EZRA LEVANT ｜ I’ve been fact-checked by a corporate media fact-checker. But were my facts wrong — or just my opinions？
Summary
AFP fact checks a tweet I tweeted two weeks ago, and they have been staking a lot of work into this. I'll take you through my tweet, their response to it, and my response to them. I think you'll come to the conclusion I have. It's not a fact check, it's an opinion check.
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.
00:28:14.960
hundreds of police vehicles thousands of police that's a scene from montreal where a curfew has
00:28:32.180
been brought back in a curfew that's what parents give to children maybe it's done to criminals
00:28:39.760
maybe you could perhaps imagine to very sick people though i don't think that fits our civil
00:28:46.060
liberties but in fact in quebec the curfew applies to adults as well as children to innocent people
00:28:52.300
not criminals and to anyone regardless of their health status imagine those who got two jabs in
00:28:59.420
the booster thinking that they would be spared from the authoritarian government in fact today
00:29:04.940
quebec has announced that they're expanding their vaccine passports and changing it so anyone who
00:29:11.080
has merely two jabs will now be considered unclean again thrown back in with the no jabbers and they
00:29:19.320
won't be allowed to go anywhere not that anyone can go anywhere after 10 that fascinating footage of
00:29:25.860
hundreds or at least dozens in those uh video images dozens of quebecers being rounded up and arrested
00:29:33.720
simply for going out on the streets that was filmed by our quebec crew alexa lavoix guillaume roi and
00:29:39.920
our friend yankee pollack alexa joins us now she's back in quebec city alexa great work incredible footage
00:29:45.720
tell me how it was you were on the street because we had a special legal form that we filled out
00:29:53.240
we fought with the montreal police before but it looks like they allowed you to do your journalism
00:29:59.680
without arresting you is that true or did the police harass you at all so um at the beginning
00:30:06.720
they just pushed me a little bit too because they say go to the sidewalk and when i was in the sidewalk
00:30:12.880
they pushed me back in the street so i was like where do you want me to stand just tell me instead of
00:30:18.180
pushing me and uh and afterwards they let us alone just filming of what is going on i was the first time
00:30:26.360
i saw the police let us doing our job our journalist job uh i was really surprised of this um but i was
00:30:35.480
happy the only uh other intersection interception that i had it's where when i took my footage at the
00:30:43.160
end where you saw like all the police car was in the parking lots so i went there to film because i was
00:30:49.720
like how many vehicle of police is there for only a bunch of people breaking a curfew that's completely
00:30:58.840
terrible when we see that it's our tax let's pay all this um so i went there to take a footage and the
00:31:07.240
police came out and come to me and say uh if you don't want another ticket ma'am go home because we
00:31:14.760
will find you again i was like i'm sorry i'm media and they were and they say to me oh i'm sorry i
00:31:20.840
didn't see your leech on your neck and they let me alone well the reason i ask that is because i i
00:31:28.120
want to make sure our rebel staff are fine but also because in the past we have been treated very
00:31:32.920
poorly by the montreal police including uh some violence against our colleagues efron monsanto
00:31:38.520
mocha bazirgin and lincoln jay so i'm glad that they were at least giving you a little bit of space
00:31:44.280
now we're not the story we're telling the story if i saw correctly pretty much every person
00:31:52.280
man or women young and old who was on the street was rounded up now were they given a ticket were
00:31:58.520
they taken to jail what happened to those people so first of all at the beginning there were really
00:32:05.400
a lot of people i would say maybe 50 or 60 people at the metro station on so they started to walk
00:32:14.520
just before 10 in the street in the neighborhood and so the police like did surround them and they
00:32:23.880
were ambushed them in the end of some some streets so the protesters just turned around and tried to
00:32:30.680
change the itinerary of the march for trying to avoid the police but at the end when we came back
00:32:38.520
to the main street i it was like the riot squad was waiting there i i talked about four line of riot squad
00:32:48.840
ready to jump on the protesters to give them some fine so most of them they receive a first fine and what
00:32:57.320
they say that if they got a second fine they would be bring in jail probably but at so far what i saw
00:33:06.040
nobody has been bring in jail probably just one guy who tried to uh run away from the police and the
00:33:14.920
the the the police grab him on the ground i don't know for him um i didn't see the end of the
00:33:22.520
the interaction but most most of them receive uh now it's uh an inflation of eight dollars now the
00:33:29.720
fine is one a thousand five hundred and fifty eight dollars one thousand five hundred and fifty eight
00:33:35.080
dollars well i know that in the past we had a project in english called fight the fines dot com
00:33:41.320
on francais we called it contesté les contraventions point com and forgive my accent i've been practicing
00:33:47.240
i think maybe we should rev that up again we had shut that down because most of the lockdowns ended
00:33:56.200
a few months ago and so we had shifted our work to the vaccinations but it sounds like we're going to
00:34:01.880
need to get a law firm up and running in quebec again on this because i i think that they're trying
00:34:08.520
to scare people and demoralize them i want to tell you that my reaction when i saw the footage is first
00:34:14.680
of all i was very glad that we have a quebec team now because when we started covering quebec over
00:34:20.120
a year ago we didn't really have reporters our friend yankee uh was in montreal but he wasn't
00:34:25.800
really an on-camera guy so my first thought was boy i'm glad that alexa and guillaume and yankee was
00:34:31.800
back i was felt very good that we have you there and especially since you know french so well well my
00:34:37.480
second thought was an entire province of over eight million people about eight and a half million
00:34:43.720
people was just essentially put under house arrest and for a while there you weren't even allowed to
00:34:50.120
walk your dog between 10 pm and 5 am theoretically you would have to go to the bathroom in your own
00:34:55.640
house how is that a public health measure and if all that can happen in a province of eight and a half million
00:35:01.240
people is fewer than a hundred people protest that's very sad to me now were there other protests larger
00:35:08.440
protests elsewhere um seriously uh i know that it would have a lot of protests i know that um curfew is
00:35:20.040
existing to uh in europe so far people are protesting against it um but i hope that people will
00:35:29.240
it's sure with the announcement of today with the measure they want to put in place like more in
00:35:35.960
quebec the fact that double vax are not considered uh fully immune and the fact that they want to extend
00:35:43.400
the vax passport to all on essential businesses so that means that only grocery store would be allowed
00:35:52.600
to us like to us to to the unvaccinated and and for the um uh the double vaccinated because the first
00:36:03.560
the people that don't doesn't want to have their booster they will need they would lose their privilege
00:36:09.400
i think like the process will increase so much i don't know where what will happen with quebec anymore
00:36:15.720
well i hope the protests increase because i believe uh you know newton's law every action has an
00:36:22.520
equal and opposite reaction and i think that these politicians and health bureaucrats keep testing
00:36:29.640
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 so
00:36:38.760
interesting bring the curfew back and you know less than one percent of one percent of quebecers seem
00:36:45.160
to be upset enough to do anything about it and if they're now going to turn everyone who's double vaxxed
00:36:51.240
into an unclean person again who i mean i want to know will quebecers accept this because i think
00:36:58.360
quebec has a real civil liberties tradition but it also there's an authoritarian side to french history
00:37:07.000
you know napoleon and you know there's some strong leaders with a strong fist and i hope that
00:37:13.800
the civil libertarian instincts of that province rise up and right now i'm i'm i'm feeling a little
00:37:21.560
bit despondent uh i know you're doing great work and guillaume and yankee but i think most of the other
00:37:27.800
media love this lockdown for example the media am i right i think they gain like visibility from uh
00:37:36.280
this lockdown uh they just encourage the fear i would say um they some of them just started to
00:37:43.960
talk about the inconsistency of our um director of health uh that we have right now all the uh the
00:37:53.560
fact that he say something but it changed as uh the curfew he was saying we will never put in place
00:37:59.240
because it's a ward uh measure and couple of months after he put it on in place without science uh article
00:38:08.120
or proof that is working um so right now they are talking a little bit more about it but still they
00:38:16.680
they keep like saying uh punish the the on vax and and and write some really crazy article about it
00:38:25.720
that's incite people to hate each other and i think they love that i i i don't understand and
00:38:34.600
it's troubling because of course um of course justin trudeau is a quebec politician from papineau
00:38:42.040
riding in the montreal area and he i mean you know not all quebecers follow him but you know he
00:38:49.240
himself has demonized unvaccinated people he said they're misogynist even though the a typical
00:38:57.080
vaccine skeptic is a woman as a mom and he's called them racist even though the groups with
00:39:03.320
the lowest vaccination rates are actually minorities but he doesn't care he's trying to demonize
00:39:10.120
people who like it's that demonization should we tolerate them he says which implies that the answer
00:39:17.560
might be no and i really haven't seen this in canada in ages and it's like all this hate that was
00:39:25.560
tamped down by the official woke people you can't be racist you can't be sexist you can't be transphobic
00:39:32.360
you can't discriminate based on all these hundred things but this is the one group you can get all
00:39:38.120
your hate out it's like the book 1984 when they had two minutes of hate you were allowed to hate the
00:39:45.000
official enemy for two minutes get out of your system and then go back to being docile it really
00:39:51.880
is a classic totalitarian move to have an official enemy group and to direct hate at them it's it's
00:39:58.760
really un canadian yeah and when we see like the all family it's splitting up all many friendship is
00:40:08.920
