical line there,
you get a peak that surges up in the United States like that, which was due to people
being killed in hospitals by very aggressive protocols and things like that.
But the point is, the high peaks in mortality are unprecedented in recent history.
So you get the usual gradual seasonal variations before, but then during the COVID period,
you get this huge structure and a lot of peaks.
And some of those peaks are directly related to increases in vaccination and so on.
And so you can see the cumulative vaccination curve there on the same graph.
We put it there for comparison.
And what they're saying amounts to the red line that we put on the graph there.
So in other words, the all cost mortality, if what they're saying is true,
would have not been the blue line, which is the actual measured value,
but would have been this red line if what they're saying is true.
So the mortality by week would have risen to that kind of level in the United States,
which is a huge level.
You already have huge, huge peaks during the COVID period,
but they're talking about going way beyond that to these very high levels, you see.
And you can represent the same thing for the United States as an excess all cost mortality.
So where you take out the regular seasonal pattern and you just see in terms of an excess,
compared to the historic trend recently in the last five years, what these peaks would look like.
And so you get just the excess compared to the seasonal trend.
You see all that structured during the COVID period.
And you see this much higher mortality that they say would have occurred
if we didn't have these wonderful vaccines to bring it down to those levels there, you see.
But I mean, then we really averted a disaster.
Yes. Yeah, that's the point is that we averted.
I mean, if we hadn't rolled out these vaccines like we did there,
oh my God, it would have been so much worse than the horrible calamity that it was in the US, you see.
But this illustration, we started with the US because it's such a big jurisdiction.
There's good data.
But when you do this for other countries, it's even more striking.
It's just unbelievable.
So maybe we could show just a few more countries to show you how ridiculous what they're proposing is.
Because if you move just to Canada, which is the next one, for example,
the all cost mortality excesses during the COVID period in Canada are much smaller than in the US.
That's because you didn't have New York City anywhere in Canada.
That's right.
And the virus didn't cross the border into Canada hardly at all.
It didn't dare to cross the border.
And so you had this very low mortality in Canada comparatively.
And what they're saying is that those are the deaths that would have occurred if we hadn't vaccinated.
So you have to wrap your head around this.
What they're seeing in Canada, if you look at all cost mortality, it's basically a flat line.
And they're saying if we hadn't vaccinated right when we started vaccinating,
there would have been this huge mega surge in all cost mortality.
And that's what we saved you from.
So they have to argue that excess all cost mortality and all cost mortality itself
would have had to surge precisely when they started vaccinating.
And we saved you from that.
So you have to believe them that mortality,
they rolled out the vaccines at just the right time to avert this incredible disaster.
You see, and if you believe that, you know, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.
You know, I mean, this is crazy, right?
And it's so stunning when you look at Canada like that.
And it's even more striking in other countries.
If you go down to a few more examples, we did, for example, we did all of Europe.
We added a bunch of countries in Europe.
We see we see essentially the same thing in Europe as if you were looking at the entire United States.
I mean, what is compelling about these graphs is the is the cumulative vaccination in the gray line.
Yes, so that you know where these these these presumed save deaths have to occur.
You can't save anybody before the vaccine rollout.
And so it's extraordinary because you are really claiming it's like they're they're claiming that
the the evolution of the natural spread of a virulent pathogen would have been such
that at that time there would have been these huge peaks in mortality.
And thank God we got the vaccines out in time because we hit it right at the right moment to bring it down.
And look at look at the the country you're looking at now, Singapore.
I mean, it's as flat a line as you can have.
And they're claiming that it would have been this incredible through the roof thing just unbelievable.
And they brought it right back down to the to the flat line, you see.
So these these things are really incredible, these vaccines.
Now, the other thing too is that they always the the result is you always bring it back to what normally you were seeing before.
So not something lower and not something halfway in between, you see.
The vaccines have had a perfect effect of bringing back the mortality right down to the observed mortality,
which is pretty much the same as it has been historically.
Except for these additional peaks like in the U.S. and Europe that occur in the COVID period.
But you want us to believe a couple of pretty extraordinary things.
You want us to believe that the natural evolution of this thing more than a year into the pandemic
is such that there would have been this huge surge in mortality.
I mean, huge unprecedented in the history of the world as we know it.
OK, and that you saved humanity from that and brought the mortality down to precisely not halfway, not a third of the way,
but precisely down to basically what we've been seeing during the COVID period or historically before in some in some nations.
That's what they want us to believe.
That's where the 14 million saved lives comes from.
So when you when you plot what those 14 million saved lives look like on these graphs,
that's the kind of thing that they're actually proposing.
So when you put it in terms of all cause mortality, which is a hard number like that,
you realize that what they're telling us to believe is absolutely absurd.
Complete nonsense.
There's there's there's never been any phenomenon like this.
There's never been that kind of mortality.
There's never been you know, waiting, having waves of a pandemic, supposedly a pandemic.
And then after a couple of waves of it, all of a sudden the next resurgence of it is 10 times more intense in terms of causing mortality
than the first waves of it were right at the time when you happen to be rolling out a vaccine.
This is what they want us to believe.
And the other striking feature of what we saw is that in fact, if you look closely in detail at the all cause mortality itself,
you see the opposite of what they're saying.
You see that it increases when you roll out the vaccine.
So on the finer scale of actually looking at the data itself, we showed in the paper that you see these these these increases
and not just regular increases and a higher kind of level, but also peaks when they roll out the the the boosters and so on.
You get peaks and you know, I've written papers about that and so on.
So we've actually calculated how many deaths are caused by the injections in other papers.
But in this paper, we just wanted to show just how insane what they were proposing is.
And so this this means, Jay, that they didn't have a reality check in their mind.
They didn't bother to think, does this make any sense?
Are we proposing something that is realistic, that that is believable in the real world?
What does it look like in terms of the actual mortality that would have occurred?
You know, they did they never question themselves in that regard.
So it's it's crazy for that reason.
And so we concluded in the paper, hey, we concluded, hey, how did this get through peer review?
How did how did editors and reviewers and the authors themselves misguide them to this degree,
misguide themselves to this degree or not see or not bother to think about what this meant?
You know, it's funny, they even have in their paper, they even have a graph like that.
Yes, they have deaths averted by vaccines direct in light blue and then deaths averted by vaccines
indirect in green.
Well, how would you indirectly avert death?
Yeah, they're a mission or infection at all.
Yeah, that's right.
They're looking at two different mechanisms of that's infection, which the vaccine prevented you from.
So there's one that you were where you die from getting sick from the infection.
And there's one where there's more deaths because there were more infections.
So the transmission, if you like, they have a transmission component in there as well.
And so basically, their calculation is in two steps.
They have to have a scenario for how the spread, how the pandemic would have evolved in time.
So that has to involve spread, their model of spread.
And then they have this idea of how many of those people who get infected would likely get very sick and die.
And then they have to fold in that they were vaccinated and there's a certain
efficacy for that vaccine against being very sick.
So they would have been saved.
And so they have to fold all that in to calculate how many people would have been saved.
So there's a certain degree of preventing spread of the vaccine, if you like.
So they fold that in to prevent the spread part, you see.
And so this is what they're doing.
And even in that part of their work, you can easily be very critical because one of the things they do to predict spread is they take the reproduction number, the R number,
to be what you get from a first look at number of cases versus time.
And then they keep that R number throughout, which is kind of crazy, OK?
So they apply a method that gives them a virus, if you like, that spreads much more and is more virulent at that time later on.
That's in the end what they have to have because they have to have a lot of presumed deaths
that you have to save people from.
So they were not very critical of their own approach when it came to predicting the degree to which this thing would spread in the future.
In the future, you see, they have to do all of this to get these huge numbers, OK?
So it's just bad, bad science.
And I mean, it puts in doubt the whole publication process at this top journal.
And every time a paper like this gets published, you have to wonder, what were the reviewers thinking?
Who were these reviewers?
How could they be so blind and incompetent and unquestioning of what some authors are doing that is completely novel and completely fabricated?
How could they be so unquestioning?
Are they not able to see it?
Are they incompetent?
And on the other hand, what about the editors?
How did the editors pick these reviewers?
Did the editors go with only the reviewers that thought it was OK and ignore the reviewers that were critical of it?
What were the editors doing to get this thing through?
And the editors, are they themselves scientifically illiterate to be able to do this?
To do a theoretical calculation and never, Feynman is a great physicist.
And he would always bring us back to the common sense.
Does this make any kind of freaking sense, right?
And you have to do that constantly when you're doing theoretical projections.
You have to ask yourself, wait a minute, would the radius of the Earth need to be 10 times what it is for this to be true?
In that case, maybe I should rethink about what I just did here.
And so that's what you have to...
That's how scientists have to behave.
They have to be critical of their own ideas, not just rub their hands because they get something that gates will like.
And therefore, let's go with it because we know the editors will accept it.
So that's my critique of that paper.
But then there's another level of critique, which is once that paper is published,
what the Nobel Prize Committee people who selected this prize,
they were obviously affected by this paper and this idea that millions of lives were saved.
Are these people scientifically illiterate?
Are they not able to question themselves and say there's a claim out there that millions of lives were saved?
What's it based on?
We need to examine this and we need to do some fact checking
because after all, we are the Nobel Committee that's going to give the prize in medicine.
So let's give this a good, thorough look at.
No, no, they didn't do that.
In their press release, they talked about millions of lives saved.
And essentially, that means this is one of the reasons that this is a valid Nobel Prize, right?
So the Nobel Prize Committee itself had to be clueless, had to be unscientific,
had to be unquestioning, had to look for something, a prize they wanted to give
and not bother thinking for themselves about whether or not this made any sense.
And then they repeated this millions of lives saved thing, which is nonsense.
And so the Nobel Prize Committee was at fault.
All the leading media were at fault, you know, the trend leading media, they were all at fault.
The reviewers were at fault, the editors published it were at fault,
and the authors of the article were at fault.
It's a complete meltdown of the whole establishment of science when you have this kind of crap
being produced, submitted, accepted, and then talked about uncritically,
and then media who affect public opinion just repeating this stuff.
And as though it were some big truth about the world, that millions of lives were saved.
Complete nonsense.
That's what I wanted to tell you about.
I think it's beautiful.
I think the thing that gets me is trying to get this to the way my neighbors can understand it.
Yesterday, I kind of struck gold with saying that what they've told you in 2020
is that there's a new cause of death on the planet.
It wasn't there before and is there now that contributes more death than there would be.
And we don't see that in the math.
There's no new cause of death that we can see as a signal.
And except for these these protocols and stuff, but that's not a new cause of death.
And so my question is, in your many years, analyzing all of these countries,
does the United States really stand out as a country that has a number of geographic anomalies
in all cause mortality that aren't present in other places?
Are we just a big country?
And that's the way it is?
Oh, well, we're preparing now our next paper, which will be pretty much about the entire world.
We've got a lot of countries on every continent,
and we'll be explaining the systematics of what happened in the world.
In our next paper, but the USA was was very similar to Europe taken as a whole.
As I showed in this latest paper, we saw some graphs to that effect.
OK, but when you go country to country in Europe or even state to state within the United States,
you get jurisdictions that are nothing like the average for the entire United States
or the average for all of Europe, OK, where you have much less, much less mortality
and you have no excess mortality in places where just a neighboring state might have a huge peak in mortality.
You see, so it's it's incredibly heterogeneous, the mortality.
And there are there on every continent, there are countries that virtually nothing happened
until they rolled out the vaccine.
So you can directly see in the all cause mortality.
And this is true to some degree of certain states, it's largely true for Canada.
And it's it's very clearly true for a lot of countries, unambiguously true that you you cannot detect
and excess mortality until they roll out the vaccines.
Then you get a surge in all calls in in additional all cause mortality above the historic trend.
And then when they roll out these particularly dangerous boosters, you get an extra peak,
especially among the elderly every time they roll one out.
So you see all that.
So in other words, the mortality becomes much more uniform in its behavior
when they start rolling out the vaccines in twenty twenty one,
because then you've got kind of a uniform cause of death, if you like.
And they're not being as aggressive with all the protocols and the lockdowns
and the the political actions and so on against people and they open up the economy.
So they normalize things.
So the causes of death that were very prevalent and very heterogeneous
in before they were vaccinating are kind of are dissipated or gone.
And then in during the rollouts, the main cause of death, the extra cause of death is the vaccines themselves.
And so you get a much more regular behavior when you're looking at the world, you see that heterogeneity pretty much disappears.
Basically, you have deaths where you rolled out vaccines.
So, for example, in India, their vaccine, their initial vaccine rollout was three months late.
Well, they didn't have any excess mortality until they actually rolled out that late vaccine and then it surges up.
So it really follows the vaccines.
And the most important point from from our studies up till now,
one of the most important points is that the risk of dying per injection increases exponentially with age.
So it gets very, very high as you get very elderly.
And so this is a vaccine that is particularly toxic for the elderly.
And that and that is in complete opposition to the idea that we should
particularly give it to the elderly to protect them, right?
Preferentially give it to them, make sure they get every booster and everything.
That's that's a nasty, nasty thing in terms of the very real risk of dying that we have quantified.
If you know, it's, I think, one of these things that you can chalk up to the TV common sense.
Remember, they said, well, masks do some, they must do something so you might as well wear them.
And these shots, if they're going to help somebody, we want to help the most vulnerable
without thinking that the shots themselves could be too dangerous for them.
Yes, it's horrible.
And, you know, it's it's scientifically, it makes no sense that they would not think
of the increased toxicity of the vaccines for the elderly, because there's a lot of toxic
ecology out there. It's an entire field of research where they study, you know,
poisonings and overdoses, and they they do animal studies where they inject a certain
known quantity, a constant quantity of a dangerous substance into the animal to see if they'll die
or not and how sick they get and so on. And all of those studies show that the older the animal is,
including humans, the more likely their chance of dying from from that exposure.
And so this is extremely well known, and it locks in with the idea that your your immune system
deteriorates quite a lot as you get older and is more fragile in the sense that if you change an
elderly person's nutrition, if they go to a home and they're what they eat is completely different
than the gut biome changes and that has a dramatic effect on the immune system and on their general
health and so on. So these fragilities are much higher for elderly people than they are for younger
adults and children. So this is this is not new. This is this is extremely well known. It's it's just
criminally irresponsible to have developed a policy that we need to absolutely prioritize the elderly
for this injection without ever doing a trial to see is to see if as a function of age, there is a
higher risk of adverse effects. No trial was specifically designed to answer that question
to my knowledge. And so this is this is criminally irresponsible, especially now that we
know from the all cause mortality that it's a huge effect. It's a huge effect.
And you went in Canada, you guys went pretty hardcore. I mean, I'm like full on and the people
that bought into it bought into it big time, right? I mean, this is yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a very
high vaccination rate, very aligned unipolar propaganda, intense control of the major media.
Um, crazy. Yeah, it's it's heartbreaking, really. And and I don't know where it's going to go, but
it's I think it's going to get pretty hairy in America. I don't know how this is all going to
pan out because the it is really a a schism of of Grand Canyon proportions now. It's really like some
of us think there are Martians and some of us don't. It's it's it's that bad. Right. Well,
it's good that a lot of people well, you can't not have a lot of people being aware because an
awful lot of people were harmed by the by the injections. And it's easy to think that your
parent or grandparent died of natural causes in the home after even though they had been vaccinated
recently, it's easy to think that and you want to protect yourself because you allowed it. So
it's easy to think that. But a lot of elderly people would have died directly as a result of
being inject injected. So that's harder to see. But there's a lot of young adults and children
and so on who have been harmed significantly, not not the huge numbers that you have among the elderly,
but still a lot. And that you you really notice it. And it's not just deaths. It's it's a
permanent disability, heart conditions, you name it. So this ends up creating a a group of
aware people who really feel that the government did them wrong. I mean, it's the basis for
the opposition against childhood vaccinations is that, you know, the a lot of parents have
had their children permanently harmed by these injections. And they understand and they have
come to believe from personal experience from observing their child that this is real. And
this was nasty. And it should never happen to anyone. And that is the basis for things like
Children's Health Defense and and the Canadian equivalent of it and so on. So it's a movement
when you it movements are based on people being abused seriously by the government or by powerful
forces. And that creates a desire to want to defend yourself. And that's that's the basis of
movements. So I think there is, for a long time, there will be a movement of that type.
I don't think very many people move in the opposite direction. The only one that I know of is a guy
by the name of Dan Wilson, debunk the funk is his name on YouTube. And he claims to have been
a conspiracy theorist, and now come back to the good side and believes in in vaccines and everything.
Yeah, I don't I don't know what to say other than if if we can get your paper
onto the defender, we're going to do it again, because I think this is really one of these.
It is really absurd, but it's it's it was sort of a ball that somebody had to hit out of the
park, because you can't make these kinds of claims and and not have them not have them lampooned.
I mean, it's really, it's shocking, really, it really is shocking, if you think about it, that
people still haven't been able to get their head around the idea that they what they told us versus
what actually happened. Jay, Jay, Jake, here's an injection that they're going to force on
billions of people. They're basically going to force you to take this, they're going to
coerce you in every possible way, you can lose your job and so on and so on, make you feel guilty
if you're not protecting the people around you and all this thing, they're going to completely
coerce you to take this to accept that the that the state is going to inject this substance into
your body. And it turns out that substance has no benefit for you whatsoever that can be detected
by hard numbers. And not only that, it has a definite risk of making you either very disabled
or dead. Okay, that's the situation. And then, after you've basically completed this huge military
style campaign where you've injected everyone and you've done these and it's had all these horrible
consequences, then you give the Nobel Prize to someone who was who whose fundamental work was
part of presumably what have developed this vaccine. And then you have everyone scream up
and down the Nobel Committee and everybody saying, this is so wonderful because it's saved millions
of lives. It's saved millions of lives. The same substance that poisoned us, and that is this
horrendous product that should never been injected into people's bodies, is now something that we're
going to celebrate. It's going to be an achievement of human science of the science created by humans.
