Rebel News Podcast - EZRA LEVANT ｜ A new scientific study shows that the vaccine can alter women’s menstrual cycles. Is that newsworthy？

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.

00:00:46.120 You're listening to a Rebel News 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

00:01:21.380 bloody right to do so.

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 0.73

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 0.96

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. 0.98

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. 0.85

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 0.58

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. 0.99

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.

00:27:09.840 Oh my God.

00:27:27.120 Oh my God.

00:27:27.680 Oh my God.

00:27:28.560 Oh my God.

00:27:40.400 Oh my God.

00:27:48.400 Hey, pro. Pro, I'll give you mine.

00:27:50.400 Oh my God.

00:28:10.240 Oh my God.

00:28:12.240 Oh my God.

00:28:14.240 Oh my God.

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, 1.00

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.

00:33:47.280 That's perfect.

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,

00:35:08.080 larger protests elsewhere?

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 0.98

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 1.00

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. 0.99

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 0.89

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. 0.70

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

00:49:41.540 happening in the COVID-19 space.

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

00:50:02.100 informed consent.

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

00:50:17.940 experimental? And if so, why or why not?

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.

00:53:13.700 So that's sort of where we're going with that.

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,

00:53:35.220 I want to say a hundred, 800,000 or.

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

00:54:11.300 just go on and make up things there.

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

00:57:41.700 borne out by the data. Never has been.

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?

00:58:21.300 Yeah.

00:58:21.860 Right.

00:58:22.580 And your concern about the vaccines for them.

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

01:00:37.140 2 in a billion. Wow.

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.

01:04:32.180 The virus spreads, or you mean the...

01:04:34.740 It's the spike protein.

01:04:35.940 The spike protein.

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 0.98

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.

01:07:06.180 .

01:07:06.740 .

Rebel News Podcast - January 08, 2022

EZRA LEVANT ｜ A new scientific study shows that the vaccine can alter women’s menstrual cycles. Is that newsworthy？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript