EZRA LEVANT ｜ A new scientific study shows that the vaccine can alter women’s menstrual cycles. Is that newsworthy？
Summary
AFP fact checks a tweet I tweeted about Omicron vaccine effectiveness, and comes up with a response that's not a fact check, it's an opinion check. I'm being fact checked by a corporate media fact checker, but were my facts wrong or just my opinions?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello, my Rebels. Today, I respond to a response. How's that? AFP, which is a newswire,
00:00:08.060
fact-checked a tweet of mine that I tweeted two weeks ago. And they have been staking a guilt.
00:00:14.960
They put a lot of work into this. It's quite something. I'll take you through my tweet,
00:00:18.620
their response to it, and my response to them. I think you'll come to the conclusion I have.
00:00:22.980
It's not a fact-check. It's an opinion check. That's today's show. Before I get to it,
00:00:27.120
let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus. That's the video version of the show.
00:00:31.960
Also shows by my colleagues, Sheila, David, and Andrew. Just go to rebelnewsplus.com and click
00:00:37.360
subscribe. Eight bucks a month. What a bargain. All right, here's today's podcast.
00:00:48.500
Tonight, I'm being fact-checked by a corporate media fact-checker. But were my facts wrong or just
00:01:02.720
my opinions? It's January 6th, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
00:01:06.620
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:01:12.700
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
00:01:16.760
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my
00:01:28.840
I don't know if you watched my show just before Christmas. I think it was December 23rd.
00:01:33.100
When I took you through a very interesting study out of Denmark. This is what the study looks like.
00:01:39.040
You can find it for yourself. Here's a recap from that show.
00:01:43.300
Vaccines are not working against Omicron. They work half the time or a third of the time.
00:01:52.400
Even if you're triple boosted, even if you keep getting boosted, it works for a bit,
00:01:58.040
but then it fades away very quickly. But actually, their charts show more than their written reports.
00:02:05.840
They don't talk about this part in their written report. After a while, these two vaccines,
00:02:12.320
Moderna and Pfizer, they give negative protection. As in, if you get the Pfizer or Moderna shot,
00:02:22.320
after three months, you are more likely to get sick than if you didn't get the shot at all.
00:02:30.360
Look at this. Let me read to you from the chart.
00:02:34.580
Estimated vaccine effectiveness for Pfizer and Moderna against infection with the Omicron and
00:02:42.580
Delta variants. Okay. So, so you can see for the first 30 days, Pfizer is 55% effective and
00:02:50.140
Moderna is 30, 37% effective. Okay. So I told you that before, but look a month out, right? 31 days
00:02:56.240
out. Pfizer barely works. Do you see that? 16%. Moderna works a bit better. Two months out, 60 days.
00:03:05.160
You see that? Both have fallen to single digits. They don't work more than 90% of the time. Seriously.
00:03:13.400
What's that? 9.7% effectiveness for Pfizer, 4.2% effectiveness for Moderna. It's useless.
00:03:23.100
You might as well be taking a placebo, but look at the next line. And it's weird to me that they
00:03:32.080
didn't highlight this. This should be in the headline on the front page. I shouldn't have to
00:03:37.220
dig it out in the chart. This should be in the written report. 91 days out. What's the effectiveness
00:03:44.240
here? Minus 76.5% for Pfizer minus 39.3% for Moderna minus you are literally more likely to get
00:03:58.680
infected. If you are vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna, then if you're not, this is not my
00:04:06.780
opinion. This is what this chart in this national Danish study published online by a collaboration
00:04:13.980
of Yale and the British Medical Journal show. And they're sponsored, like I say, by Mark Zuckerberg.
00:04:20.980
This is not some anti-vaccine website. What's the point? I mean, Omicron hasn't killed anybody.
00:04:31.360
It doesn't really hospitalize anybody. It's the opposite. People are admitted to a hospital for
00:04:37.740
another reason, and then maybe they happen to be diagnosed with Omicron too. So it's like a cold.
00:04:44.620
It's no big deal. But by God, we need to sell some boosters. We need to keep the fear machine going.
00:04:53.720
But the shots aren't working. That's not me saying it. That's the Danish study.
00:05:00.060
I thought it was a pretty incredible story. If you remember, I read through paragraph after paragraph,
00:05:05.440
word for word, to show you that it wasn't my opinion. This was the medical research done by
00:05:10.700
seven experts in Denmark studying thousands of cases of Omicron. And it was published in a reputable
00:05:17.140
publication. That chart was just incredible, I think. Anyway, so I did my show about it. I don't
00:05:23.800
know if you remember. And I tweeted about it too, for those who wanted a 60-second version,
00:05:29.100
not a 20-minute version of it. Here's that tweet. I said, holy moly, this study shows that after three
00:05:36.700
months, the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna against Omicron is actually negative.
00:05:41.300
Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely, and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than
00:05:49.900
unvaxxed people. And then I had that chart there. Now, maybe it was the phrase, holy moly,
00:05:56.380
but that tweet went viral. Here are the Twitter analytics on it. Four million people saw that one
00:06:05.040
tweet. That's a lot. Almost 50,000 people clicked on the link to read the actual study, which shows a
00:06:13.000
real depth of interest, I think. Anyways, I didn't tweet it just to get the clicks. I tweeted it because
00:06:17.600
I thought it was genuinely important news in the public interest. And scary news, the vaccines that
00:06:23.160
supposed to protect you, they really fade away in just a few months. We sort of knew that in our bones,
00:06:29.160
you could sort of tell. But to actually become negative vaccines, I didn't even know that was
00:06:34.340
possible. But negative effectiveness is the phrase in the study. So I tweeted it. And a lot of people
00:06:40.300
thought it was interesting, too. I mean, look at that wording again. Other than the holy moly part,
00:06:47.340
though, it's actually just a description of the study. There aren't any adjectives other than holy
00:06:53.120
moly. It's just a fact and a snapshot of the actual graph from the actual study. So it's just a fact,
00:07:00.760
really? Okay, so Christmas came and went. Here we are in the first week of 22. But yesterday,
00:07:06.720
out of the blue, I saw this story, weirdly, in Yahoo Sports, which I don't really understand that part.
00:07:15.920
And here's the headline, misleading posts claim studies shows vaccines increase Omicron infection
00:07:22.220
risk. And apparently, it was a joint investigation by reporters around the world. You can see the byline,
00:07:28.640
AFP Brazil, AFP Canada. So here's what they said in the story. A tweet shared tens of thousands of
00:07:37.740
times claims a study found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the chances of infection with
00:07:44.140
the Omicron variant. But experts said the shots do not increase the risk of infection. And the
00:07:49.780
authors of the Danish study said the claim misinterpreted the data, overlooking key factors,
00:07:55.540
including more frequent testing and more potential exposure among the vaccinated, which would account
00:08:01.540
for the higher reported infection rate in that group. All right, so you can see a question already.
00:08:09.380
Is this supposed fact check saying that the study did not actually say that vaccines increase the risk
00:08:17.240
of infection? So that's, are they saying that, that the studies didn't say it? Or are they saying
00:08:22.660
that the vaccines did increase the risk of infection in this study? But they have some
00:08:29.280
explanations for why that happened? I don't think you can really make both arguments at once. I think
00:08:34.520
you have to choose them. I think, I think you can make the second argument. Okay. You don't like the
00:08:40.240
facts. You don't like what the study showed. So you can try and explain it away. I mean, good luck with
00:08:45.480
that. But I took you through the study in detail two weeks ago, and I showed you a clip again today
00:08:51.940
from that. The study said what it said, and I just quoted it. But then they, they show my tweet and
00:08:59.280
really bizarrely, they have a red X drawn through it, like a child might do. Sort of weird. I really
00:09:05.580
don't like this. I'm going to scribble on it. Then the fact check talks a bit about the Omicron
00:09:10.660
variant. Okay. Then they wait a bit before getting to their rebuttal. And so this is the part where
00:09:16.560
they're going to show, I got my facts wrong. Here it is. The study Levant cites aimed to determine
00:09:24.860
the effectiveness of the Pfizer-Moderna shots against the Omicron variant up to five months
00:09:29.920
after full vaccination. Okay. It found, quote, evidence of protection against infection with
00:09:35.960
the Omicron variants. But that effectiveness is significantly lower than against Delta infection
00:09:41.740
and declines rapidly over just a few months. Okay. Yeah. So that's what I said. Where,
00:09:49.480
where's the fact check? What, what, what fact did I get wrong? That's what I said. Okay. I'll read
00:09:56.760
some more. The authors added that effectiveness, quote, is reestablished upon re-vaccination and say
00:10:04.080
their findings highlight the need for a massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.
00:10:08.900
You'll recall, I mentioned that in my December video. I thought it was sort of cynical that the
00:10:15.720
official conclusion after they find that vaccines don't work very well for very long is to recommend
00:10:21.940
more vaccines. But that's not denying what the study says. It's just giving their opinion about
00:10:28.180
what to do about it. Sort of confirms that they stopped working after three months. So, so where's
00:10:32.820
the fact check part again? What, what fact did I get wrong again? So AFP, that stands for
00:10:39.220
Asian France Press. It's a, it's a French based international newswire. It takes major funding
00:10:44.340
from political groups like Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook for its fact checks. So they called up one
00:10:49.880
of the seven original researchers in Denmark. And I think he had to be terrified because his study,
00:10:56.800
in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of 4 million other people, and obviously the opinion
00:11:02.560
of AFP and their bosses at Facebook, it undermined the vaccine's reputation. I mean, if vaccines stopped
00:11:10.720
working after just a couple of months or three months, what's, what's the point, right? So a researcher
00:11:17.600
who dared to report this research from Denmark was called up by a hunter killer reporter for Facebook
00:11:25.200
AFP. And, and I think he panicked. I'll quote from their fact check. Palle Valentiner Brant,
00:11:34.720
one of the authors of the study and head of the vaccine preventable diseases group at Denmark's
00:11:39.680
Staten Serum Institute, told AFP on December 28th, quote, interpretation that our research is evidence
00:11:46.800
of anything but a protective vaccine effect is misrepresentative. Okay. So he's not denying
00:11:53.440
his study and he's not refuting my accurate quoting of his study. He's just saying, Hey people,
00:12:00.800
don't think the wrong things about my study. Everybody, please believe that the vaccines protect you.
00:12:08.080
So he's talking about interpretations, but still, I'm still waiting. What's the fact I got wrong?
00:12:14.560
I'll read this next part word for word. Valentiner Brant offered three explanations for why the vaccine
00:12:23.040
effectiveness estimate in the study could be negative. The first was that in many places,
00:12:29.520
including Denmark, vaccinated individuals are tested more frequently than unvaccinated individuals,
00:12:35.440
causing the incidence rate to be higher. The second was that Denmark's quick identification of
00:12:41.920
Omicron cases allowed the Nordic country to detect the first infected individuals who had traveled abroad
00:12:48.960
and were largely vaccinated. Thirdly, Valentiner Brant said that the study's estimation of vaccine
00:12:56.480
effectiveness is based on the assumption that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are taking
00:13:01.680
similar precautions against COVID-19. In reality, he said, people in Denmark who are unvaccinated may take
00:13:08.960
further precautions and engage in fewer risky activities than those who have received the shots,
00:13:14.000
leading vaccine effectiveness to be underestimated. Okay. So this one terrified researcher
00:13:20.320
who was being held to account by AFP, I think he did something really odd, really unscientific,
00:13:25.440
in my opinion, on the spot to stop AFP and the Facebook from demonizing him. He tried to
00:13:32.160
demonize his own study. He couldn't in good conscience say that the study was fake or inaccurate or flawed.
00:13:40.960
I mean, he ran the thing. Remember, he was one of seven researchers. They were proud enough of their work
00:13:47.520
to publish it. So he couldn't deny it. So he just started freestyling, coming up with
00:13:54.240
possible reasons why maybe his study could be the way it is. He didn't actually say his study was flawed
00:14:03.520
or wrong. He just tried to come up with, you know, a brainstorm really about why people should forget
00:14:09.440
he ever doubted big pharma. More vaxxed people were tested than unvaxxed. Maybe it was travelers who were
00:14:18.720
detected, whatever that has to do with vaccine effectiveness. I don't know. Unvaxxed people are
00:14:23.520
more careful. But those are opinions. Those are guesses, really. He didn't cite a study or any
00:14:31.040
research. I went back and looked at his original publication again online. There's no addition to
00:14:36.800
it. There's no postscript. There's no editor's note. The study was actually a study. This talk to AFP
00:14:44.160
was just him guessing on the phone, trying to brainstorm reasons why his work shouldn't
00:14:48.800
actually be taken seriously. It's sort of sad, really. Embarrassing, I think. Pretty cringe.
00:14:54.880
But he knew that the AFP was trying to cancel him and cancel the study. Just FYI, what he was doing
00:15:02.400
there was junk science. Fake news, really. His three excuses for why you shouldn't take his
00:15:10.000
real studies seriously. His three excuses are not actual studies. They're sort of punditry. I think
00:15:16.000
that's sad, but that's the state of science and medicine these days. You better be careful.
00:15:21.520
But I come back to the so-called fact check. What fact have I got wrong? I accurately quoted a study
00:15:29.280
that remains unchanged and unedited and unretracted even by the guy they got on the phone. Sure AFP got
00:15:36.720
one of the seven scientists to embarrass himself. But did I or did I not quote the study accurately to
00:15:42.240
this day? Of course I quoted it accurately. I actually showed a picture of the chart. But boy,
00:15:48.320
were these fact checkers determined to undermine the study. I guess they didn't have any more luck with
00:15:53.600
the six other Danish researchers that were probably wise not to answer their phones. So AFP started
00:15:59.520
looking around the world to TV doctors who had nothing to do with the study in Denmark. Maybe they would
00:16:05.520
denounce it to see their name in a story approvingly. Maybe they just want to be celebrities. So let me
00:16:11.920
quote a little bit more from this so-called fact check. Dan Milner, chief medical officer of the
00:16:18.480
American Society for Clinical Pathology, gave similar explanations for the discrepancy in infection
00:16:23.760
rates in the Danish study. This estimate is likely highly confounded by behavior and restrictions on the
00:16:32.080
groups he explained on January 4th. This difference in sample groups means that the actual measure of
00:16:39.120
effectiveness is not correctly estimated in this data. So this American who was not part of the study
00:16:46.000
says it was likely incorrect because he's got this theory about how it could be incorrect. Okay,
00:16:51.680
so that's a theory. Science is about taking your theory and testing it and an experiment.
00:16:57.920
So an American who doesn't like a study in Denmark, you can criticize the study if they did something wrong
00:17:05.440
or you could run the study yourself to see what the results are. But our man Milner just said, no, no,
00:17:11.520
I think it's likely that it's got to be wrong. That's called a hypothesis. That's an educated guess.
00:17:16.960
And then just to prove what he means on, he told AFP, the take home point of this is that after three
00:17:24.400
months, you need a booster. Milner concluded, adding that the study also shows how much protection
00:17:30.480
the vaccines provide for the first three months. Yeah, that's right. It sure does. It shows just how
00:17:38.480
much protection you're getting. That's a nice way of putting it. I mean, the vaccines against Omicron,
00:17:44.000
they fall to single digit effectiveness after just two months, negative effectiveness after three
00:17:49.680
months. I'm still waiting for effect check on my reporting. You can say you don't like the study.
00:17:56.400
You can say you still want to sell boosters, no matter what the study says. You can say you have
00:18:01.840
some guesses about what might be really going on. But that's just really a conspiracy theory until you
00:18:08.480
actually test it, right? It's a speculation. And even if they're all right, by the way,
00:18:14.000
and the study is junk, which no one has proved that it is, I reported on it accurately and the
00:18:20.160
research has not been retracted. So where's the fact that got wrong again? Then they hopped down to
00:18:27.040
Brazil because why not? I mean, look at a map, Brazil, Denmark. Alexandra Naim, head of the
00:18:36.400
Infectious Diseases Department of the Sao Paulo State University in Brazil, dismissed claims that
00:18:41.760
vaccines could increase chances of infection. There is no vaccine that induces a greater risk of
00:18:49.120
infection. This is untrue. It is a biological fallacy. Vaccines may not be effective, but it
00:18:57.600
does not mean that they increase the risk, he told AFP. So he simply refuses to believe the study that
00:19:04.400
shows otherwise. It is a fallacy. So you see, he has a theory he believes in very deeply.
00:19:11.600
It's a belief system. And so when facts come forward, inconvenient facts, by the way, the study
00:19:18.080
in Denmark had more than 5,000 patients in it. When 5,000 facts come forward, proving that his theory
00:19:23.920
needs to be adjusted, he's just so emotionally invested in his theory that vaccines work and they
00:19:30.960
always work, of course they work, that he would literally throw out a study and 5,000 examples is
00:19:36.480
impossible, a fallacy, rather than change his closed mind. That is not science, my friends. That is a
00:19:42.720
religion, maybe. Maybe that's a cult. Maybe it's superstition. Maybe it's payola. I don't know, but it is
00:19:47.840
not science. They quoted one last guy. Boy, they put a lot of work into this, didn't they? More work
00:19:53.280
than I did. They quoted one last guy also with no connection to the study. Richard Kennedy,
00:20:00.800
co-director of vaccine research at Mayo Clinic, also rejected the idea of vaccines increasing
00:20:06.960
likelihood of infection. There is no rational biologic reason for the vaccine to have 55%
00:20:13.440
Pfizer or 36% Moderna effectiveness at day 30, and then 60 days later, increase your susceptibility
00:20:21.440
to disease, he said on January 4th, referring to the earlier effectiveness rates in the study.
00:20:27.760
It is more reasonable to assume that the study has some flaw in its design, he added,
00:20:34.240
pointing out that the authors of the study did admit the shortcomings. So again, he just can't
00:20:40.000
believe it. He won't believe it. He doesn't believe it. So he's going to go with that feeling in his bones
00:20:45.600
rather than a study. But again, even if this astrologer priest or whatever he is is right,
00:20:53.440
and the Danish scientists were wrong, can you tell me what's inaccurate about my tweet? Either I reported
00:20:58.800
on the study accurately, or I did not. Disagreeing with a study that I accurately described is not a fact
00:21:09.120
check on me. And simply not believing something, it isn't really a fact check on the study itself,
00:21:16.800
is it? I love how the whole thing ends. AFP fact check has debunked more than 1200 inaccurate claims
00:21:25.600
related to COVID-19 here. They're so proud of themselves. Now I haven't read all thousand plus
00:21:33.680
inaccurate claims. But I don't think, I'm just going to guess, I don't think that AFP has ever
00:21:42.400
corrected a single false statement by Anthony Fauci or Canada's Theresa Tam or any other public health
00:21:49.280
deep state type on anything from masks to vaccine effective. People should not be walking around
00:21:56.080
with masks. Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater. Wearing a mask might make
00:22:02.000
people feel a little bit better. Masks are protective. But it's not providing the perfect
00:22:07.680
protection that people think that it is. There has not been any indication that putting a mask on and
00:22:13.680
wearing a mask for a considerable period of time has any deleterious effects. There are unintended
00:22:19.840
consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face. And can you get some
00:22:24.720
schmutz sort of staying inside there? Of course.
00:22:26.880
You do not need to wear a mask indoors if in fact you've been vaccinated. Good that you're vaccinated,
00:22:33.600
but in a situation where you have people indoors, particularly crowded, you should wear a mask.
00:22:38.320
So even if you are vaccinated, you should wear a mask. If in fact you are vaccinated,
00:22:43.760
fully vaccinated, you are protected and you do not need to wear a mask outdoors or indoors.
00:22:48.800
When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks.
00:22:53.440
You know, if you look at children outside, particularly when they're with the family,
00:22:58.320
walking down the street, playing a game or what have you, don't have to wear a mask.
00:23:02.880
The pediatric, the Academy of Pediatric actually makes that recommendation that children should
00:23:08.320
be wearing masks from two years old onward. And you're asking now if your child is a member of
00:23:14.160
your household, can you walk outdoors with your child without a mask? According to that chart,
00:23:20.320
the answer is yes. But the child can't not to beat it, beat it to death. Yes. Yes.
00:23:25.360
Because now the CDC says, I mean, I think I've got this right. One mask is better than zero masks.
00:23:31.200
Two masks is better than one mask, but you don't have to have double masks. Is that right? I mean,
00:23:37.200
it became clear that cloth coverings that you didn't have to buy in a store that you could make yourself
00:23:43.040
were adequate. And then you want it to fit better. So one of the ways you could do it,
00:23:47.600
if you would like to, is put a cloth mask over, which actually here and here and here where you
00:23:54.800
could get leakage in is much better contained. Are you a double masker, Dr. Fauci? Look like you are.
00:24:01.440
Yeah. I mean, it's tough to fact check vaccines when Bill Gates alone has given more than 300 million
00:24:07.840
US to the media, his own private media bailout, just like Trudeau does here in Canada. But Gates
00:24:13.600
himself actually admits the vaccines don't really vaccinate as promised.
00:24:19.280
Economic damage, the deaths, it's been completely horrific. And I would expect that will lead
00:24:29.280
the R and D budgets to be focused on things we didn't have today. You know, we didn't have vaccines
00:24:36.880
that block transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce
00:24:42.560
the transmissions. We need a new way of doing the vaccine. Look, I'm not worried about what some
00:24:48.080
anonymous writer in Brazil or wherever has to say about my tweet two weeks later on a Yahoo Sports
00:24:56.320
page. I mean, who cares? It was embarrassing journalism on their part. It's just important to remember,
00:25:02.560
though, that professional fact checkers are really anti journalists. They're counter journalists.
00:25:08.000
They're PR war rooms for big pharma and big tech. They just know that readers will be more open to
00:25:14.640
their point of view if they call themselves fact checkers than if they tell you their agenda and
00:25:19.600
tell you who paid them. And they're all paid by someone. AFP, like I said, is paid by Mark Zuckerberg,
00:25:26.160
the Uber Democrat. Check a look at this. I mean, sometimes it's even more direct. Here's James Smith,
00:25:34.640
a Pfizer board member. Oh, who just happens to be the chair of the Reuters News Foundation. You've heard
00:25:41.120
of Reuters, I presume. It's one of the biggest and oldest news wires in the world. And they love
00:25:45.520
to fact check critics of big pharma and lockdowns. They don't love to fact check Fauci that much.
00:25:52.800
I'm worried only in that if this rigged fact check, which is actually an opinion check,
00:25:58.560
is given any sort of weight, for example, by Facebook who paid for it. Then it could get me or
00:26:05.440
even Rebel News banned from platforms for disinformation, even though, as I've just showed you,
00:26:12.400
it's the so-called fact check that engaged in junk science and fear mongering and even some conspiracy
00:26:18.720
theory. My facts remain untouched, unchecked. That junk journalist, really just a corporate PR flack,
00:26:26.640
doesn't even use his own name. That could get us banned because of their lies.
00:26:34.480
Look, never believe a fact checker. You are your own fact checker. We all are. You know,
00:26:40.720
there's an old Latin saying, my pronunciation is wrong, which means who's watching the watchman?
00:26:50.880
Just because someone comes up to you in the night and says, they're the night watchman. Well, it could
00:26:59.520
be. But you should check. Maybe they're actually a robber playing a trick on you. Stay with us for more.
00:28:16.240
Hundreds of police vehicles, thousands of police. That's a scene from Montreal where a curfew has been
00:28:32.400
brought back in, a curfew. That's what parents give to children. Maybe it's done to criminals. Maybe
00:28:40.640
you could perhaps imagine to very sick people, though I don't think that fits our civil liberties.
00:28:46.880
But in fact, in Quebec, the curfew applies to adults as well as children, to innocent people,
00:28:52.320
not criminals, and to anyone regardless of their health status. Imagine those who got two jabs and
00:28:59.280
a booster thinking that they would be spared from the authoritarian government. In fact, today,
00:29:04.880
Quebec has announced that they're expanding their vaccine passports and changing it.
00:29:10.160
So anyone who has merely two jabs will now be considered unclean again, thrown back in
00:29:17.120
with the no jabbers, and they won't be allowed to go anywhere. Not that anyone can go anywhere after
00:29:23.120
10. That fascinating footage of hundreds or at least dozens in those video images, dozens of Quebecers
00:29:32.400
being rounded up and arrested simply for going out on the streets, that was filmed by our Quebec crew,
00:29:37.600
Alexa Lavoie, Guillaume Roy, and our friend Yankee Pollack. Alexa joins us now. She's back in Quebec City.
00:29:43.600
Alexa, great work, incredible footage. Tell me how it was. You were on the street because we had
00:29:49.760
a special legal form that we filled out. We fought with the Montreal police before, but it looks like they
00:29:56.800
allowed you to do your journalism without arresting you. Is that true? Or did the police harass you at all?
00:30:04.960
So at the beginning, they just pushed me a little bit too, because they say, go to the sidewalk. And
00:30:11.680
when I was in the sidewalk, they pushed me back in the street. So I was like, where do you want me to stand?
00:30:16.560
Just tell me instead of pushing me. And afterwards, they let us alone, just filming of what is going on.
00:30:25.040
I was the first time I saw the police let us doing our job, our journalist job. I was really surprised
00:30:33.200
of this. But I was happy. The only other interception that I had, it's when I took my footage at the end,
00:30:43.520
where you saw like all the police car was in the parking lot. So I went there to film because I was
00:30:49.680
like how many vehicle of police is there for only a bunch of people breaking a curfew. That's completely
00:30:59.040
terrible when we see that it's our tax that's pay all this. So I went there to take a footage and the
00:31:07.200
police came out and come to me and say, if you don't want another ticket, ma'am, go home,
00:31:14.320
because we will find you again. I was like, I'm sorry, I'm media. And they were and they say to me,
00:31:20.000
I'm sorry, I didn't see your leech on your neck. And they let me alone.
00:31:25.840
Well, the reason I asked that is because I want to make sure our rebel staff are fine,
00:31:30.000
but also because in the past, we have been treated very poorly by the Montreal police, including
00:31:35.360
some violence against our colleagues, Efron Monsanto, Mocha Beziergin, and Lincoln Jay. So
00:31:41.280
I'm glad that they were at least giving you a little bit of space. Now, we're not the story,
00:31:45.520
we're telling the story. If I saw correctly, pretty much every person, man or women, young and old,
00:31:54.560
who was on the street was rounded up. Now, were they given a ticket? Were they taken to jail? What
00:31:59.840
happened to those people? So, first of all, at the beginning,
00:32:04.640
there were really a lot of people, I would say maybe 50 or 60 people at the metro station on
00:32:10.640
Aure de Beauregard. So they started to walk just before 10 in the street, in the neighborhood.
00:32:18.560
And so the police, like, did surround them. And they were ambushed them in the end of some streets.
00:32:27.440
So the protesters just turned around and tried to change the itinerary of the march for trying to
00:32:34.640
avoid the police. But at the end, when we came back to the main street, it was like the riot squad was
00:32:42.720
waiting there. I talked about four lines of riot squad ready to jump on the protesters to give them
00:32:52.160
some fines. So most of them, they received a first fine. And what they say that if they got a second
00:32:59.440
fine, they would be bring in jail probably. But so far, what I saw, nobody has been bring in jail,
00:33:08.880
probably just one guy who tried to run away from the police. And the police grabbed him on the ground.
00:33:18.640
I don't know for him. I didn't see the end of the interaction. But most of them received. Now,
00:33:26.960
it's an inflation of $8. Now, the fine is $1,558.