It's going to go into all the textbooks, we're going to teach it at school, and it has saved
millions of lives. This is this is the mantra that we're going to hear over and over again.
And that mantra is based on what it's based on nothing. There is no scientific basis for saying
that whatsoever. No clinical trials have ever demonstrated that. And it's based on a garbage
simulation funded by the industry for God's sakes, where the authors didn't even double check if their
results made any kind of freaking sense. This is this is the absurdity that we're now experiencing.
So of course, I have to scream it on every rooftop. Of course, I have to write a paper where I
calmly explain this is how you do this calculation. This is what it looks like if you actually
project what it means in terms of real deaths. These are what the grass looks like. This is
what they're claiming, folks. This is what they're claiming. And and try to try to explain to people
that it's just insane to think that this this pathogen would have started being
10 or 20 times more violent right at the time when they happen to roll out the vaccines. You
have to believe that. I mean, this is all just there's layers and layers of insane here. And
every time they make a statement, the reg flags should go up. If you're a thinking scientist,
you should be saying, what? Where's that coming from? How can you even say that? You know, you
should you should be ridiculed in your department. There's you know, when you go to coffee at the
staff meeting, they should snicker at you and say, you actually wrote this paper. Did you see what
it look? I'm looking at figure three here. Does this make any kind of sense? You know, they should
be ridiculed. And normally, in a society that is healthy, that has democracy, that has professional
independence, they would be ridiculed. But we are at such an advanced state of people just want to
protect their careers. We're into totalitarianism. We're into, you know, a society that doesn't have
independent thinkers. And it's not you're not rewarded in any way. If you're an independent
thinker, you're you're in fact, you're penalized for it severely. And so that's the society that
we have now. So scientists can't even ridicule each other. I mean, there used to be, when I was a
staff member at the university, we would have fights because we would we would make fun of each
other's work and and question each other's work and people get really insulted. That was healthy.
That was a good thing. Because you would go back and think, eh, maybe he's right, you know, I better
I better not I better think twice before I say that again at the next conference, you know,
none of that happens now. Everyone's aligned with vaccines are wonderful and, you know, pharma is
saving lives and, you know, all of this stuff, including the scientists and academics. Where are
the critics? Where are they? Yeah, I would I would go so far as to say that I would follow up on what
you just said is that when I first started in academic science, I remember that the old men
and women in the back of the of the room would often just be creeps and say, why should I even
care about this? I just sat in here for 45 minutes and I don't know why I should care about this.
And nobody would ever critique science on that level anymore. And I saw it very clearly because
this Drew Weisman guy has been going around talking about his technology for the last 14
months. You can go and see all of these lectures that led up to the Nobel Prize. And if you listen
to his discussions of immunology and his discussions of how these things work for him, it's really as
simple as previous vaccines used to give us some antibodies. And my mRNA gives us 50 times more.
So it has to be better. And it's the that's the end of the story. Yes. And it's extraordinary
how you have this roomful of people that doesn't go, isn't that a little bit too simple? Isn't that
assuming, you know, a lot? Assuming layers and layers of things. Yes, seriously, layers and layers
of things. Yes. So it's, it's, it's crazy. It's crazy that the establishment will pick on a bogus
argument like that and amplify it and not mention anything else. And that becomes the supposedly
educated view of the subject. It's insane. It's like, you know, the biggest arguments I've had about
against I've had with people who believed in masks and believed in the COVID measures and the
distancing, the biggest arguments I've had were with very educated people, engineers and people
like that, who had just read everything and listened to everything. And because they understood
the arguments that were being made, they thought that they understood what was going on. In other
words, they didn't think to themselves, okay, I understand that, but is there more to it?
Is there stuff that, is there questions I should be asking? Is there, you know, is there more to
this than what I'm being explained in this cartoon and what's being told to me and these
scientific papers that are written? What about, what about this other thing? What about this other
fact? And is that part of it true? They didn't do that. No, they pleased themselves intellectually
by understanding what was being presented to them. They could repeat it because they understood it,
and therefore they became experts in this, and they would argue with you on that basis, you see.
Knowing that there were plenty of people on Facebook and TV to back them up,
that they could point to and say, but these people all agree with me. So it's this.
And scientists as well, who written all these papers that is based on. So these are the people
that you have to argue with. They're, they're people who have tunnel vision,
and who reinforce their tunnel vision by the fact that they can understand technical arguments.
You see, so it's very, it's very, it's a, it's a, it's a crazy world out there.
It definitely is. And then you have the other extreme of people who understand things very
clearly, who are typically working class or from different professions, and their response to my
detailed proofs that this is all garbage is, well, that's obvious. I could have told you that.
I knew that right away because of this and because of that. And they're often quite right.
They've got the big picture, you know. And so I'm kind of working between those two extremes
where I'm trying to help the people who already know to know that there are really rigorous
arguments that you can rely on, and to stab the people in the eye that think they already know
by pointing out that they're making these fundamental errors. So I'm kind of working in
the middle there in our work, you know. Yep. I think this is all, it's all work that has to be
done very slowly because even, even myself, I know that before the pandemic, I didn't know
how many people died every year in America. I didn't know how many people died every week.
And so when these numbers came out, I really had to work very hard to find any context for them
because as this, this picture that I just had up there a second ago of the elanset paper,
it starts from zero. And then there's just a bunch of COVID people. And so you don't have
an idea of the context of how those numbers are being generated and how many of them overlap with
expected deaths. And so most people won't ask themselves those questions. Right. Because they're
so pleased that they understood the graph that's being presented to them that, you know, that suffices
for them. They're not, they're not, they're not questioning. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's just, it's
crazy. I think that people, you know, get, get as far as maybe they hear 5,000 people died of COVID
this week in America. And they might get as far as to divide by 50 states and try to think of
how many people in that, but they don't, they don't ever get to the stage where they're like,
oh, wait, they expected between 50 and 60,000 to die this week. Oh, and now that puts 5,000
into context. Now, how many of those actually died of a respiratory disease? You know, and it's
none. So now you have a real problem. Or, you know, it's all, all pneumonia, but it is a real,
it's something that honestly, I don't think Danny, we could have seen until maybe 2022 though.
And 2023 now, hindsight is clearer because they were holding back deaths in 2020. They were holding
back. Right. I heard that. They were reporting them. And so even what, what Jessica sees now is
clear. I don't, I don't completely agree. I, I, I know that it's true that they were, it took them
a while to, to get all the deaths into their records and they were updating and it was, there
was some significant adjustments as they were updating, but the actual initial peak that surged
in certain hotspots right away, that was clear from the beginning. It was clear that, and it was
clear given the heterogeneity of that, you know, spatially, that it was only happening in hotspots
and, and that this couldn't be a spreading, a spreading viral respiratory disease. The fact
that it was happening synchronously around the world, that you could see it right away in Italy,
Stockholm, New York and Madrid and so on, that it was synchronous with the political announcement
of the, of the pandemic. I don't care about the details of it. Maybe the numbers aren't quite
right because they haven't tabulated everything yet. A synchronous incredible surge in mortality
that occurs when you announce a pandemic is impossible to be from a spreading viral respiratory
disease. And I said that in June of 2020 and it has held true throughout all of my work. Okay.
And so even though there were these difficulties in terms of tabulating, you could tell things
right away. And I did, I did, I saw those things right away. Do you, there were hotspots though,
hotspots of death or? Yes, that's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I mean. I mean, I mean,
all cause mortality. Yeah. And then when the data became more clear, you could see that, okay, now
that, now that we've got really good statistics, there are in those states where I thought,
at first, you're not seeing any kind of a surge, anything like New York State and Vermont and so
on. Okay, there's a little blip there and it's statistically significant, you know, but overall
the picture was exactly what you were seeing at the beginning within almost weeks, you could see it.
And so thinking epidemiologists could know right away that this story was bogus.
But most of the mainstream, most of the mainstream media was using like a nationwide average. And so
these few hotspots were sufficient to, to blab about spread, right? I mean,
no, well, that, that doesn't demonstrate spread. No, but that's what they, they kind of just said
that then the United States, there are new, they don't say a lot of things and you're supposed to
presume that the, that the, that the notion of spread and the virus and everything is, is the
correct notion, right? That's, they play that game all the time. But I mean, there were super
spread. I mean, you can't, you can't question that. There were super spreader events. I mean,
so spreading definitely happens. Right, right, right. There was a lot of crazy stuff. But you
know, when you read the old epidemiology literature of a hundred years ago and so on, these people
were common sense, clever scientists. They, they would have immediately said they're talking garbage.
This shouldn't even be allowed to be told to the public. This is, this really is misinformation.
And please, you know, please talk to the experts, the real experts. They would have just, they would
have just said, no, this is crazy. I'm, you know, I'm coming out of the grave here. I'm one of the
founders of epidemiology. And I want to tell you, this is garbage. You know,
but they don't do that anymore. I mean, epidemiology has been hijacked in a way. And the people that
are, it doesn't, as far as I could see, it's almost non-existent now. The people used to try to
understand disease on large scale from the large scale observations and really try to infer what
could be happening. And there was a lot of that kind of very fundamental work. And it just doesn't
exist anymore. You're only allowed to look at whether people die according to their race. And
whether, you know, poor, more poor people die. And if there's a correlation to your financial
status and things like that, there's certain things that are allowed that you can look at.
We think fundamentally about the nature of death and disease and so on.
Has this had much of an impact on you since you've been speaking out and getting your word out a
little bit? Has it had any negative impacts for you? Are you pretty independent and okay?
Oh, you mean negative impacts on my person and my family?
Yeah, if I can ask, yeah.
Oh, yeah. No, no, no. This has not to, I'm not conscious of it if it has.
You know, this has been very positive for me because I've always been this way. I've always
challenged the dominant views in any scientific field that I've entered. So I'm a fighter,
I love doing this kind of thing. And I've done it all the time. I did it for more than a decade on
the cold global warming stuff. And I could go through a history of all the areas of science
that I worked in where I challenged the dominant paradigms. So this is what I do.
And so, but this, the beauty of this time around is that the public was really involved in the
discussion. So the things that I would normally have almost no public to hear me, except maybe on
global warming and things, I gave some lectures and things like that. But all of a sudden,
on social media, everyone wanted to hear about it. Everyone wanted to understand
my scientific arguments. And I never, I never really encountered that on that scale, you know.
So that was very, a very positive experience to see that there are all these people out there,
even though the majority were maybe not of that group, even though the mainstream media didn't
didn't do their job and were out of it, and the government was really misbehaving,
nonetheless, there are all these people out there who are really thinking independently
and who are starved to hear these arguments and these new perspectives and so on. And that was
very refreshing, I have to say. Yeah, I really enjoyed that. I mean, when I would talk about
global warming, I've done a lot of work on that and did a lot of physics calculations to demonstrate
the magnitude of the effect and everything. And when I would talk about that, even among, even
in a general kind of audience, like in a big auditorium or something, most people were very
critical of what I was trying to say. They didn't really try to understand or really get it. They
were just like, yeah, I guess I misread the title of this talk, this guy's a nut, you know. It was
that kind of a response. But nowadays, it's the opposite. People will travel from far to hear
you, and they don't have to travel when it's on the internet, obviously, but no, it was great.
So I had never been in rallies where everybody, a huge public rally live in person, where people
are interested to hear my views of my technical and scientific views about something. And they're
like sitting on the edge of their seats listening to it, and then wanting to talk to me afterwards
about science. I think I'd never seen that before. So that was a very positive experience for me.
Now, in terms of my, you know, I am financially secure, independent, established life, married,
all that kind of thing. So nothing, none of that has changed. So I didn't suffer a loss of employment
or difficulties with family members or anything like that. A lot of my close family, my siblings,
they completely agree that they're on the side of, you know, thinking that the masks and the
vaccines are pretty crazy. So there were no big, there were no big battles on that front.
I really think it would be important for you, if you have the time, maybe to come back and
meet Jessica Hockett on this stream, because she has done so much work specifically on New York,
and it would be interesting to talk to her because she sees like a 600% increase in mortality for
like four weeks in New York, and that's all that ever happens there. She's still trying to figure
that out. Well, I would have to look at the data and look at what she's doing and how she's starting
to interpret it to really have a good discussion with her. I can already see lots of pitfalls and
caveats when you try to do what she's trying to do. So I can foresee a lot of problems, you know,
but I haven't had time to really look into detail at what she's doing. But I mean, it's great that
she's digging into the data and representing it in different ways and trying to find out more
information as well. It's great that she's doing all of that because New York was a very special
place and in many ways, the state of New York, but also the major centers, hospitals, and so on,
and how they were behaving. So it was a pretty special events there that were occurring, yes.
Extraordinary, I don't know what to say. So your next paper is coming out of all
countries in the world or many countries in the world? Yeah, we're hoping to get it out within
a month or two. But I have to say, I'm going to a conference in Romania, an international conference
on COVID, and we're going to speak at the parliaments. That's going to be a lot of fun.
And we've got our plane tickets and two of my co-authors are going to be there as well.
Yeah, it's going to be great. So that's taking up some of my time preparing that and they're going
to publish a conference book about it and so on. That might slow me down a bit, but
yeah, within a month or two, we should have that big paper out.
A few months ago when I talked to you, one of the things that you were interested in
understanding a little bit better was the library of genome sequences of the virus and
all that business. Have you been able to spin your wheels in that at all?
It's on my to-do list to figure out how PCR works in some detail. I mean, I have a bit of
experience with wet chemistry and I know how you can fool yourself as a chemist easily.
And I've read some of the background and I've read the inventors' criticisms of the technique
and so on. So I know there are a lot of potential places where you can fool yourself easily.
I've so often seen fields where people think that they are able to do something with a certain
precision, but in fact, their accuracy is way off if you distinguish between precision and
accuracy, right? So it's just so easy to fool yourself when you're using this kind of technology.
And I suspect that a lot of that is happening. I suspect that
there's a lot of things that they claim you can do that you can't really do.
I don't know if you'd agree with me, but that's my feeling right now.
I'm sure there's a lot of things you can do with some certainty in a robust way, but there's a lot
of other things you can't do. And this has all been pushed by pharma, the whole development of the
human genome sequencing, that whole project, all the funding. It's all a pharma project to
legitimize more and more sophisticated drugs that supposedly you can target to the people that
won't have bad reactions to them, and it will be beneficial to them if you know their genome,
you know, this kind of stuff. This is the driving force behind this stuff. And let's face it,
there was a Nobel Prize given for PCR, maybe not an accident from a political perspective,
you know, as much as I appreciate the inventor and how brilliant he is and how critical he's
been of things like AIDS and so on. Nonetheless, it was one of those things, you know. So,
yeah, it's something I want to get into. I've got a list of about three or four really major
research projects that I want to get into once I've done the emergency work around mortality.
Very good. Yeah. I'm not letting it out of the bag what some of our
next research is because it's going to be very, it's going to be breakthrough stuff.
But I'm not, I don't want to let it out of the bag. I don't want to talk about it before it's
time. Okay, well, very good. Then you save it up and we'll just, we'll wait and we'll hear
it when it comes. And good luck on your travels. Thank you for joining me. It's been
not surprising, also insightful again to have you here. And it's just, I don't know, it's lucky
that we've got you. I don't know, somebody needed to do this work. You seem to be one of the only
people who's doing it. So it's really, everybody's happy. Thanks for having me, Jay. I love your
venue. I love the way you think. Thanks for having me. Yep. Have a good evening. Thanks. Bye.
Bye. I don't know what the timing is like here. If the timing is really bad, then I'm just going
to edit it and I'll fix it and maybe I'll stream it again. But I'll also put it on Vimeo and I'll
put it on the website. I apologize. You know, I do think that they're starting to mess with me. So
we're going to have to pull some different maneuvers, but I've got a bunch of tricks up my sleeve
yet. So don't worry. We've got a whole YouTube channel that we haven't touched and is just waiting
for us to pull the trigger on. And we have a rumble channel that we're not really filling yet. So
there's a lot of places, a lot of space, a lot of, you know, artillery at our disposal yet. So just
stay calm. Don't panic. I apologize again for the alignment of the video, but don't worry. I'm
always recording here at home base. And so I can rerun it and either put it back on Twitch
or at least have a good video up on rumble and a good video up on my website. So thanks very much
for coming. Looks like the Nobel Prize is based on a little bit of Hoopie Hoopie. A little bit of
hocus pocus. And it's not like we didn't know that, of course. Make sure that you realize that these
people are interested in eliminating the control group by any means necessary. So stop
transfections in humans. Please stop transfections in humans. Say hi to the Broken Science Initiative
for me by going there and making a comment about how badass you go and biological is.
And that Greg Glassman should be on this show. Go over there and make a comment. Thanks very much
for joining me. See you guys again soon. Probably tomorrow because you know we do it every day.
I'm just really excited. I just want you everybody to know if you're still listening that
that Halloween is the night. Halloween is the night. You've got to be around
Halloween like Halloween is going to be big on YouTube for JC on a bike. Just don't forget,
okay? I told you. I told you.