There is no doubt that the science was
such that,
if they didn't know, they were purposefully being
blind. You know? They they there's no way
that they cared about people. There's no way
that they wanted to apply methods to minimize
harm.
It it's the opposite. They wanted to apply
methods
to oppress
and don't and and be dominant
and impose their will on entire populations.
That was the goal. It's easy for them
to fund scientists to say that it's real.
And it's easy for them for those results
to be published in the top journals. They
control everything. Okay? They they they control all
the editors, all the journals. All the scientists
are funded by them. All the scientists that
don't wanna play ball,
can't publish and lose their careers.
They control everything.
I would say that
99%
of medical trials nowadays have to be false.
They're completely funded and controlled by the industry.
Welcome to the last American Vagabond.
Well, between
2020 the end of 2022,
the COVID 19 illusion dynamic,
31,000,000
in excess deaths estimated,
about 17,000,000
estimated due to the COVID 19 injections.
So, where'd the other 14,000,000 go in that
conversation?
We've discussed a lot about the idea
of the the COVID 19 time frame, the
illusion therein, and the different ways you could
mean that, whether these things were non existent,
whether it was an illusion in regard to
the repurposing of different parts of the the
the data, the metrics.
So, somebody who I feel has been on
top of this conversation, I mean, more than
just about anybody else is Denny Rancun. We've
had him on more than once to discuss
his kind of evolving research around this topic.
Really kind of tip of the spear on
this, around the idea of the all all
cause mortality.
Now he's got some really powerful research coming
out around the idea of something he calls
the rather what he frames in the study
is biological stress induced transmissionless
spontaneous bacterial pneumonia,
essentially a self infection caused by environmental stress.
And so he discusses this as one other
aspect, if not the possible primary aspect of
what was going on there. But I invited
him back on to discuss all of this
together,
the illusion around this, the possible factors, and
how it's all these together, the injections causing
very clear death
injury and so on in conjunction with repurposing
of data, but also something that we may
need may cause us to reevaluate how we
view these things in general. This starts to
come very close to the conversation, if not
right in it, between terrain and germ theory.
So, Denny, always good to have you on
the show. How are you? Hey. It's a
pleasure to be here. Pleasure to be back
on your show, Ryan. I love it. Thanks
for inviting me. Thanks for joining me again.
I I really do think your work is
is, you know,
ahead of ahead of the curve around the
idea of what these things are. And I
was I was saying kinda off air before,
what I the reason I respect your work
so much and what you do is that
you you don't shy away from
pointing or or leaning into contentious conversations or
or datasets even, you know, really, if it
makes sense. I I mean, it's funny to
even say that out loud because you'd think
most people, that seems like that would just
be the normal, but it's not. Most people
today seem so afraid to step into certain
conversations if they think it's contentious. So I
just wanted to shout you out for that.
So I I kinda wanted to start today
with with this bigger picture.
Right? So all these different parts, these moving
parts around what what I argue kinda come
together to be the COVID 19 illusion.
But as as we've heard over this kind
of evolving point, you know, some people think
that it was not there at all. Right?
There is no such thing as a virus,
or if there was, it was not really
there in the first place. Some people argue
that the vaccine caused all the death, and
it was, you know, just the illusion they're
in. They were calling it something else. And
then you were pointing out something new in
all of this, which is more so a,
you know, a kind of an evolving understanding
of how the, I guess, germ versus terrain
theory dynamic actually works. So these are different
parts, but all come together, potentially, to cause
what we're watching. And so the first part
of it as I see it is sort
of the the repurposing manufacturing
illness, like the flu, pneumonia becoming COVID, the
false PCR tests, the ventilators, remdesivir. Now these
aren't necessarily in chronological order, but, ultimately, come
together to kinda represent the category of the
illusion, something else being done and then calling
that COVID. Then you've got the psychological aspect,
the lockdowns, the mandates, the the poor treatments.
And then what you add is sort of
a and I I wanna get into explaining
this, the biological environmental reaction from your body
and causing sort of a self infection.
Then there were the injections that are obviously
dangerous. And all those together, you know, combining
them, it creates a picture of, obviously, something
that is very damning, very dangerous.
So let's start with, you know, the the
first part of that in regard to repurposing
manufacturing illness. You know? So is there,
in your mind, a a COVID 19, SARS
CoV 2, and or, you know, how do
you where do you place in that conversation?
Well, okay. Well, first of all, every everything
that I all the hypotheses that I put
forward and the conclusions that I come to
as a scientist are based on hard data.
What I mean is I go straight to
the to the mortality.
The all cause mortality, I feel, is the
most reliable data you can have. It's been
collected by nations for
more than a century.
And, it's legalistically
they're legalistically bound to collect this data, and
it should be of good quality. And you
can test the quality by various measures and
so on. So it's hard data, and that's
what I generally have relied on. So the
very first thing is there is no doubt
that there was a lot of mortality way
before the vaccines were rolled out. There was
excess mortality
in large amount
before the vaccines were rolled out. So that,
you can just you can just establish right
off the bat. Anyone who says
that mortality only started with the rollouts is
simply wrong. It's incorrect to say that.
Another example is that the the, all cause
mortality, when you look at its, temporal and
spatial dependence, which
is
mortality, when you look at its, temporal and
spatial dependence, where this mortality was occurring and
as a function of time by day or
by week, when you look at that in
detail, you can demonstrate
unambiguously
that there was
nothing spreading. This was not
a spreading
cause of death or spreading pathogen. There was
no spread
in the sense
of the epidemiological
beliefs at the moment in in mainstream science.
Okay? There was nothing spreading.
And that is unambiguous
because you get these hot spots of death,
and the neighboring regions do not,
experience the same hot spots of death. They
their mortality does not increase,
following those hot spots.
And so there's no spread. And you can
you can really see
very distinct
regions
of high mortality
that stop at a jurisdictional
border. It's that simple. You know, county to
county in the US or country to country
in Europe or or
subcountry region to subcountry region in Europe, they
they they're they're delimited by these jurisdictional borders.
In other words, what,
local governments were doing
in their,
hospital environments, if you like, and what directives
were being given. That determined the deaths at
the beginning of, in 2020
more than anything else, And it's very, very
clear from these boundaries.
So this was not,
at all the model of a spreading pathogen
that is a pandemic in the sense of
a spreading pathogen.
You can disprove that absolutely.
And my very first paper on the subject
looked at this hard data way back. It
was published on the 2nd June 2020.
And there I said, there is no spread.
This is
institutions and governments killing people by the measures,
that they're applying, mostly in hospitals and so
on. I was very clear. I spelled that
out in that publication right away and showed
the data that demonstrated that. Very real really
quick question. Anyone that stands out in your
mind as the as the top of that
ventilators? What what do you think was the
peak of that the wall? Well, the it
it it's different in different jurisdictions. For example,
but definitely,
in Northern Italy and Milan region and also
New York City, both of those,
did heavy use of of mechanical ventilators. Yes.
Very heavy. Like in Milan, they actually told
people, don't just stay at home. Come straight
into the hospital. We'll save you. And they
developed,
an improvement they considered where they could put
2 people on one ventilator,
and they were just putting everybody on ventilators.
Now the ventilators
are accompanied with,
sedation,
and sedation makes your breathing even worse.
And the ventilators
are known to be strongly associated with developing
pneumonia.
And at the same time, they there was
a hesitancy to treat pneumonias because everyone was
saying, oh, it's viral. It's viral. Don't you're
you're being irresponsible as an MD or a
hospital if you're overtreating with antibiotics.
So there was withdrawal of antibiotics
and these very dangerous techniques and sedation and
so on. And together
and and there was some also some, experimental
drugs that were being used that were that
were shown to be very, very deadly.
And so, for example, in Germany, they weren't
doing any of that,
and there were no excess deaths at the
beginning of 2020 in Germany after the pandemic
was announced. None at all. It's just a
flat line. Whereas in in the immediate regions
that are bordering,
Germany, like in France and Belgium and so
on, you have these hot spots of death
in in large hospitals.
So, it it was very clear from the
start.
And,
but, I mean, there
are many different causes of excess death during
the COVID period,
and not every not everyone was doing the
same thing. But there so there was a
lot.
And one of the one of the really
important causes of death is,
severe treatment of elderly and frail people. So
isolating them is extremely deadly.
And removing their usual routine, their usual,
way that you give them, nourishment and also
hydrate them and their care that they normally
would have,
All of that was disrupted,
tremendously, and they were isolated and treat treated
it,
as a danger to themselves, between themselves, and
so on. So that certainly would have contributed
enormously to deaths,
the frail people. So what was done in,
care homes and hospitals to elderly and sick
people was absolutely horrendous. It was a death
machine, basically.
And so that's what I would that's what
I would,
yeah, I I read a lot of reports
about all these things, and that's how I
would explain the mortality hotspots that we were,
quantifying
using all cause mortality.
Yeah. And I think that's really important. So
as just kind of the first part of
this. Right? And we're I'm and we're gonna
get into more of the germ terrain point
later in this conversation. But just to start,
whether whatever your position on whether these are
possibly existing, the point he's making is that
right there, you can see that it was
not that prior to this time frame. So
there was something else causing this spike in
excess mortality. And so as you just clearly
laid out right there, there's all these obvious,
you know, I guess you could try to
argue these aren't deliberate. I think it's I
I mean, maybe you can comment on that.
I think at some level, you can very
clearly show that there was enough information at
the higher levels to know that these things
weren't working. I would even go a step
further and say that in some cases, you
could show that they knew they wouldn't work.
But give me your thought on that. What
level do you think that was sort of
more than malfeasance and deliberate?
Oh my. Well,
look. The way I understand this is that
there was a decision to have this military
rollout on campaign, and it it was gonna
happen in the western world no matter what.
It was it was a top down decision.
It was planned. It was executed.
So none of the science or none of
what they knew
mattered whatsoever. It didn't matter. The only thing
they were concerned about is,
we don't want it to be too obvious.
We don't want the backlash to stop us
in our plan.
So,
you know, secondary effects from any medication are
acceptable,
and we control the propaganda.
So we'll we'll get this through. You know?
If the vaccine
immediately killed 10% of the people that were
injected, then the backlash would have been too
much. So they had to have something that
was not
straight up deadly,
incredible poison.
But, but if there were deaths, it was
not a problem if you could handle it.
And so and they were following this every
step of the way to make sure that
the backlash would not,
you know,
disrupt their plans to roll out these vaccines.
But it was definitely a plan.
My understanding,
from a social science kind of perspective is
this was a there was a military goal
here, which was to inject everyone.
And,
you wanna be you the vaccine the the
way that the vaccine is a weapon is
if a government or regime
can inject whatever they want whenever they want
into everybody's bodies, then that's the weapon right
there. It doesn't matter what's in there. If
you have that ability, then you have a
weapon, a very powerful weapon that can be
used to,
immunize you
or,
prevent you you know, it can it can
be prevention against another another,
bioweapon that someone else is using. It can
be all these there are all these military
reasons why you would wanna be able to
inject something into everybody's bodies. So they they
definitely wanted to do that.
Whether or not they believe
what I think is largely the myth of,
genetically engineering us to be more susceptible to
things and so whether or not they believe
that, I don't know. I don't know to
what extent their
their,
scientific
nonsophistication
goes,
but they certainly did want to inject us
all. There's no doubt about that. And that
in itself, the capacity to do that is
a weapon.
And,
also, it is a way to,
impose yourself as a dominant
regime.
In other words, if you can force the
population to wear masks,
to isolate,
to not travel,
to, and to be injected directly into your
body, if you can do that and if
you can develop the
all of the institutional
and propaganda
mechanism to achieve that, then you have complete
control of the population.
And and and it's also a pretext to
have complete surveillance as well. Right? So if
you can achieve that, then you've got a
level of control,
a a quantum jump in the level of
control all of a sudden just because you've
done this campaign.
And so I'm sure that that was a
large part of the goal as well. But
my point is that these were the types
of motives.
So whether or not this the stat you
know, they recognize
science was being applied or not is completely
irrelevant. I mean, it was really well known
that,
isolation kills.
That, your propensity
to get,
respiratory infections increases dramatically with the amount of
stress that you're experiencing in your life
and also the amount of social isolation that
you're living in. These are huge factors, dominant
factors for young people to get respiratory infections
and this is extremely well known, extremely well
studied.
So,
there there is no doubt that the science
was such that,
if they didn't know they were purposefully being
blind, you know, they they there's no way
that they cared about people. There's no way
that they wanted to apply methods to minimize
harm.
It it's the opposite. They wanted to apply
methods
to oppress
and and and be dominant
and impose their will on entire populations.
That was the goal. So the question about
whether or not,
the science they follow the science is is
completely irrelevant, I think.
Yeah. I mean, it's it's a great point.
And, you know, and so what what you
just touched on is what we're gonna get
into in the next parts is the interesting
dynamic
of creating
social,
biological,
psychological stress environments that then cause your body
to create illness, essentially. Right? It's it's one
of the ideas that we
You see, I I I don't think they
were trying
the the the illness and even the death,
I think, are side effects. I mean Mhmm.
I know that a lot of,
elite,
have this idea and this theory in social
science that
less population is better for them
and that they're it's unsafe to be living
in a world where there's too many people
because too many things can happen and so
on. I know that they have that, and
and they're serious about it. But at the
same time,
I don't think
I think that the main thing here was
to oppress and to inject
Mhmm. And and that everything else, including death
and illness, is is a side effect of
that. That was the main driving force. Now
that is the way that dominance hierarchies always
function throughout history and in,
social, groups of animals or people. You you
dominate,
you oppress,
and that makes the the oppressed, the people,
the underlings, if you like,
more unhealthy,
and it makes them die sooner, and it
makes them die often.
So that is that is just a a
a rule of nature, if you like, that
if if you're going to have a dominance
hierarchy
and if it's if it's particularly aggressive depending
on the,
broader environment
or depending on its own internal dynamics when
it becomes particularly
violent,
then there's gonna be more death. There's gonna
be more illness of the people who are
the underlings, if you'd like, who are being
who are being more controlled.
That is that's a that's a general historic
feature. So there was that that aspect of
it is not new.
It's not new. If you say they wanna
kill us, yeah, they always wanna kill us.
They wanna kill us whenever they whenever they
censor
or,
capture institutions to their benefit
to be able to more control,
reduce democracy,
take away your rights. Whenever they do these
things, they're killing you.
They're making you,
more oppressed
and more sick more often. And when you
do get sick, you get more sick. That
is the main
mechanism of ill health of individuals,
is the
is the stress
that is the dominant stress that's applied within
the dominance hierarchy.
And the the special thing about humans is
that the internal dynamics can be such that
that can increase dramatically.
So you have instabilities
towards more of a fascism state, more of
a totalitarian state. You have these internal
instabilities
where you you can slide into those types
of environments, and then it becomes really dangerous
for the individual
And and health does decrease and so on.
And that that there there there are, really
good, theoretical papers that I've talked about previously
about that, about how internally that happens and
why why we move towards totalitarian states and
so on and how you get out, how
do you get back out of it, how
you reset in the real sense of the
population
insisting that that we not go there, like,
after a major war when they've been,
when they've had enough kind of thing.
So there's a lot written about this,
but that is a general feature. So we
just got to see that. It was just
put in our faces suddenly, and so we
noticed it more than we normally do.
You see? Yeah. So
I was and you make a good point
in in one of your recent studies about
that about the point, interestingly, that it's, like,
selectively not applied to the human dynamic, where
you can see that in all these different
animal dynamics, but then not the the, you
know, the what the whatever the academic circles
are are not applying that logic in the
context of what we just saw, which I
find very telling.
Actually,
Derek wrote an article a while back called,
here it's right here, the rise of authoritarianism
from parasite stress theory to lockstep. And he
references a study done, more than 1 by
the way of the US government, about how
they basically study how
a pathogen of any kind, the threat of
it. And they make a really clear point
to make the argument that it doesn't even
have to be a real threat. Just that
the the threat alone, whether it exists or
not, will drive populations to accept authoritarian governments.
I found that really fascinating
concept. Go ahead. Yes. Yeah.
Yeah. That that that's an instrument that can
be used for sure for sure. Any any
any
outside threat, invisible outside threat that you can
that you can use to scare people,
works great. You know? It can be any
any number of things, including,
an enemy that that wants to go to
war with you or whatever.
I make the point in in one of
my recent large papers, which is a medical
hypothesis paper,
that there in my view, it appears that
there has never been a pandemic in the
sense of the spread of a pathogen
ever in history.
So if you if you look at the
the large pandemics in history, and there's many.
There's dozens and dozens of them that can
be studied in detail. You can do forensic
analysis of the skeletons. You can do all
kinds of things. So these have been studied
extensively.
And if you look at these,
what you will see
is that a lot of people die
at times
when there are huge collapses within society,
like in relation to large wars
or,
famines that are induced by,
a meltdown of society that's induced by elite
greed
and,
those kinds of things. So a meltdown of
the financial system, which is brought on by
greed,
and and overexploitation
and so on. These things,
in every case,
of a of a major pandemic, you see
these,
correlations.
And sometimes it's environmental in the sense that
there can be a drought, a very, very
long you know, more than
years of drought.
And sometimes these droughts are brought on by
huge volcanic explosions
that simply diminish the amount of sunlight that
that that that strikes the earth and gives
you a bit of a,
a small,
a mini ice age and that kind of
thing. You know? So there there are correlations
between the large pandemics
and large volcano eruptions,
that that,
and so there there there
there are many ideas
that suggest that or many observations
that suggest that
if you
really disrupt the society at large in an
important way,
then a lot of people will die
just
from the stress of it, the biological stress,
and the and, you know, they're not getting
the nourishment they need. They're being harassed. They're
being,
pushed out of resources.
They're being and they die. And when you
look at the the,
the great,
the the black plague, okay, the the black
death, the plague, when you look at that,
scientists have studied it and they've looked at
100 and 100 of skeletons.
And what you notice and they you don't
generally hear this, but the people who died
were extremely undernourished
and underdeveloped
physically
and had, you know, really bad teeth and
really bad,
skeletal structures and everything.
They were the poorest of those societies.
The wealthy did not die in the black
plague. Okay? So and what you will find
is that in all of these pandemics,
including the recent one,
it's not,
wealthy
people who die. It's the poor who die.
1 of the one the strongest correlation that
we found between excess mortality
and a socioeconomic
parameter in our study of the US
on a county and state level is with
poverty.
If you were poor, you died.
And, that correlates in turn with,
obesity,
diabetes.
You know, it's co correlated with those things,
and, also, it's co correlated with how many
antibiotic prescriptions do you normally get. You know,
poor people are prescribed antibiotics more often before
COVID
because they get respiratory diseases more often.
And so there's a strong correlation there.
And so they're used to getting it, and
it was it it was denied to them
during COVID.
Antibiotics were not prescribed. The prescription rates went
way down. They to half of what they
normally are. So there are all these mechanisms
that ensured
that the elderly,
the frail, and the poor
were killed, basically.
Right.
And antibiotics would have been the appropriate treatment
for, let's say, bacterial pneumonia if that was
being treated. Absolutely. And one of the points
I make in my articles is that Ivermectin
is an extremely efficient antibiotic in the sense
that it it it's really good at fighting
bacterial infections of the lungs. Extremely good. There
are scientific papers about this. So I I
believe that,
a lot of MDs
thought they were,
treating,
a viral infection when, in fact, they were
probably treating a bacterial infection, and that's what
would have saved the lives of these people.
Interesting. Yeah. So we're gonna come back to
2 main points on that. Before we do,
though, I wanna just quickly touch on the
interesting overlap to a couple things we were
highlighting right there. But,
I mean, just the the introduction of the
newer report let's just put it this way.
The the beginning
time frame in all this, 2020,
it was almost, like,
come the the the conversation was shut down
around any suggestion that this might have been
a bioweapon, come from a lab, any, any
number of other things. And this is whether
or not you believe these things are even
capable of being, you know, real. The point
is that from a government and info information
perspective, it was shut down. Now all of
a sudden, we have a new congressional report
saying that they're concluding that it's coming from
a lab. So one how do you fit
that into this conversation? Is that more psychological
manipulation?
You know? Go ahead.
Yes.
Okay. So
my work shows that this was not a
spreading pathogen.
Mhmm. So it's irrelevant
that you wanna propose that it was made
in a lab or not. There was no
pathogen that was spreading.
The deaths were not related to something spreading
unambiguously.
That's a hard fact. So it doesn't matter.
And and, also, there's no evidence
of a virulent pathogen.
All the deaths are highly correlated
to how you were killing people directly
by the stress and by how you were
treating them and the treatments you were denying
to them. That's what that's what did it.
So
I think that,
this whole bio lab leak thing is a
diversion. It it it's I whether it's intended
or not, I don't care. It from my
perspective,
it's it's essentially irrelevant.
Now it's true that the government has biolabs.
It's true that they think about and design
and get patents for bioweapons and things like
that,
but it's irrelevant in terms of the,
deaths that occurred during COVID.
Interesting. Yeah. So you can believe that it
would be nice to have a virus that
you genetically designed that might do exactly what
you want to do. You can believe all
that, but it it did not play a
role
in the in the deaths here, in my
view. Right. So so that's that's just just
I've been I've been saying from the beginning,
that's just irrelevant. You know? Right. Well and
and you made your point clear already that
you just the or the beginning point before
vaccines were introduced, the timeframe between that, you
can see the all cause mortality that doesn't
correlate with the spreading. And I I was
gonna say earlier, there's a there's multiple examples
that you referenced, I believe, at least one
of them that showed
undefinable like, Iran was an example where there
was a all of a sudden, you saw
this outbreak of something they claim was different,
and they were unable to connect it to
any other aspect of it. So it's points
like that that show that there's something just
all of a sudden sporadically happening within the
country. In in the study that we're continuing
and also in papers that we've already written,
you can really see clearly that, for example,
in Northern Italy, the Milan region had this
huge spike of deaths.
Oh, by the way, these spikes
occurred only
immediately after the pandemic was declared by the
World Health Organization.
And there were no there was no excess
death anywhere in the world
until you declared a pandemic, which is crazy
because in in the model of a spreading
pathogen,
the there's way more randomness than that. And
the pathogens are
initially
in the in in the population way before
you decide to declare a pandemic.
And depending on the region and what's happening,
you're going to have excess deaths if in
within that model. So just just the fact
that there was absolutely no excess deaths until
they declared the pandemic, within a week or
so of that declaration, let's say,
is already should should give you an indication
that this was completely fabricated in that sense.
Right? Yeah. But the other thing is that
some people will say, well, Milan had deaths
because the the this potent virus was flown
in,
from from China, from Wuhan. Right? And New
York, same thing. And it must have been
a flight that seeded it. Right? Mhmm. Well,
there's a couple of problems with that. One
is,
Rome has more flights to China and bigger
airport than the Milan region and did not
have any excess mortality in that period.
Okay?
Same country.
Right. It wasn't it wasn't doing what Milan
was doing, and it didn't have this peak
of excess deaths. In the United States,
you have large airports in New York, but
you also have large airports in LA and
San Francisco,
and they get way more flights from Asia.
And there were absolutely no deaths at the
beginning after the there was there was there
wasn't that peak of deaths that you had
in New York. So there are many, many
examples like this where you can you can
show that these that these comparison,
regions
are the same in terms of number of
poor, number of hospital beds, number of everything,
but one had a spike of deaths and
the other didn't. Okay?
Mhmm.
So it was very granular where where the
deaths were going to occur, and it was
always related to what they were doing, the
policies that they applied. Okay?
So that's the point there. So so where
was I going with this?
You you asked me,
what what what was the question again? I
yeah. I was I was just gonna bring
this into the next in part because so
here one of this is, your study
entitled,
in in junction with others as well, nature
of the COVID era public health disaster in
the USA from all cause mortality and socio
geoeconomic and climate climatic
data. And so the main point on this
that I think is the same, you know,
same things we were just discussing, but it
comes to the idea of, you know, misdiagnosed
bacterial pneumonia deaths. The idea of the the
large COVA era USA
pneumonia epidemic that is not mentioned, you know,
the the hiding of all this. And so
I wanted to bring this into that idea
around, 1st and foremost, the idea of just
bacterial pneumonia. And I want your thoughts on
this before we get into the other studies
you've highlighted around, you know, what we're dealing
with here. Well, actually before that, but this
point about the bacterial pneumonia in general. So
what we're gonna talk about is the idea
of a self induced sort of transmissionless
idea that you're talking about, like environmentally caused.
But do you think there's an overlap to
that with things like, say, the masks? Because,
James Lyons Wyler, who I've interviewed more than
once, he argued early in this, and I
agree that the mask itself was a large
factor in causing
the obvious oral thrush, the overlap with that
causing bacterial pneumonia in the lungs, and so
on. Do you think that that was part
of it as well before we get into
the Well idea go ahead.
I can't I can't disprove that. I I
I studied the scientific literature quite extensively
about pneumonia
and also masks.
You don't need masks to get a surge
in in, bacterial pneumonias.
There were epidemics in care homes forever, you
know, ever since we've documented, ever since we've
had care homes.
And they happen spontaneously,
and they happen
as a result of, highly stressful environmental conditions.
And they don't have to spread. They just
spontaneously
happen in to several people within the same
care home, but there's no evidence that that
that there is spread.
So you can't find any evidence of spread,
except there are some papers that convincingly show
that tuberculosis
probably spreads.
For example, there's some really good,
well designed studies that show that if you
have,
tuberculosis infected sick people in a hospital room
and you take the air out of the
hospital room and and blow it into
a laboratory room where you have susceptible
animals, they will get they will get TB,
classic TB symptoms and everything and and get
very sick. So that's kind of what you're
getting at is the intersection.
Like, the that's what I'm kinda getting at
is the intersection of those two things. So
I think it's important that, you know, there
you're so in your mind that there is
the possibility that something could spread and catch,
you're just simply saying that's not what you
I I I I believe that it's possible
that bacterial,
pneumonia
can spread,
especially TB where it's,
you know, there's been a lot of work
and it there's been a lot of concern
about the spread.
Mhmm. But there's way way more frequent that
it's simply spontaneous.
Interesting.
I find I mean, I think this is
oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah.
There's a whole area of science that studies,
these spontaneous bacterial infections,
and they're and they're transmissionless.
They basically
are induced by,
aspiration.
That is you you take in a bit
of fluid from your digestive system into your
lungs, and that's enough to,
destabilize
the microbiome
of bacteria within your lungs that you will
develop pneumonia.
So this this happens irrespective. You can be
in isolation, and it'll happen to you. Okay?
Interesting. So you could be very careful
about isolating elderly people, do everything, and wear
masks and gloves and everything,
and they will get pneumonia
because
they will,
have aspiration problems, especially since you've changed everything.
And aspiration
is increased. The the probability of aspiration is
increased if you if you obstruct the breathing.
So a mask would probably work in that
way, you see.
I mentioned that in my paper.
You don't want to obstruct the breathing and
you don't want to disrupt people's lives and
cause them a biological stress because
aspiration becomes more frequent and spontaneous pneumonia follows,
especially among the elderly.
So,
I I have proposed
that
basically
all the respiratory deaths, there was definitely an
excess of respiratory deaths during COVID, happened before
vaccination and after vaccination,
and that they could all they're all consistent
with the idea
that they were,
self infections
induced
by all the various forms
that are that that would cause biological stress.
So let let's talk about just that itself.
So for people who don't I've never heard
this before because this this is something that
only in the context of, like, the terrain
overlap, which we can get into next, have
I heard something in this kind of vein.
So for those that have never heard this
and don't know what it is or maybe
think it's not possible, explain what the self
infecting or tran transmissionless,
go ahead. I'm just trying to frame it
correctly.
Okay. Well, listen.
There's no doubt that bacteria are real.
Mhmm. There's no doubt
that
I I think there's no reasonable doubt that
if
you have a lot of nasty bacteria that
have decided to take advantage
of your situation,
they can they can kill you. They it
can prevent your breathing and you will die.
Okay? I think there's there's what happens is
okay. Historically,
we have 3 major microbiomes.
1 is on our skin.
So
you get a cut or something,
the bacteria on your skin can take advantage
of that. You can get an infection.
Well, you know, historically,
animals and including people,
the main cause of death is infection.
Okay? And it's typically related to an injury
from a fight
or survival mode fight or, you know, defending
yourself, whatever. So so, historically,
people didn't live that long. The average age
typically
was 30 ish, you know, and you died
of infection. Now there's a lot of different
ways to get infection, and the three main
places are
through your skin,
your respiratory tract,
and your gut, the the the digestive system.
There's a a complex
microbiome,
meaning all these different,
biota,
including fungus, bacteria, you name it, that live
in your gut and in your in your
lungs. Your lungs are not sterile at any
time. They're just they're a living, breathing microbiome.
Okay? Now,
the the the the theory of the microbiomes
is that,
this this the this collection
of microbes of different species and so on,
it it's in a balance that depends on
its environment, that depends on what you're breathing,
how you're breathing, what your health status is
like, and so on. And that balance can
be
out of whack by various circumstances.
One of the main ones being stress,
biological stress. Okay? So you're being attacked. You're
being threatened. You're you're you're afraid for your
life, all these kinds of things.
And that can put your microbiome
out of balance to the point where it
will kill you.
Right. And so,
that's what a self infection is. The thing
is you have every bacterium you can imagine
in the universe in your lungs and in
your gut. There's everything there.
So to clarify real quickly
on that, so is the point that ultimately
you're still being infected by a pathogen, but
it's just coming from internal? Or is it
that it's a different dynamic
necessarily
a pathogen. It Mhmm. It's typically a collection
of pathogens. It's a it's a bunch of
it's a bunch of ones that are getting
the upper hand within their environment, which happens
to be your lungs,
and they're doing what they do, and they're
taking advantage of it. It's not like they
have a brain where they decide to do
this, but they just develop that way. And
it prevents you from breathing and you die.
So that that's the idea. And the same
for your gut. Now, historically, there was not
just the microbiomes.
There were parasites as well.
Now, thankfully, we've gotten rid of most parasites
because but they're horrible things. People have lived
with parasites,
you know, on their skin, in their gut,
even in their lungs, parasites everywhere.
And because of,
cleanliness and good nutrition
relatively
compared to historically, I mean,
in in large societies, nutrition was very bad
because
the the dominant,
people that were in charge would give you
just the cheapest food and all that kind
of stuff. Right? So
so we've gotten rid you can see death
rates.
The best data is since the 2nd World
War, but even before, since 1900, you can
see death rates from everything just
dropping and dropping and dropping. And that's largely
because of, cleanliness
and better nutrition.
And so you're you're way
more able to defend yourself against these parasites,
and you're way more stable against
imbalances of your microbiomes.
And you therefore, you don't get killed by
these things, which are the main killers historically.
Okay? That's what's going on. Nothing to do
with medical science improving.
Nothing to do
with,
vaccines,
being developed.
Antibiotics are very useful because
they give you the tool to intervene
when you have such an imbalance
regarding, your body, and you would normally could
have a good chance of dying from that
infection.
We'll we'll call it an infection, but it
we understand it's not one single pathogen,
and it's a complex process going on in
your body.
Well, the the antibiotic treatment
is like,
is like a shotgun. It just kills
preferentially kills all the micro,
biota and gives you a chance to kinda
have a reset in your body. And then
you have a good chance of,
you know, it it puts a stop to
that that very
fatal blow, if you like,
and allows you to recover.
So most people,
in our modern societies have experienced having a
terrible
infection that they've really felt they were gonna
die, and they have this incredible
sore throat or whatever.
And as soon as they start taking antibiotics,
they feel almost immediate relief.
And it's just from it's just from that,
immediate,
interaction. So I think antibiotics are extremely useful
and powerful drugs, and they're trying to remove
them from us.
Why are they trying to remove them? They're
they're saying that we get habituated to them,
and therefore, we have to stop using them.
It's just it's just crazy.
They're they're saying that there's resistance
bugs now. Well, that's your fault because of
what you're doing in hospitals.
Right.
But they they
they don't have patents for better antibiotics, and
they're not gonna get them because we already
have pretty much the best antibiotics including Ivermectin.
So there's no money to be made there.
So let's get rid of antibiotics because we
don't want we we we wanna be able
to have other cures
that we can convince people, to use and
to buy at a very high price and
so on. So I think there's a war
going on regarding antibiotics,
right now.
That is interesting.
Yeah. Yeah. It does. And of course, for
the podcast cures and and major air quotes,
in case you didn't hear that. The the
point being though is that this is interesting.
So let's
to bring it back to the idea of
the so self infection, the transmission list bacterial
pneumonia being caused by environmental issues. So the
the studies on the screen for those in
the podcast, medical hypothesis, respiratory epidemics, and pandemics
without viral transmission. So where so you place
this as, to put on a fine point,
the large this is the predominant aspect of
what we went through between 20 2023.
So on top of that, though, you do
argue that the vaccine itself was obviously deadly
and obviously
is part of this. So where would you
so give me a, like,
a a percentage breakdown, if you will, for
how you think that plays out. Before I
answer that question, I just wanna conclude that
everything you need
to cause your death is already in your
body.
Right. So it's a clarifying the vaccine didn't
have to be brought in for this to
still look the same way in regard to
the illusion of the pandemic being called SARS
CoV-two. If you if you
roll out vaccines,
and by rollout, it's a military style, you
know, you're gonna be vaccinated. We're gonna hold
you down if we need to, basically. We're
gonna coerce you. You've already been isolated.
You're already treated like you're a danger to
society, and we're a danger to you. We're
doing these all these horrible things. We're disrupting
everything about your life in this institution
when we come in to
prioritize that we're rolling out this vaccine.
That event, that rollout of a booster
is extremely traumatic
and will cause enormous amounts of death just
from the stress of all that. All all
the denied treatments, all the denied care,
all the and in addition, when you come
out to roll out these vaccines, you're also
testing to see if people
actively have COVID right now. As soon as
you test positive,
then you they double down on all these
measures. They isolate you even more or, you
know, it it just becomes,
a death causing prison.
And I have,
talked to witnesses who have survived this.
It really is like being put in a
concentration camp. It's really horrendous. They just wanna
escape for their lives if they're healthy enough
to get away. You know? Yeah.
So it's it's a very nasty thing. So,
you're now with regards to the vaccine, there
is absolutely no doubt that the vaccine has
an intrinsic toxicity. It it will kill some
people,
depending on,
the the accident of the injection,
the your your everything about your complex biology,
you know, it will kill some people and
by many different mechanisms, no doubt. And the
interesting thing about this congressional report is that
they clearly one of the one of the
positive points of this propaganda
instrument, which is this congressional report, is that
they clearly
admit
that the vaccine causes death. They even have
a graph on page
351
here,
that
shows COVID vaccine deaths worldwide,
and they admit in the graph that it's
almost 40,000.
You see? So they're admitting it, and they're
giving a number.
And this is in the official
congressional report.
So that's a that's a positive.
So there's no doubt. I mean, there there
there's a detailed autopsy studies, now dozens and
dozens of them. There's there's I think the
last count was there's over 4,000 scientific articles
that describe the adverse effects of vaccines. I
mean, good god. You know? Like, they definitely
we're we're talking just deaths here, but they
definitely cause harm. We all
probably I know personally many people
who are young men who developed heart conditions
after being vaccinated, who can't even shovel their
drive anymore and and can't do the the
vigorous running or exercise that they used to
do or anything like that. So we we
we know these people. We know
the heart the the myocarditis
is a huge thing, and it's been
written about scientifically extensively. So there is no
doubt
that the vaccine is a toxic substance that
can cause death and
extreme medical harm. There's no doubt about that.
But
the the number of deaths worldwide
that are temporally associated with these rollouts
is huge.
Mhmm. We calculate we were the ones who
calculated it.
17,000,000.
That's a lot of deaths.
And it's
that many deaths
would be
impossible
using propaganda to hide if they were happening
immediately and as a direct result of the
vaccines.
They have to be elderly people that are
dying in circumstances that I described
for it to
be kind of admissible
in the in the public eye and that
you can cover it up. You see?
And so
the the but what really made me change
my mind about prioritizing as a hypothesis
that the vaccine was directly causing these 17,000,000
deaths versus something else, What really did it
for me, and I described this in my
most recent paper,
is that there are now studies coming out.
A few of them are out already, and
we have that kind of data that we're
also analyzing
where people look at all cause mortality
but where you know the vaccination status of
the person who died.
So of of the deaths that you know
about that are documented in your all cause
mortality,
you know the vaccination
status of those people. So you know whether
or not they were vaccinated,
and you know how long ago they were
vaccinated. You there's a lot of detail in
in the databases that we're studying now. There's
a lot of detail. And what we're seeing
and what others have seen
is that
there is not the this these huge spikes
that are associated with the rollouts are not
all due to people who have been vaccinated.
Far from it.
They're they're they're, like, equal amounts. So the
elderly are dying
in association with the rollout, whether they've been
vaccinated or not. And don't forget, the most
frail and the most close to death do
not get vaccinated. That's against the protocols. That's
against the the policies. You don't vaccinate someone.
You don't you don't challenge the body of
someone who's near death. Okay?
And so
as a result, there's slightly more people who
are vaccinated who die during those
during those rollouts.
So
confronted with that data, which is reliable data,
which we've gone to and examined and tested
and everything,
I have to admit that it's that these
17,000,000
are not directly due to immediate toxicity for
vaccine. And
so you start asking yourself,
you say, but, Denis, wait.
They're temporally associated.
The the the correlation in time is immediate.
It's incredible.
You look at, you know, you look at
Australia, you see a peak of rollout of
a booster and you see an immediate peak
of deaths directly associated of the same width
and so on. You see that in Israel.
You see that in the in the, I
think it was 17 countries in the southern
hemisphere.
Virtually every time that there's a rollout, there's
a burst of death.
And so you say, well, the these the
the associations in time are so stunning, so
striking, so convincing,
so quantitatively
the same. You know, for the same amount
of doses, you get the same amount of
deaths and so on. It's got to be
related.
And
the way that I now understand the relationship
is through these campaigns
of of the rollouts.
Mhmm. So the most deadly
associations between vaccination and death are the places
where the the campaigns were most aggressive.
Right. So India
India had an extremely aggressive vaccination
campaign.
And as soon as it was,
there were there was no excess death in
India until they rolled out the vaccine
months later than the west did.
So you wait months even after we started
vaccinating,
then they start vaccinating,
and they get
millions of extra deaths within India. Okay? I
quantified that. I wrote a whole paper about
it.
It's it's absolutely stunning in India. Well, they
were chasing people down in the countryside,
holding them down with police and injecting them.
You can see the videos on YouTube. I
mean, it was it
talk about disrupting,
elderly people. And and and and and India
had the policy announced by its own,
president or prime minister,
especially prioritize
the sick and the elderly.
They had a list of comorbidities,
and you went after the people that have
these comorbidities
to inject them. Can you imagine?
And and you've got the family trying to
protect them and so on. So in India,
it was it was a 1% death rate,
basically.
Wow. Now, there was a comparable death rate
in some,
places in the USA
where they have this so called vaccine equity
campaigns,
where they just hired anybody. It was funded
by Gates and the usual people.
And they just hired people, like an army
of people to go and vaccinate the the
poorest,
more most disadvantaged
people that that had resisted vaccination up till
then. And they went in and aggressively coerced
them. That, was associated with a very high,
vaccination per dose death rate.
And so there are examples like that. But,
generally, it's it's a smaller,
per dose death rate. The time association is
about point 1%,
not 1%, but point you know, but still
very, very high. That's massive.
That's massive.
So, essentially, it's both is what you're highlighting.
You know? So it all the conjunction of
both. Because you could argue that the increase
of the actual administration would also see the
increase in spike because of the obvious deadliness,
but the campaign you're highlighting, the the pressure,
the psychological fear on top of that has
caused it to, you know,
synergistically
explode.
Yeah. The the easiest way to see that
the vaccine caused death is when you have
the clinical study of an individual,
and then you do an autopsy after that.
You can e autopsies
and clinical studies and biopsies, those are the
obvious ways where you really establish a link
between you're
given this poison and then you got very
sick or you died. Okay?
So developing myocarditis
and all those kinds of things. So clinical
studies will tell you that.
With all cause mortality,
the problem is the excess mortalities are so
huge.
There has to be a whole
campaign
of
death causing,
things that are happening and different thing different
jurisdictions and so on. And it it it
there's such huge numbers
that they're far beyond what could be caused,
what we're observing from the vaccine deaths.
Well, so it comes down to the proximal
versus the primary. Right? So they're kind of
it's it's one would you argue they're all
in the same
effectively leading to the same outcome? But all
of them, the masks, the ventilators, the shots,
the fear Well, it what I always say
is
it's the rollouts
that
that cause the association with the vaccines. It's
what you were doing when you rolled out
the vaccine
Right. That really caused most of the deaths
in frail and elderly people.
But there's no doubt that the vaccine is
also toxic. Now you could quantify all of
this. See, I I think that the virus
data
is not
as bad as people say. It might be
off by factor 2, let let's say. You
know? But it's not it gives you kinda
the right order of magnitude.
And the VARs data,
clearly has a lot of deaths in it.
And but those deaths are not enough to
give me
the huge
peaks in all cause mortality that I observe
in excess mortality.
So that's how I've that's how I've come
to understand this. I did an in-depth a
deep dive into
how does biological stress cause death.
Is that a real phenomenon,
and how effective is it? Well, it turns
out that historically,
all the pandemics can be explained this way.
Historically,
infection is the big killer, and it's self
infection.
It's because and you're susceptible to it because
you're being biologically stressed, and that includes nutrition.
Biological stress includes,
nutritional deficiencies and all kinds of factors like
that.
Those things always will cause you to die.
Mhmm. And this is a case where
you've
dialed up the biological
stress
way beyond the background level that we're kind
of habituated to
all of a sudden,
and you've especially done it to the frail
and elderly people.
See, one of the things I don't like
about I I'm critical of a lot of
the people who have who have observed the
pandemic. And one of the things I don't
like about the congressional report
is they'll say there's a lot of things
I don't like about the congressional report. I
think it's a piece of propaganda. It's terrible.
And it's intended
for cooling the mark out, which is
a a social science phenomenon
that was described by, Goffman in 1952.
But, anyway, it's it's it's so that we
won't be too angry. It's to calm us
down. Right? Mhmm. But that that report
goes on about,
we should not have applied general lockdown. That
was the wrong thing to do.
Well, I'm sorry,
but you should not have applied targeted lockdowns
to care homes.
That's what killed people.
You if you say that we're gonna protect
the elderly, and what you mean is this
kind of protection,
you are killing them preferentially. That is a
campaign to kill them. And so that is
absolutely disgusting, which is why I never signed
that
that, general,
yeah, what was it called? The the the
the the the document where
where I that was against,
general lockdowns, but for focus and protection of
the elderly. I didn't sign that because I
saw what it meant. What it meant in
practice was you're gonna kill them. And, you
know, the thing about Sweden
is Sweden a lot of people talk about,
Sweden as having not applied general lockdowns and
therefore avoid a lot of deaths. Well,
Stockholm had an enormous peak in excess mortality
right at the beginning,
and they were targeting the elderly. There is
no doubt about that.
So it does not have lower mortality. It
has higher
excess mortality than its neighbors. It's northern European
neighbors actually, like Norway and so on. So
that's a myth that that that that Sweden,
had low mortality.
We we showed this great there though. Well,
that that that's a really important part for
everyone to pluck out right there because that's
always been this interesting dynamic of the argument
between people saying no. They prove that this
is why it happened. Others saying no. Here's
the point about excess mortality. You just answer
that question for them. That essentially, it's again,
comes back to the psychological,
social, environmental fear as opposed to the actions
around it, which also do play a factor.
That's Well that's important right there for everyone
to pick up on. One of the one
of the problems in all of this
is that
we,
look at the pandemic and try to understand
it from our own eyes,
but we are young adults. I'll include myself
in that. We are young adults that are
healthy,
and we're still able to figure things out.
And we have mobility, and we have all
these things. And we're seeing it from from
our eyes, which is, you know,
how would it have caused me death? Well,
I don't wanna be locked down. I don't
wanna have these freedoms. I don't wanna be
injected with the vaccine. So we're seeing it
from the perspective of our lives and our
bodies and so on. But, really,
you kill the elderly.
The great majority of excess death was all
in the elderly and the frail and the
sick.
And and and
the way you kill the elderly was not
through the general lockdowns. It was because of
how you treated them in their care homes
and the hospitals.
Okay? Right. So in terms of
the amount of mortality
that was caused,
the way that we're used to thinking about
it is not really that relevant.
You have to think from the perspective
of an elderly and frail person
who cannot who is forced to be in
a care home or a hospital
and who is subjected to these policies, these
measures, and these
rollouts, and you name it. Okay? And
whose,
meals and care schedules are being completely disrupted
and they're being
vaccinated for the flu at the same time,
and they're being continuously
tested.
And as soon as they get a positive,
whatever that means,
they get even more measures put on them
and so on. That's that's what was causing
the deaths in terms of all cause mortality.
Now in addition to that,
you had very unacceptable and significant deaths of
young adults. See, the the the truth is,
the percent death
relative to the death rate for your age
group
across the board was high during COVID.
That's another demonstration
that
it was due to stress, biological stress, because,
these infections are thought to affect the elderly
more.
But everyone was dying
at the same
rate relative to their mortality rate. Okay?
Interesting. Yeah.
So there's a lot of for example, we
were studying Canada in detail. In Alberta, which
had an
an energy sector that was shut down for
geopolitical and other reasons,
during COVID,
young men had a huge death rate, much
higher than in other provinces,
okay,
due to loss of employment, loss of meaning
in their lives, loss of everything.
And they and there was more deaths due
to,
drug,
accidental drug deaths, and so on. Okay?
So there are many examples of young people,
all the way down to infants and so
on dying more.
But in terms of
numbers of deaths,
without a doubt, exponentially, it's as you get
into the elderly that you have the greatest
numbers of death.
So when you're just doing, you know, by
jurisdiction number of deaths, it's mostly the elderly
in those conditions that I was describing. But
that doesn't mean
that not everyone was affected. It's just you're
not gonna see it. Your chance of dying
as a young person is very low. And
if you have a 20% higher chance of
dying
during COVID, then you don't even
see that. You don't even experience it that
much, except if it's really dramatic. Like, if
you're talking just
heart conditions, not death, but heart conditions. Yeah.
There's so many more among young men that
you see it, and you talk about it,
and you know people, and you know people.
Right?
But otherwise, you wouldn't see it. You have
to do the kind of analysis that we
do to be able to detect it.
But there's no doubt. And so our latest
large paper, which you didn't show there, but
a 125
countries,
And we did by age group in Europe
as well, in the countries in Europe.
And it's really dramatic that you have,
that very high
relative death rate at in every age group.
And you know what's interesting? What we saw
in Europe was the
the group the age group that had the
highest percentage of relative death
was the people who were born
during and just after the second World War.
Ah, okay. So the the trauma
Mhmm. As a child of being born under
those extremely stressful conditions,
nutritionally,
family, everything,
is such that you're more frail as an
elderly adult
than you otherwise would be
than you otherwise would be. So that was
one of the things that we we found
by analyzing this data.
Yeah.
Really to show you that long go ahead.
Go ahead. Yeah. There's a lot of things
going on like that that you can discover.
So you have to know that we've written,
I don't know, maybe
more than
40, something like 40
detailed articles
on
what was happening in terms of mortality
during the COVID period. That we've got a
lot of work out there. You can really
stack it high. You know? And we went
into detail by
by by state, by county, by country, by
subnational
region,
and we're putting out, papers in the coming
weeks
that are always more
advanced and more detailed.
So there's 3 that I'm thinking of that
we're putting out very soon that are just
gonna
be very significant advances in all of this.
Let's put it that way. Okay?
I know that they they have done their
crime, and it's over. But it's taken us
this long to really, in detail, describe the
nature of their crime.
And so we're continuing to do that work.
Yeah. And this is one of the reasons
why the data is so aggressively protected. Right?
Because, you know, experts like you can take
the time to go through it and and
make a very clear,
you know, criminal report, if you will, about
how this actually went down. And what you
described there very clearly showed this early aspect
of
stress that carries all the way to being
elderly. Like, it just shows you very clearly
how that has a very direct effect on
your health, apparently, your entire life. And so
that's it's a fascinating thing to think about.
And so I I think overall, you've painted
a very excellent picture here on how there's
multiple aspects, which by the way was one
of the earlier points that a lot of
people there you know, there's people out there
that got shouted down early in this conversation.
You're one of them is pointing out the
different elements that kind of synergistically in a
bad way work together to cause a lot
of the things we saw. And you could
argue even by byproducts or intentional, but we're
still used in the same way to create
this illusion.
So I what I think is really fascinating
more than all of it is that what
you're highlighting here when we could talk about
now, is this kind of bumping up against
this debate, this idea of germ theory versus
terrain theory. And, you know, my stance on
this has been you know, it frustrates a
lot of people in the in both sides
of it, really, that I don't feel like
I've personally felt like it's been fleshed out
enough, that I feel like it's somewhere in
the middle or that neither side really I
feel like addresses parts that I don't feel
like, that no. We don't know for sure
yet. But so what you're touching on is
an interesting overlap to the both of them.
Right? That there are there's a level of
something that has whether they're pathogens in a
circumstance or whether they exist at all, that
you can have a environmental,
biological
stress related
illness. You know? And so just Yeah. First
of all, before we get into it all,
what what are your thoughts on terrain theory
versus germ theory? And, you know, how is
that Before ask me that again, but I
wanna say something first. Okay. You know, there's
the vaccines
were
a toxic substance. The cationic lipids themselves are
toxic substances. They they
do serious damage to cell walls and so
on. There is no doubt. I mean, even
if you didn't have anything in them, it's
it's a really bad idea to inject you
with these nanoparticles.
So
what are the long term effects of that?
I guess we're still trying to discover it.
There is,
persistent
excess all cause mortality
into 2024,
and we're quantifying that. So there's definitely some
excess mortality that is persistent,
even though supposedly the pandemic is over and
pathogens never last this long and so on.
Alright.
But what I wanna put forward is
oh, did I lose you?
Nope. I'm still here. I just was bringing
up some some screen. Just showing him the
one of the studies he referenced. Go ahead.
Yeah.
So,
what I wanna put forward is
what are the long term effects?
Death and illness. Okay?
Are those long term I don't think that
these all these or even most of the
long term effects are due to the vaccines
themselves. That's gonna shock people.
I think that we have just been subjected
to
intense trauma.
We have been subjected to a pulse
of high biological stress
that has completely
perturbed our lives,
disoriented us,
made us question many things,
and affected our health in real ways
that are long term.
Trauma
affects your life in a long term way.
And,
so I think that that's very important. We're
not recognizing that enough. Too many
MDs
want to detoxify you from the vaccination
and want to sell you products to do
that.
Whereas
what really happened here, the really big killer
was the biological stress event that it was,
was the assault against people.
And that is, an intense trauma
that takes years years to get over.
The children
that were treated this way in school,
with masking
and, you know, this this completely
this dysphoria, this this this insanity.
All all of these things,
are part of this trauma that is going
to have a lasting effect.
So we're not going to be the same
for a long time.
And we have been to the extent that
we're adjusting to it,
we're adjusting to a higher level of totalitarianism,
which is not necessarily
a good thing, but that's what they're bringing
us to. They're bringing us to that kind
of an adjustment.
Society as a whole is is seeing this
as normal in a sense.
And,
they might they might suggest
subject us to,
those kinds of traumas in the future, and
we'll be more ready to accept them in
the sense that we've survived this one. You
know? And one of the traumas that I
think is coming, because we should talk about
that a little bit,
is,
a very good chance of large scale wars
and being drafted into the military.
And,
the the the US is really serious. The
US regime,
the deep state, whatever you wanna call it,
is really serious about destroying
all
competitors that want to develop. Because if you
let,
China and Eurasia develop or forget euro part
of it, it's dead now,
because,
because the US has crushed it, crushed that
competitor.
But, if you let Asia develop,
they will surpass you. This in their minds,
this is how they see it.
So the the US answer to that is
to simply destroy everything.
They would rather destroy entire nations and have
wars
and and fund,
proxies and so on and just cause havoc
and chaos
through proxies,
than allow a multipolar world to develop
and to, coexist and so on. So that
means that the US is definitely
headed towards major wars.
That means that the economy will collapse.
There will be,
incredible inflation,
the that that even if we're not attacked
directly, we will suffer huge consequences.
And the government is now in a position
to control us, to shut off our bank
accounts, to surveil us completely,
to inject us with whatever they want, whenever
they want.
You know, there's a pandemic now even though
there's yes. There's a war, but there's also
a pandemic we have to inject you.
And,
so I think we have to be worried
about what the government's gonna do next.
Yeah. And it's and there's some horrible things
on the horizon.
And,
that,
you know, it's not a question of healing
from this, and then everything will be okay.
And we'll be able to ratchet back and
bring back democracy and so on. And
it's not going there. Everything is is pointed
in the direction
of a more totalitarian
warring
system.
Right. I agree.
And I I think that what you what
you highlight there is it kinda dovetails what
you were just saying is that right? We
you're right. We have been at sort of
a a fever pitch of, you know, I
guess we're not allowed to call it World
War 3 despite the metrics all being met,
but still a world dynamic of war for
a while now. And so you're saying if
we see this kind of ongoing peak past
COVID 19
illusion, that that is one of many, you
know, to your point. If we could keeping
our biological stress high in a general sense,
that makes makes a lot of sense. So,
yeah, I think that's important to point out.
And I think that, you know, I I
honestly, I share your your kind of, you
know, I guess, pessimistic view on where they're
going. I say, sadly, I think it's the
right view because I think that's what's happening.
But I would also argue that because of
what you're doing and what a lot of
people are doing, I I think that's within
the cards to be able to at least
slow down or stop what they're trying to
accomplish. I I would just put a positive
spin on it.
I do think that's possible.
But so and and let's if unless you
wanna comment on that, let let's talk about
the interesting overlap between I I I think
I think the only thing that's gonna slow
them down
is the the extent to which Russia, China,
and to some degree, Iran
are able to,
militarily resist them
Mhmm. And and stop their military adventures
to the degree that that's possible,
then that's the only thing that's gonna slow
them down. Otherwise, they're they're ramping full out.
You know? It does seem that way. I
agree. Yeah. They see this as the window
where they have to do this.
Because if they don't destroy
these emerging economies, bricks, and so on,
then there will be a balanced world. They
will not be the masters of everything,
and they can't handle that. They're that's not
in their mindset.
That's what I think. Yeah. I mean, you're
right. I mean, there's a lot of multifamily,
you know, there's a lot going on in
that conversation, but I genuinely agree. I generally
agree with the, the perception there that I
think that it's obvious that this is being,
I mean, I think for the context of
today's conversation, I think just that this is
driving in a direction that will cause more
stress, more uncertainty,
more chaos in our lives. And whether that
this is it goes back to the earlier
point they made, whether that's the the done
so that creates what we're dealing with or
it's just used later. That's kinda how these
things tend to work. Right? So it's like
a byproduct nonetheless still can fulfill some objective
for these people. And so in the conversation
of the The more the more they make
you sick,
the more they make you,
weak,
fragile, the more they can control you. Yeah.
So every time they assault you with a
new assault,
that includes taking your liberties away and so
on,
they're they're making it less possible for you
to resist
wars or whatever.
Exactly. Exactly.
So so where's your stance on on German
terrain in general? Because I think I think
one of the things that stood out to
me this whole time on reading the your
most recent one is how interestingly this kind
of almost in a way creates,
you know, we're, like, common ground, if you
will, on this conversation. So where where's your
stance on that in general? And then where
do you place that in this conversation? Because
we already established go ahead. People on both
sides get angry with me. Okay?
Because
I'm honestly
still trying to get a firm
grip on the idea of the virus,
whether or not viruses exist, whether or not
there is conclusive evidence of their existence. And
I'm talking respiratory disease viruses. I don't wanna
get into
the viruses that attack bacteria and those kinds
of things. But,
I'm I'm I'm I'm grappling with that. And
therefore, I
am,
learning,
genetic technology, PCR.
I'm still learning these things, and I'm still
learning,
like, about the caveats,
about the ways that scientists'
entire technological
fields
and and and with the scientists that derive
their careers from that, how they can fool
themselves. I'm still I'm still wrapping my head
around all that and still having big discussions
about it with many people.
And,
not as much time as I'd like to
do it because of all this, mortality analysis
that we're doing, but, eventually, I will get
there.
But right now, I can say, and I've
said this publicly a few times,
I'm not convinced that it has been demonstrated
that these pathogenic
viruses that cause respiratory diseases,
that their existence has been demonstrated. I'm not
at all convinced.
And I'm quite convinced by a lot of
the historic
studies that showed how difficult it is to
get these respiratory conditions to be transmitted from
one person to another, virtually impossible.
Right. So there's a lot of there's a
lot of evidence out there that makes me
really doubt that there's been a demonstration that
these,
viruses that cause respiratory disease exist. Okay? Mhmm.
And are real and are are are are
are real entities
that, cause what they're claimed to cause. I'm
not I don't I don't yet
I'm not convinced of that. I'm not accepting
that as a demonstrated hypothesis. Let's put it
that way. Okay?
On the one hand, there's that that's the
position I have right now
as I continue to study it. On the
on the other hand, some
people go really far and claim the bacteria
themselves cannot,
basically
are not there or cannot cause you harm.
That they're there just to clean up the,
you know, the the weak tissues or the
the harm tissues in your body, and that's
their only purpose. Oh, yeah. There can be
byproducts of that consumption
that can be a little bit toxic for
you and that kind of thing, but it's
an accident. It's just a byproduct.
I do not buy that at all. I
I instead
move towards the modern theory of,
microbiomes
and their complexity
and how they evolve and how they can
become unbalanced and how they involve
100 and thousands of different types of,
biota
and and and how
basically you can always die of infections
in that sense, self infections, just because
everything that's needed that could go wrong is
right there in your body. I mean, let's
face it. Nobody has figured out how not
to die. Right?
The the the body the body has everything
it needs to end itself.
It it it it it can't go on
forever. And how does that happen? So I
think it's related to,
these infection mechanisms that involve
complex systems getting out of whack.
Yeah. K? Yeah. Actually okay.
Yeah. Yeah. So the so I
strongly believe that bacteria can be real killers,
and that's
and that antibiotic we should keep antibiotics around,
to save people's lives when they need it.
And,
that,
so I I don't I don't go with
the theory that there are no germs.
I do accept the idea
that
there's not
a particular
bacterial pathogen
that can be spread and that can cause
an epidemic.
I'm I'm willing to say fine. Even even
tuberculosis,
which has a lot of work done on
it, there's not a single pathogen. There's like
100 of bacteria that are said to be,
able to cause tuberculosis
or associated with tuberculosis.
Okay. So it's, it's, it's complex.
And there may be circumstances in which droplets
that contain many of these bacteria,
can
initiate an infection in someone else. Certainly that's
been demonstrated for animals.
So
and tuberculosis
I mean, I don't think it's an accident
that tuberculosis is is thought to be extremely
contagious.
Mhmm. I think there's probably a lot of
truth to that. You know?
You, bring someone in with tuberculosis into a
ward and see what happens kinda thing. You
know?
So there are probably examples, but you have
to sort them all out. You have to
be really look at the at the at
the data and the the scientific articles and
everything. And I'm you know, people are doing
that. There's a there's a wonderful book that
that looks at all the historic studies of
this type regarding
respiratory diseases that says, I think I think
the title of the book is, can you
catch a cold? Something like that. You know?
A recent book. I've made a list of
these books on on my website.
Really good point. You know? When you try
to see clear evidence for transmission, you don't
see it. Right.
So
I'm still debating
hypotheses, and that's kind of where I'm at
right now. Yeah. I'm I'm right there with
you. And I think that's why I think
this is important because
there's there's a lot of overlap even within
I mean, all sides. There's each community has
their own disagreements about what, you know, they
differ on the way they see things. It's
funny you meant you mentioned that I actually
had this pulled up as one of this
this, links today. And you you get in
this was the point that was I'm interested
in bias that ultimately, you write in here
that you you agree with a lot of
what's being put out, but this is what
I highlighted. This is as you said, I
I want to say that I think some
of the criticism of germ theory goes too
far, and you mentioned that exact point about
bacteria. And this is what I found so
interesting about this in particular. That so they're
saying essentially to reiterate what you said that
bacteria,
it's only present in the body as helpers
to break down, remove dead and detected tissue.
What I found interesting about that is, you
know, that ultimately,
we're talking about the idea of bacterial pneumonia
that I, you know, I think has been
demonstrated in some to be able to be
to spread and so on. And that you're
talking about also at the same time, something
that is self a self illness that is
not the same thing. Like, there's a there's
a common ground that is
not the same thing. Like, there's a there's
a common ground that's not very important. You
can you can simplify it this way. If
you wanna start believing that bacteria are there
just to help you and to help you,
you know, regulate your body and so on,
then you have to think,
who told the bacteria to do that?
You know what I mean? Like Mhmm. Like,
the the bacterias don't have minds. They they
develop their behavior
through a process of evolution
and coevolving with the animals that they inhabit,
and,
that is such that it's a complex system
that can go out of whack.
Mhmm. There's no there's no there's no, like,
you have a mission to clean up the
body. There's none of that. Okay?
It's
like, it there the these are symbiotic,
largely symbiotic,
different groups of species, like everything that's in
your gut and so on. But, I mean,
it can be invaded.
It can go out of whack. Certain ones
can take over. All kinds of things can
happen to just say that they won't they
they're never intended to harm you. Well,
you're you're not you could you could it
would be just as silly to argue that
you're not intended to die. You know? Right.
Well, let me put it let me make
it more specific. This will make it easier.
Like like so hypothetically speaking, if at least
they're willing to acknowledge that there is such
a thing as bacteria, but maybe it's not
dangerous.
Scientifically speaking, I'm asking you, do you think
is it scientifically possible,
let's just say in a BSL 4 lab
kind of dynamic, for for a scientist to
then take that not dangerous bacteria and then
alter it in a way that could make
it dangerous?
Oh,
well, that's That is showing up the door
to the bigger conversation. Right?
Yeah. Sure. You can do that with bacteria
because it it it's like anytime you do
this selective,
development. Like, you you can do selection
in the lab. You you know, you can
simply,
develop a new kind of dog that will
have different characteristics,
longer teeth, and so on. You you can
do all kinds of things with selection
if if you decide to do it. So,
you can certainly do the same thing with
bacteria.
And you you can accelerate those changes by,
genomic manipulation for sure. You know, you can
disrupt them and see which ones survive and
see the ones that have the characteristics that
you want and and and reproduce those. And,
you know, you can do all that.
So you can you can make very virulent,
bacteria,
I'm sure.
And then you could,
put them on,
small parasites and get them to be distributed
on enemy territory and, you know, all these
kinds of stuff. And and there's and there's
reports written about that.
So yeah. Yeah. You can do all these
things. I mean, biowarfare is a very real,
a real thing, and and and the Russians
have reported on historic examples of of biowarfare
accidents and also use of these weapons,
recently. That's the nice thing about this geopolitical
battle is that the Russians are being way
more talkative than they ever have been before.
They're they're they're,
disclosing a lot of information about the behavior
of the US and these kinds of things.
So you can learn a lot that way.
For sure, biowarfare is a very real thing.
I would question whether or not
genetic manipulations
of
traditional
what what they believe to be respiratory viruses,
if that's
useful or possible.
Oh, a a 100%. I'm I'm more on
your side of the conversation today. I I
I only really brought that up to make
the point to say, like, to see that
there's actually common ground here that, like, to
instead of coming from the perspective that there's
no way that can be what like, because
the other side of the conversation's on the
side of there are viruses, there's a deadly
thing, the government made it, they're attacking it.
You know, that you can both recognize that
there's a middle ground there, that it's possible,
so you can't dismiss their possibility. But come
to the the idea that what you're highlighting
here is that there's other aspects of this
that seem more prominent. And I just think
that's important, you know, because I think what
happens in these conversations,
you tend to find these lines that get
drawn where then people choose to omit or
ignore, sort of like the 2 party paradigm
politically,
important information that challenges what they've made their
stand on. And I'm just trying to highlight
that what you're doing here is really telling
you the truth. Go ahead. A lot of
the commentary is simplistic. Let's put it that
way. Okay. When you start talking about death
and what caused death
and you don't you're not able to discern
elderly people in homes versus young working adults
versus extremely poor, malnourished people and so on,
if you're not able to discern what would
have happened in Africa and India versus, you
know, other places and so on, then then
whatever
comment you're making is is so simplistic
that it can't possibly contain the truth. You
know what I mean?
And I think the same is true of
by warfare. You know, if you if the
same is
just to outright
say that pathogens don't exist,
that's an oversimplification
because of all the things that I've been
saying. Right? And I I think whenever you
oversimplify
like that,
there's a good chance you you've got it
wrong.
Yeah. I completely agree. No. I mean, I
think I would say that a lot of
times in the end of the conversation.
They really wanna stretch it in that direction.
I find that once they have that that
talking point, they really push it in that
direction.
Every
every area
that's related, they push it in that direction.
So I think this is the result of
oversimplifying.
Yeah. I would agree. Most definitely. And so
to to bring this to a final point
for kind of on the way out where
we see this going a little bit of
a, a hypothesis of where we might think
this is gonna go next with the administration.
But I wanna end with the to highlight
2 things. First that as I'm sure you're
well aware, self amplifying RNA injections for COVID
are, like, are already in the process of
being used. Trump's administration, most parts of it
seem to be in a lot of ways
hyping that as a possible future for cancer
and a lot of different things.
CDC is still adamantly act telling you to
take these things 6 months or older and
so on. And so I want your thoughts
on the way out. You recently shared an,
an article from Decensored News. Elon Musk partners
with Gates funded biotech company to produce m
r a mRNA microfactories.
TLAB, we've also written about this back in
October 2022.
And just your thoughts simply on, you know,
as you said, the kind of context
I I want you to say something on
the way out with Trump's administration. Go ahead.
Yeah.
Yeah. I I I think it's important to
realize that
just because
they
invest money in developing something
and get patents
and make industry to make it and then
distribute it, get government to say that all
your animals have to have this, and they
distribute it, and all of you have to
be injected. Just because they say all those
things and they do it does not mean
that the actual technology
that they have this cartoon describing
actually works.
It actually does what they say it does.
Doesn't mean that at all. All it means
is they're making a lot of money from
this. That's what it means. They're gonna be
selling this thing, whatever it is, whether it
does what they say or not.
Use it the public money is gonna be
purchasing it at an incredibly high price. So
it's gonna be a transfer of funds from
the public
to these mega
corporations that are controlled by the deep state
that in turn spend money overthrowing governments all
over the world
and and and surveilling us and developing social
media to control us and all these things
that these that these multibillionaires
do and and their corporations.
That's what it means. It means transfer of
funds
from the public, from everyone
to these entities that then in turn control
us
irrespective
of this
of the discussion
of the technology.
The technology could just be cartoons. It could
just just be bogus. And I think I
think that's what's happening a lot of the
time.
I don't believe
this a lot of these genomics
fairy tales.
Okay? And I don't believe that they can
do this. I I I don't I don't
think
they can,
have a virus that that makes cows fart
less. You know? There's just no no way
in my mind that that these things are
real. This is not about
whether or not it's real,
the the technology. And and and it's easy
for them to fund scientists to say that
it's real.
And it's easy for them for those results
to be published in the top journals. They
control everything. Okay?
They they they control all the editors, all
the journals. All the scientists are funded by
them. All the scientists that don't wanna play
ball,
can't publish and lose their careers.
They control everything. So they can make up
whatever
crap suits them,
make nice cartoons about how it works,
and then sell it to you
and impose it upon you.
And that is basically, that is a scam.
That is what I would call
a protection scam. It's protection money. It's you
you you you pay to be protected from
all these terrible things that could happen to
you.
So the the the the US regime
is running a lot of protection outfits.
1 is the sell the sale of,
weapons to its so called allies.
You have to pay enormous amounts of money
to get these weapons systems to protect you
against
those other people. Well, that's that's straight transfer.
That's protection money. Okay?
And the same is true of pharma. Pharma
is a protection
racket
industry.
They're going to protect you. You're not gonna
die from these horrible diseases.
And so the government has to fund all
this
garbage technology,
that they're going to impose on you. So
I think we have to see it.
Oh, we have to
not be blinded
by all the stories of the technology. And
and that's a beautiful trick that they play.
They get you to spend your intellectual energy
trying to understand what the cartoon is,
and then you describe it to others,
and you own it, and you're willing to
defend it. I I go to cocktail parties
sometimes, and people will argue with me about
how these vaccines work.
And they'll describe all the molecular mechanisms and
everything. Not realizing
that these are all cartoons that have not
been rigorously demonstrated scientifically.
Right. You know, this, this transfection
actually work.
Have you seen it?
You know, these are the questions you have
to ask. Does the the really?
Can can you reproduce a virus in a
body that will then spread to others?
Come on now. Let's let's try and establish
scientifically
using rigorous methods, whether that's real or not.
It's certainly a nice story. And once once
you get people used to learning it in
school,
learning it in the media, and then describing
it to others,
they invest themselves in it. They will defend
it, and it becomes real.
And
imagine if it was not real, in the
end result, if it's not real, then what
is what is happening here? Public money is
being transferred
to the deep state so that it can
control us better. That's what's happening.
Right. It's a protection racket.
So I think we have to we have
to use that kind of those we have
to put those kinds of glasses on every
once in a while and not be blinded
by all this
garbage talk of what I would call pseudoscience
in a lot of cases. Now
scientists who in who have published in this
area, who are invested in their careers,
they get very angry with me.
They they
they get they get completely pissed. But how
can you be so
thick headed. You know, there are thousands of
articles about this. And yeah.
But
more bias doesn't remove the bias.
Right. Right. If you if you're just confirming
what others have said and you're using the
same techniques to confirm it, you haven't gotten
to the heart of it. You haven't really
demonstrated what you what what you're talking about.
Right. And there and there's plenty of studies
these days that show I think of Asim
Maholter's one that pointed it out pretty publicly
early 20 22 ish about that show that
any get in any given moment, half of
the studies that are published are ultimately false
or any some number some metric like that.
I forget what the number is. There's no
doubt.
There's no doubt. In fact,
I would say that
99%
of medical trials nowadays have to be false.
They're completely funded and controlled by the industry.
Yeah. At which price? They buy the scientists
who write it in the in in the
for the journals. They buy the editors. They
buy the journals. They control the trial at
every step of the way. If the results
are not going in the direction they want,
they put an end to the trial or
they select
some of the some of the patients from
the trial that they're gonna study and let
go the others, they manipulate these trials from
A to Z.
In every detail, they have complete legal control.
The scientists who participate
to recruit patients, they all have to sign
contracts.
The patients themselves have to sign contracts.
This is
complete propaganda.
Signed medical trials
have become
complete propaganda
to sell
drugs.
That's what they are. So that means that
anytime you see a paper about this stuff,
even though it looks good and it sounds
good and it's double blinded and all of
this, it's necessarily
all garbage.
Interesting. I I discovered a fantastic book that
describes this in great detail recently. It's written
by, Peter Gotze. It's called Deadly Medicines and
Organized Crime.
I highly recommend it. It's an amazing
book that goes in I love the title.
Yeah. It goes into great detail about the
extent to which there is complete
capture
and control of the entire enterprise.
Well, so let let let's end with this
point then about, you know, the so right
now, the reason I asked that, and I'm
what you just highlighted is very important, is
there's a lot of people right now that
seem to think that the current administration
is gonna take it in a better direction,
that they're gonna save us from what we're
highlighting right now. So I want your thoughts
on that. You know, the reason I highlighted
that overlap there is that for me,
just in regard to the injection and the
mRNA technology, I'm very alarmed about the the
the how, like, embedded like a tick it
is in his administration right now. But then
the overlapping part that you highlighted, they also
seem to be very well, I guess, let's
put it this way, to be objective and
fair, at least in some directions,
more so leaning towards war. I would say
Iran is an obvious one. And so maybe
all these combined,
do you see this do you see this
getting better or worse with what we're discussing
today with the incoming administration?
Oh, there there is going to be,
complete continuity
in the deep state programs.
There's no doubt about that. It's it's gonna,
you know, it's gonna be arguments. It's gonna
be flare ups. It's gonna be, people opposing
each other,
and posturing and everything. But but the the
the empire, the regime,
it has the project
to destroy all competitors.
And it's a long term project that's been
spelled out in writing for decades.
And that that the plan to,
destroy the Middle East the way that it
has done and to eventually attack Iran has
been on the books for a long time.
And,
the same is true of how pharma fits
into this as a protection racket. There's no
way they're gonna give that up.
It's too important.
The the same goes for complete surveillance and
complete control of everything you do and everything
you can do and even your your
your your guns
and your bank accounts and everything. Your cars,
whether or not you can travel,
electric car that can turn off anytime, and
so on and so on. That project of
complete control
is gonna move forward
like like it used to the same way.
It's there's gonna be bare barely a blip
in the road. Okay? It's it's it's going
full steam ahead. They might prefer a different
technology.
They might choose to different in a slightly
different way
and so on,
you know, to,
to give some,
things to their buddies and that kind of
thing. But, overall,
we're moving full steam ahead in this project.
It's it's project deep state to control the
world.
That's what it is.
Yeah. No. I I I okay.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this congressional report is
is complete propaganda. They they basically say that
the vaccine saved millions of lives,
and that Warp Speed
was a fantastic success.
And, you know, you you can tell that
it's it's just complete propaganda.
The some of the MDs are happy because
they said that,
off label use of medication
should be up to the MDs,
and they see that as a great victory.
Well,
I don't think if that's the only victory
in there, that's not a very big victory
because you what you have to remember is
that it is pharma
that has pushed for off label use of
medications because they sell way more drugs
if you can convince a lot of MDs
to use
whatever poison they're selling off label. Okay? Well,
I don't And so there there's there's the
whole that whole
mindset
of the MD just does whatever he thinks
and uses off label drugs, which themselves were
not even the trials are invalid for the
primary use of those drugs. So you can
imagine that there's absolutely no
safety controls on off label use, and they
see that as a big victory.
Well,
I'm all for individual freedom, not medical freedom
of professionals that want to have the privilege
of doing this. Okay?
I'm for individuals
learning about their bodies, learning about health,
being critical,
thinking for themselves,
and not being dependent on people who are
gonna save them from the fact that they
got this terrible vaccine, and now they're feeling
sick. And I can tell you, most people
are feeling sick right now. It's because of
the trauma you were subjected to more than
anything else.
Yeah. I I Nobody's addressing nobody's addressing that
trauma.
Nobody nobody's,
saying that, okay. We we we need to
optimize
the treatment of trauma
and ensure and and and and strengthen our
institution and so on so it doesn't happen
again. Nobody's saying that. So this this congressional
report did not address the issues whatsoever.
Yeah. Which I I kind of sadly think
is part of this long term, you know,
pacification element that's happening right now. I just
hope people can listen to what you're saying
and see beyond the partisan
kind of veneer that seems to hide the
the the ongoing agenda. You know? So I
really thank you for joining me today. I
think this was
important for many different reasons. Important to hopefully
reach some people that still hadn't come to
terms with the reality of what this was,
and also people that are still trying to
rightly so discern what happened. Maybe you can
find some common ground in here and realize
that there is, you know, that we're all
the one all of us are being affected
by this and try see that we're all
trying to find our path to to solve
what's happening and and get beyond it. So
thank you. Thank you, Danny. I always enjoy
speaking with you. And hopefully, we can, you
know, touch base again when you're, newer It
was a great pleasure.
I I might make one final comment if
I may. Please. Please.
I would encourage people,
instead of,
looking for
easy ways of stating how they understand things,
which is really important. But in addition to
that,
go in and actually read. Try to actually
read some of some of our reports.
I mean, it's a little bit complex. There
are references. Sometimes you have to stop and
go read something else, come back, try to
understand what that meant,
compare with what you just read before and
so on. It's work.
But it's it's very intellectually,
satisfying to come to a point where you
you can
develop judgment about what's being expressed. Right. Right.
And I think that that's what's lacking
in our society is that people are
losing the ability
to analyze for themselves,
to think for themselves, and judgment, and so
on. And that's something that we had
in past decades
that really protected society in a big way.
You know? The activists would have learning groups,
and they would challenge themselves, and they would,
try to learn things. And and we're we're
just reducing it all to snippets on social
media.
And what I noticed in a lot of
the comments I see on social media, people
are not reading whatsoever.
They're not getting to the bottom of it.
They're not able to
see why it is they've come to believe
something and why they shouldn't believe it.
Well said. I think it was
go ahead. Yeah. I I I would plead
with people to do that. And if you're
already doing it, that's great. You have to
know you're in a minority, and you're
you're very lucky that you're already on that
track. But if you're
not, try it out. Try it out.
Absolutely. I mean, I it's such an important
note to take on the way out here,
guys. I mean, this is why I lean
into the longer form format. The shows we
do are in-depth conversations about you know, because
it's different than just being able to read
a headline and hear how you're supposed to
frame it is what is what Dave's point,
as opposed to just, you know,
regurgitating what you're told versus diving into it,
understanding it to the point to where you
can then articulate an opinion as opposed to
just repeat what you're told. And I think
that's monumentally important today. And you're right. Social
media, partisan narratives, it's it's an attempt to
stop you from seeing this stuff. So thank
you as always for your work, Denny. It's
absolutely profound. And we're again, let's let's connect
again when your new reports come out, follow-up
on this stuff again. So thank you for
being here. Sure. And And as always, everybody
out there questioning everything, come to your own
conclusions. Stay vigilant.
All
gene based vaccines,
independent of manufacturers,
produce the same result
in the vaccinees.
He has looked at 15
in the last 4 days. The number has
been increased to 70
individuals who died after vaccination.
These were people who died at home,
at work,
in the car, doing their sports,
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
There's no question now anymore
about what is going on
and the answer is
in the organs of these people.
In 90%,
he found
clear
evidence for autoimmune
self attack
by killer lymphocytes.