00:33:32.560
$1,558. $1,558. Well, I know that in the past, we had a project in English called fightthefines.com.
00:33:41.280
En français, we called it contesterlescontreventions.com. And forgive my accent, I've been practicing.
00:33:49.520
I think maybe we should rev that up again. We had sort of shut that down because most of the lockdowns
00:33:56.000
ended a few months ago. And so we had shifted our work to the vaccinations. But it sounds like we're
00:34:01.680
going to need to get a law firm up and running in Quebec again on this, because I think that
00:34:08.080
they're trying to scare people and demoralize them. I want to tell you that my reaction when I saw the
00:34:14.000
footage is, first of all, I was very glad that we have a Quebec team now. Because when we started
00:34:19.040
covering Quebec over a year ago, we didn't really have reporters. Our friend Yankee was in Montreal,
00:34:25.120
but he wasn't really an on-camera guy. So my first thought was, boy, I'm glad that Alexa and Guillaume
00:34:31.120
and Yankee was back. I felt very good that we have you there. And especially since you know
00:34:35.840
French so well. But my second thought was, an entire province of over eight million people,
00:34:42.720
about eight and a half million people was just essentially put under house arrest. And for a
00:34:48.400
while there, you weren't even allowed to walk your dog between 10 PM and 5 AM. Theoretically,
00:34:54.000
you would have to go to the bathroom in your own house. How is that a public health measure?
00:34:57.280
And if all that can happen in a province of eight and a half million people
00:35:02.400
is fewer than a hundred people protest, that's very sad to me. Now, were there other protests,
00:35:12.560
Seriously? I know that it would have a lot of protests. I know that curfew is existing too in
00:35:21.760
Europe. So people are protesting against it. But I hope that people will—it's sure,
00:35:30.560
with the announcement of today, with the measure they want to put in place like more in Quebec,
00:35:36.480
the fact that double vax are not considered fully immune, and the fact that they want to extend the
00:35:43.520
vax passport to all on essential businesses. So that means that only grocery stores would be allowed
00:35:53.280
to us, like to us, to the unvaccinated and for the double vaccinated, because the people that
00:36:04.800
doesn't want to have their booster, they will lose their privilege. I think, like,
00:36:10.400
the protests will increase so much. I don't know what will happen with Quebec anymore.
00:36:16.320
Well, I hope the protests increase because I believe, you know, Newton's law, every action has
00:36:22.320
an equal and opposite reaction. And I think that these politicians and health bureaucrats keep testing,
00:36:29.680
how far can I go? How far can I go? And so far, the answer is there's no limit. And that's what's
00:36:38.560
so interesting. Bring the curfew back. And, you know, less than one percent of one percent of
00:36:44.480
Quebecers seem to be upset enough to do anything about it. And if they're now going to turn everyone
00:36:49.600
who's double vaxxed into an unclean person again, who—I mean, I want to know, will Quebecers accept
00:36:57.600
this? Because I think Quebec has a real civil liberties tradition, but it also—there's an authoritarian
00:37:04.720
side to French history. You know, Napoleon and, you know, there's some strong leaders with a strong
00:37:12.240
fist. And I hope that the civil libertarian instincts of that province rise up. And right now I'm feeling
00:37:21.280
a little bit despondent. I know you're doing great work and Guillaume and Yankee, but I think most of the
00:37:27.600
other media love this lockdown, for example. The media, am I right?
00:37:33.200
I think they gain, like, visibility from this lockdown. They just encourage the fear, I would say.
00:37:42.000
Some of them just started to talk about the inconsistency of our director of health
00:37:50.560
that we have right now. All the fact that he said something, but it changed. As the curfew, he was
00:37:57.200
saying, we will never put in place because it's a ward measure. And a couple of months after he put
00:38:04.080
it in place without science article or proof that it's working. So right now they are talking a little
00:38:13.120
bit more about it. But still, they keep, like, saying, punish the unvax and write some really crazy
00:38:24.560
article about it. That incites people to hate each other. And I think they love that. I don't understand.
00:38:33.760
And it's troubling because, of course, of course, Justin Trudeau is a Quebec politician from Papineau
00:38:42.080
riding in the Montreal area. And he I mean, you know, not all Quebecers follow him. But, you know, he himself
00:38:49.840
has demonized unvaccinated people. He said they're misogynist, even though the typical vaccine skeptic is a
00:38:58.240
woman, as a mom. And he's called them racist, even though the groups with the lowest vaccination rates
00:39:05.040
are actually minorities. But he doesn't care. He's trying to demonize people who like it's that
00:39:11.360
demonization. Should we tolerate them? He says, which implies that the answer might be no. And I really
00:39:19.920
haven't seen this in Canada in ages. And it's like all this hate that was tamped down by the official
00:39:27.840
woke people. You can't be racist. You can't be sexist. You can't be transphobic. You can't
00:39:33.200
discriminate based on all these hundred things. But this is the one group you can get all your hate
00:39:38.800
out. It's like the book 1984 when they had two minutes of hate. You were allowed to hate the
00:39:45.040
official enemy for two minutes. Get out of your system and then go back to being docile. It really is
00:39:52.560
a classic totalitarian move to have an official enemy group and to direct hate at them. It's
00:39:58.480
it's really un-Canadian. Yeah. And when we see like the all family, it's splitting up. All many
00:40:07.920
friendship is splitting up. Now we live like in a society or everybody is polarized,
00:40:15.360
divided and the hate and the crime is rising. You know, it is terrible. And you're right. People
00:40:25.120
are divided against each other. And I I sensed that very early when storekeepers were turned against
00:40:31.680
customers. You know, I mean, there was a local bakery I would go to almost every morning. And then
00:40:37.680
I felt like and this was this was in 2020 before mask mandates. And and just say I was friends with
00:40:45.120
them and they thought they either had to do it or they were scared and they turned against me. And I,
00:40:51.040
you know, I'm not going to fight with them. But I was, you know, your neighborhood, you talk to him,
00:40:55.680
you meet with her and you try and find common ground. It's the opposite now. Now they ask invasive
00:41:01.520
questions. Are you where's your mask? Are you vaccinated? Are you triple that? Where's your past?
00:41:06.480
Prove it. I'm sorry. I have to kick you out of my restaurant. I don't want to, but I'll get in
00:41:10.800
trouble if I don't. It really feels East German and that we're all spying on each other all the time.
00:41:17.040
I'm very upset with things and I'm sorry that Quebec is leading the way in the wrong direction, Alexa.
00:41:23.520
Yeah. And I'm just so sad to see that no, not much people are standing out by fear to lose their job,
00:41:35.280
by fear to not be able to afford their rent, to feed their child. It's all fear. They live by the
00:41:43.280
fear instead of to live by what they think that is correct or not. And probably the fact that the
00:41:52.240
third booster now is something that they need to have, probably a lot of people will stand up because
00:41:59.840
I know a lot of people who doesn't want it and they don't want it because they know that it's not
00:42:05.280
working. So we'll see, we'll see if we will be a patriot and people will say no, no anymore.
00:42:15.360
Well, I sure hope so. And I tell you, you're doing a great job. I want to tell our viewers,
00:42:19.120
because I'm not sure if we've had you on, um, since, uh, our Christmas get together,
00:42:24.080
where we had the Rebbe awards and the Rebbe awards are our own in-house awards. We have
00:42:28.320
the viewer's choice award and other awards. And I want to tell our viewers that to you, Alexa,
00:42:32.960
when our ambassadrice award, which if I'm pronouncing it right, is the French way of saying an
00:42:38.560
ambassador and you have been a great ambassador for rebel news and our values of freedom and personal
00:42:45.120
autonomy in the province of Quebec. And not only have you told the Quebec story to, to the English
00:42:51.200
speaking world, you've told the Quebec story to Quebecers. And I, and that's why you won that Rebbe
00:42:56.640
award. So congratulations. Great to see you, my friend. And I know you're going to be on this file.
00:43:01.200
You're going to be covering this story as long as it goes on.
00:43:03.600
Yeah, I will. I will cover like everything that was going on for the next, uh,
00:43:10.720
few months and years probably, but I need to show like the rest of Canada that because
00:43:17.360
Quebec always being the precursor of what is going on afterwards in Canada. So people need to know what
00:43:24.080
is going on. Right. Well, keep up the great work, my friend. And thank you for taking the time with
00:43:28.640
us today. Thank you. Have a great day. I sure will. Isn't she great?
00:43:33.360
That's Alexa Lavoie, our Quebec journalist, chief journalist out there. She leads a team
00:43:38.800
and of course the Rebbe award winner. Stay with us more ahead.
00:43:41.440
Hey, welcome back. Your viewer feedback. David Hines says,
00:43:57.680
this interview should be available to the general public so we can share it widely. Great job. Great
00:44:03.800
interview. You're talking about Brian Peckford, the former premier of Newfoundland. And I, you know,
00:44:09.540
it was my favorite moment of that whole interview. And by the way, thank you. I agree with you. And
00:44:13.380
we're going to put the whole thing online and we're going to put little parts of it online too,
00:44:17.540
just because it was a very long interview. Um, but there were so many little nuggets in there.
00:44:22.980
My favorite part when he talked about how, remember the preamble that had a colon, not a
00:44:28.740
period or a semicolon. He was explaining them. And I just like, yes, this guy literally knows
00:44:34.260
every dot, every jot of the charter because he helped write it. He debated and negotiated every
00:44:42.180
word and every letter. Wow. What an, what an expert he is. Wizard 2003 says, this has nothing to do with
00:44:49.860
health. It's all about policies laid out by the world economic forum. I've noticed that Trudeau,
00:44:56.260
Macron and Ardern were all part of Klaus Schwab's young world leaders plan. They're not even hiding
00:45:02.980
it anymore. You know, the most incredible thing to me is that while she sits as finance minister,
00:45:09.140
and I think she's still deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland is actually on the board of
00:45:12.260
governors, board of trustees of the world economic forum. How do you do that? I mean, first of all,
00:45:16.340
it's an obvious conflict of interest. How do you sit on any board, especially a billionaire's
00:45:20.980
corporate board like that while you're, while you're also prime minister of a country? I mean,
00:45:25.940
it's just so absurd. Deputy prime minister, it's absurd. Um, but that's, uh, outside the scope of
00:45:32.660
interest and curiosity for the media party. EnergyMind89 says, I wonder if citizens were forced
00:45:40.260
to vote, such as was the case in ancient Greece. Back then, if citizens didn't vote, he was fined heavily.
00:45:47.140
Perhaps then Canadians would pay attention to those in power and be more inclined to hold them
00:45:51.540
accountable. Low voter turnout in last year's federal election and the municipal elections,
00:45:56.340
Calgary shows that 50 plus percent of the citizenship can't be bothered to participate
00:46:00.660
in the democratic process. I hear you, but I'm not sure forcing people to vote will get a better result.
00:46:06.020
I mean, some people simply don't know anything about the different candidates,
00:46:10.500
or they don't like any of the candidates and forcing them to vote, uh, with a low information
00:46:15.700
or no information votes. It might be worse than not having them vote at all.
00:46:20.580
That's the show for today. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters,
00:46:24.820
to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom. And let me leave you with our video of
00:46:28.660
the day from Drea talking to a doctor explaining why thousands want Canada to stop COVID-19 shots
00:46:36.020
for pregnant women and children. I'll leave you with that. Goodbye.
00:46:39.300
See, the big difference I think your audience has to understand is when you have a real clinical trial,
00:46:47.060
you are monitoring all injury and on a regular basis. Uh, normally in a trial you, for example,
00:46:54.580
in the Pfizer trial, you're supposed to tell whether or not a person actually developed COVID.
00:46:59.380
As it turns out, there was more deaths in the groups that were vaccinated in the, in the, in the trial
00:47:06.900
than were unvaccinated in the trial. And determining whether or not a person actually had COVID-19
00:47:13.620
was at the discretion of the doctor. Instead of testing everybody in both the vaccinated group
00:47:19.220
and the unvaccinated group, the doctor decided who they were going to test. So it was an incredible
00:47:24.660
bias that was there. But at the end of the day, when you run the numbers, it, Pfizer claims with
00:47:31.380
relative risk reduction is about 91%, uh, you know, efficacy, but that's relative numbers. The actual
00:47:41.620
numbers are so few people actually got COVID in the trial that when you calculate what's called the
00:47:48.820
absolute risk reduction. Uh, I did it myself. I calculated they it's depending from the data
00:47:56.020
that you're choosing. We're going with a number of 0.8% relative absolute risk reduction. That means if
00:48:02.500
you vaccinated everybody in the country and everything worked well, you might expect to reduce the case
00:48:10.420
numbers of COVID-19 in the country by 0.8%. I'm here with Dr. Steven Pellick.
00:48:18.660
And a beautiful art collection, but that's not what this report is about. It's about, uh,
00:48:24.660
something very important that the public should hear about. You've initiated a petition, uh, that I
00:48:30.420
think is a matter of public interest and, uh, we're going to link that, but we're also going to get your
00:48:37.060
credentials so people know who you are and how it pertains to what we're about to talk about.
00:48:42.420
Sure. No, I'm a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia.
00:48:46.740
I've been on faculty for about 33 years. I'm also the president and founder of
00:48:52.820
Connexus Bioinformatics Corporation in Vancouver. We've been actually specializing on doing research
00:48:59.940
for about 2000 labs around the world, 35 countries, looking at development of markers for cancer and
00:49:06.340
neurological disorders and diabetes. But more recently, we've been working also on the COVID-19
00:49:12.740
problem with development of, of, uh, tests to determine whether or not a person has actually
00:49:17.940
been infected with SARS-CoV-2. And, uh, we've been testing drugs for their ability to inhibit the
00:49:24.500
replication of the virus. And finally, I'm also involved in the Canadian COVID Care Alliance
00:49:29.700
as the chair of the scientific and medical advisory committee. I'm actually the vice president and
00:49:35.380
one of the founders of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. So I'm pretty well in tune to what's
00:49:43.780
And so today in this report, you're going to want to watch it in full because we're going to discuss
00:49:49.300
some concerns that you have and have brought forward about pregnant women and, uh, childbearing
00:49:56.740
aged women getting the vaccine as well as children. So you're going to want to watch this in full for
00:50:03.380
I'd like to start the interview off with a very basic question, but one that I think is very
00:50:11.460
important for the public to hear your answer to. And is that, do you think these vaccines are
00:50:20.660
Yes, the vaccines are still clearly experimental. They're, they're expected to go and complete their
00:50:27.300
phase three trials really at the end of 2022. Uh, in fact, into 2023. So phase three trials normally
00:50:36.100
last about four to five years. Uh, what we've done is after almost two months into the phase three
00:50:42.980
trials, they were already starting to be released for general public use, um, through the emergency use
00:50:50.260
authorization. Um, I, I guess about the three month clinical trials were done and then it was
00:50:56.580
available. So we don't have any long-term efficacy data or safety data. The best we have right now is
00:51:04.180
about a year and a half of data. And so far that data is now starting to reveal a lot of problems with
00:51:11.300
the efficacy of these vaccines. It's quite evident that now we're going into our third shot and even
00:51:16.980
fourth shot booster shots because the vaccines are not lasting in terms of their efficacy. And now we're
00:51:23.780
learning as time goes on that there's a lot more, uh, cases of, uh, vaccine injury and this is becoming
00:51:31.220
well-documented. Now that's through the VAERS system, for example, uh, with this reporting in
00:51:37.060
the United States, but you can even go back to the, uh, six month studies now with the Pfizer trials.
00:51:44.740
And what we're finding there is that the degree of injury that's reported at least five percent of
00:51:50.580
it is serious injury and up to about 70 percent, 80 percent is injury of some kind. So what's
00:51:59.540
interesting is that when we look in the general public in the reporting systems, we have what we
00:52:04.260
call passive reporting. What we're seeing is less than one percent injury reports. It's as though we're
00:52:11.700
not hearing about significant serious injury and yet we would have predicted that from the
00:52:19.540
phase three trials that have been done up to the six month point. So yes, I think we're seeing that
00:52:24.260
the vaccines are failing in terms of efficacy. Our Omicron, uh, cases now, which is the dominant
00:52:32.740
cases at this time, have skyrocketed. So we have a lot more cases of people getting sick.
00:52:39.540
Um, mild sickness is the good news. Fortunately, it's not translating into increased hospitalizations
00:52:47.220
or increased ICU units or increased deaths. So that's, that seems as though the virus itself is
00:52:54.660
migrating into a form or evolving into a form, I should say, which is in fact, um, more
00:53:02.020
probably infectious, uh, but much more mild. And those are characteristics we would expect
00:53:08.420
that a, a strain that's going to dominate over the other strains will have.
00:53:15.220
I just want to backpedal just a minute. We're going to talk, um, in this about concerns specific
00:53:21.700
to children taking these vaccinations as well as, um, uh, pregnant women or childbearing aged women.
00:53:30.100
Now, before I do that, you mentioned VAERS and the adverse reactions with last I checked was,
00:53:37.940
Yes. Yes. I mean, the serious things was in terms of number of deaths and some people are
00:53:44.420
confused because the VAERS system, you can have international reports as well as reports just
00:53:49.300
from United States. So we know within the United States, it's around 9,000 deaths that have been
00:53:55.540
linked in the VAERS system with COVID injections.
00:53:59.300
Right. And I guess my question about that specifically was, what do you say to the people
00:54:04.820
who say, oh, well, you know, it's not a secure system to track these things. Like anybody can
00:54:13.860
That's true. It is, there's a certain degree of self-reporting. However, the system goes back over
00:54:20.820
30 years. And so what we see is that with more than 70 other vaccines that have been covered
00:54:27.620
during that 30 year period, in the last year where we have the three vaccines that are in the US,
00:54:34.980
they don't have the AstraZeneca. It was never approved in the US,
00:54:39.140
nor was it approved in about 12 European countries, but we have it in Canada.
00:54:42.900
So just based on those three vaccines, we've had more serious deaths, well, more deaths and more
00:54:49.780
serious injury from just those three vaccines in the last year than all the other vaccines put together
00:54:56.500
for the last 30 years. So, you know, this idea of the self-reporting and that, you know,
00:55:01.060
maybe it's anti-vaxxers that are populating these sites. And there are safeguards within the VAERS
00:55:06.820
system itself to reduce that kind of abuse. It's evident just looking at the history of the VAERS system.
00:55:15.860
And a Harvard study indicated that only about one to two percent of the total number of cases
00:55:23.380
that are in the VAERS system is representative of what they think is actually happening. So most
00:55:28.740
people take those numbers in the VAERS system and they multiply by about 30. So if you have about 9,000
00:55:34.980
deaths, you can multiply 30. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths that are likely attributed
00:55:40.340
to the vaccine in the United States alone. In a recent stat, I mean, we're in British Columbia,
00:55:46.260
but our country, Canada, is highly vaccinated. British Columbia recently said that around 82 percent
00:55:54.020
of people five years old and up have been fully vaccinated. What is your biggest concern with these
00:56:02.340
vaccines when it comes to children? First, you have to look at the risk and the benefit.
00:56:06.100
The risk is that if you're a child or an adolescent under 18 years of age, it's about one in 100,000
00:56:15.620
that you will end up in hospital. So the risk is extremely low. The risk of dying is about one in a
00:56:23.300
million. Now that's based on the Delta and the Alpha strains and the Wuhan strains. We know with Omicron,
00:56:30.340
that's even more milder. So even less of a chance of being hospitalized and seriously ill. So the risks
00:56:38.900
are very, very low for children. We also know that from studies done here in BC with the BC Women's
00:56:45.460
and Children's Hospital, where they went out and they tested, I think it was about 107 schools
00:56:51.140
in the lower mainland. They found that three quarters of them had like no cases that they could document
00:56:57.300
of COVID. There are some hot spots, but overall the results of the study is that if you're very young,
00:57:06.660
the chances of you acquiring COVID from another child was extremely low. The transmissions from
00:57:14.420
a child to an adult was extremely low like a teacher. In the cases where we had COVID, it was really
00:57:21.380
from other family members that then passed it on to the child. So we know that the children,
00:57:27.540
not only at very low risk, but they're least likely to be transmitting actually COVID-19 to others,
00:57:35.220
and especially elderly. So this idea that you have to protect grandma from your child, that's just not
00:57:44.740
And yet here we are delaying school or public school yet again for children after the winter.
00:57:51.380
I would comment that. That's one thing that I think the public health office in BC did right.
00:57:58.820
They left our schools open for as long as possible. Of course, it was under conditions of mask wearing
00:58:04.260
and probably huge psychological damage to the children, but at least they were able to go to school.
00:58:10.740
And that wasn't true across the country. So I think this is one thing that was done right,
00:58:15.940
but it was based on actual scientific data. Your other question was, what's the risk to children?
00:58:26.100
Right. So the risk is very low, as I've tried to explain. And sorry, the risk of the COVID
00:58:34.580
is low. So what's the risk of the vaccines? So the problem with the vaccines is they are experimental,
00:58:40.340
as we've discussed. There isn't no long-term data. We're now seeing when we look at the Pfizer trials,
00:58:47.700
there's serious concerns about how those trials were actually performed. And the Canadian COVID
00:58:53.620
Care Alliance, with which I'm associated with, put together a little video on this.
00:58:58.100
Myocarditis. It's available at the Canadian COVIDcare.org website. It's called the Pfizer
00:59:05.620
Inoculations More Harm Than Good. And that video is now viral, and it's been highlighted on other
00:59:14.100
programs in the United States in particular. But basically, what we're seeing is with children,
00:59:23.140
the actual risks of myocarditis has been really highlighted. It looks like with the Moderna vaccine,
00:59:29.380
it's about a 1 in 2,700 chance, if you're male and you're under 18, or under 24 actually,
00:59:36.820
that you can develop myocarditis. And it happens in females as well as males, just not as high a
00:59:43.300
frequency. And so we're giving the Pfizer vaccine. Originally, the estimates were maybe 1 in 20,000
00:59:53.460
children that would be vaccinated would get myocarditis. That number from Israel studies is
00:59:59.780
now looking closer to 1 in 5,000. So it's actually still a very, very high risk. So I think this is
01:00:07.460
just, if you're looking at 1 in 100,000 chance of going to the hospital from the COVID-19, and maybe
01:00:15.380
1 in 5,000 chance of going to the hospital, because 99% of people who get myocarditis
01:00:21.380
go to the hospital, you're about 20 times higher risk of being hospitalized from the vaccine than
01:00:28.980
from the actual virus. Your risk of the virus causing myocarditis, if you're a child, is about
01:00:38.020
So you figure 1 in 100,000, and then they figure if you get COVID-19 and you're in the hospital,
01:00:45.380
it's 1 in 750. So you can run the numbers and you can get that 2 in a billion. So really, there's no
01:00:53.060
real upside to the children. They have very strong innate immune systems that allows them to take on
01:00:59.940
this virus very effectively. Most people that are infected, especially when they're young,
01:01:04.980
they don't even have symptoms. So one could expect this to be actually spread quite easily,
01:01:11.540
especially now that we have the Omicron that spreads even easier. And the masks don't really
01:01:16.900
make a difference in the schools. The size of the pores and the masks and the size of the virus,
01:01:24.260
when it's in an aerosol form, it's just like a mosquito going through a chain length fence. It's just not
01:01:30.100
a barrier. So the virus does spread and it will do so easier. But that's just the short-term risks,
01:01:37.060
the myocarditis alone. My biggest concern is the nature of how these experimental vaccines actually
01:01:45.620
work. They're either RNA vaccines, where you're delivering the RNA, the genetic instructions to make
01:01:53.300
the spike protein, the most pathogenic part of the virus. It has like 28 proteins, but the one,
01:01:59.700
the big one that's on the surface that sticks out because it has a spike protein, gives it a crown-like
01:02:05.700
appearance. This is the protein that allows the virus to attach to cells to get inside to allow the virus to
01:02:13.940
replicate. So what ends up happening is that this RNA is translated into making the protein inside your
01:02:24.820
own body cells, and then it migrates to the surface of your own body cells to be presented and stays
01:02:31.300
attached. So now in order to elicit an immune response, your white blood cells, neutrophils,
01:02:39.460
macrophages, macrophages, they have to attack your own cells and actually destroy them and take the
01:02:45.780
pieces of the parts of the virus that are digested partly and present them to what we call B cells and
01:02:54.740
T cells that are lymphocytes that are in your lymph nodes. And in those locations, the B cells produce
01:03:02.660
the antibodies. So in order to get an antibody response, you have to actually kill your own cells.
01:03:08.260
And the problem is that this tissue destruction that occurs in that inflammatory response, the
01:03:15.140
first time that you've been vaccinated, the effects will be fairly mild. But the second time that you
01:03:20.820
get vaccinated, you now have T cells that are alert to the spike protein and you have antibodies that
01:03:28.420
recognize the spike protein. And so they're all there in that next inflammatory attack. And the problem is
01:03:35.060
with repeated inflammatory attacks, you end up breaking what we call tolerance and you start to
01:03:41.860
have basically antibodies and T cells that are educated to attack your own body cells. And that
01:03:49.300
kind of continuous, every time you get a booster shot, not even necessarily with the spike protein,
01:03:55.140
but with this technology, you know, people talk about using it for influenza vaccines and other
01:04:01.780
opportunities. It'll be successive. So your first influenza shot may in fact be your fourth shot
01:04:09.780
because you've had three, you know, let's say COVID-19 shots. So this breakage of tolerance,
01:04:15.140
it's not just the site that you've injected in your deltoid muscles. This virus spreads,
01:04:22.980
you know, it goes to the liver, it goes to the spleen, it goes to the adrenals,
01:04:28.340
and it goes to the ovaries. And this is where my biggest concern is.
01:04:36.580
The vaccine, it can spread from where the site of the injection is through your bloodstream. It's
01:04:45.620
very hard to prevent it from actually getting into your blood. And from your bloodstream,
01:04:50.180
it can travel throughout your body. And where we see it accumulates is primarily in, like I say,
01:04:55.380
the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, which controls, you know, hormonal control and your
01:05:01.780
ovaries, which also has hormonal control. And if you get an inflammatory response, let's say in your
01:05:07.220
ovaries, well, this is extremely disconcerting. We don't know what the long-term ramifications of this.
01:05:14.180
We do know, based on people who have been vaccinated, and you look at what the symptoms are,
01:05:21.300
they include changes in menstrual cycles, heavy bleeding. We hear of people that are menopause
01:05:27.780
that are now starting to basically have periods again. This change is hormonally induced. It's
01:05:34.500
regulated largely from the ovaries. So it tells us that there's something going on in the ovaries of
01:05:40.740
these people. And, you know, when you're born, you have all the oocytes that you're going to have
01:05:46.500
for the rest of your life, maybe about 10,000. And one of them will be prepared to convert into
01:05:52.740
a fertilizable egg with each period. And then as you get older, you run out of your oocytes. When you
01:05:58.580
run out of all your oocytes, that's, you're into menopause. So if you have tissue destruction early
01:06:03.940
on that you're damaging those oocytes, there's fewer of them, which means that you may be
01:06:09.460
be less fertile, or at least your infertility will start earlier in your life. And as many people are
01:06:18.260
putting off having their children, this is a great concern, too. So there's too many unknowns.
01:06:24.820
Now, these trials were not done on children originally. And when they were done, it was
01:06:30.260
very few children. We're talking about maybe 1,500 now from, say, the five to 11-year-olds
01:06:36.180
around the world, 1,500 children that were actually tested in basically under three months
01:06:43.460
to then decide that we should be vaccinating all the children. This is just crazy.