splitting up now we live like in a society or everybody is polarized divided and the hate and
00:40:20.200
the crime is rising you know it is terrible and you're right people are divided against each other
00:40:26.360
and i i sensed that very early when storekeepers were turned against customers you know i i mean
00:40:33.480
there was a local bakery i would go to almost every morning and then i felt like and this was
00:40:39.560
this was in 2020 before mask mandates and and just they i i i was friends with them and they thought
00:40:47.160
they either had to do it or they were scared and they turned against me and i you know i'm not going
00:40:51.960
to fight with them but i was you know your neighborhood you talk to him you meet with her and you try and
00:40:57.240
find common ground it's the opposite now now they ask invasive questions are you where's your mask
00:41:03.560
are you vaccinated are you triple that where's your past prove it i'm sorry i have to kick you out of my
00:41:08.600
restaurant i don't want to but i'll get in trouble if i don't it really feels east german and that we're
00:41:14.920
all spying on each other all the time i'm very upset with things and i'm sorry that quebec is leading
00:41:20.040
the way in the wrong direction alexa yeah and i'm just so sad to see um that no not much people are
00:41:31.160
standing out by fear to lose their job by fear to not be able to afford their rent to feed their child
00:41:40.600
it's all fear they live by the fear instead of to live by what they think that is correct or not
00:41:48.680
and and probably the fact that the third booster now is something that they need to have probably
00:41:57.000
a lot of people will uh will stand up because i i know a lot of people who doesn't want it they
00:42:02.840
don't want it because they know that it's not working so we'll see we'll see if uh we will be a
00:42:11.560
patriot and uh people will say no no anymore well i sure hope so and i tell you you're doing a great
00:42:17.480
job i want to tell our viewers because i'm not sure if we've had you on um since uh our christmas
00:42:23.560
get together where we had the rebbe awards and the rebbe awards are our own in-house awards we have the
00:42:28.440
viewers choice award and other awards and i want to tell our viewers that to you alexa when our
00:42:35.080
award which if i'm pronouncing it right is the french way of saying an ambassador and you have been a
00:42:40.360
great ambassador for rebel news and our values of freedom and personal autonomy in the province of
00:42:46.760
quebec and not only have you told the quebec story to to the english-speaking world you've told the
00:42:52.840
quebec story to quebecers and i and that's why you won that rebbe award so congratulations great to see
00:42:58.520
you my friend and i i know you're going to be on this file you're going to be covering this story as
00:43:02.680
long as it goes on yeah i will i will cover like everything that was going on for the next uh
00:43:09.480
few months and years probably but i need to show like the rest of canada that because quebec are
00:43:18.120
always being the precursor of what is going on afterwards in canada so people need to know what
00:43:24.040
is going on right well keep up the great work my friend and thank you for taking the time with us
00:43:28.760
today thank you have a great day well i sure will isn't she great that's alexa lavoie our quebec
00:43:35.880
journalist chief journalist out there she leads a team and of course the rebbe award winner stay with us
00:43:40.920
hey welcome back your viewer feedback david heinz says this interview should be available to the
00:44:00.520
general public so we can share it widely great job great interview you're talking about brian peckford
00:44:06.760
the former premier of newfoundland and you know it was incredible my favorite moment of that whole
00:44:11.480
interview and by the way thank you i agree with you and we're going to put the whole thing online and
00:44:15.160
we're going to put little parts of it online too just because it was it was a very long interview um
00:44:20.760
but there were so many little nuggets in there my favorite part when he talked about how remember
00:44:25.880
the preamble that had a colon not a period or a semicolon he was explaining them and i just like yes
00:44:32.520
this guy literally knows every dot every jot of the charter because he helped write it he debated and
00:44:40.920
negotiated every word and every letter wow what a what an expert he is wizard 2003 says this has nothing
00:44:49.320
to do with health it's all about policies laid out by the world economic forum i've noticed that trudeau
00:44:56.200
macron and ardent ardent were all part of klaus schwab's young world leaders plan they're not
00:45:02.360
even hiding it anymore you know the most incredible thing to me is that while she sits as finance
00:45:08.760
minister and i think she's still deputy prime minister christia freeland is actually on the board
00:45:12.120
of governors board of trustees of the world economic forum how do you do that i mean first of all it's
00:45:16.440
an obvious conflict of interest how do you sit on any board especially a billionaire's corporate board
00:45:21.640
like that while you're while you're also prime minister of a country i mean it's just so absurd
00:45:27.000
deputy prime minister it's absurd um but that's uh outside the scope of interest and curiosity for
00:45:34.280
the media party energy mine 89 says i wonder if citizens were forced forced to vote such as was the
00:45:42.280
case in ancient greece back then if citizens didn't vote he was fined heavily perhaps then canadians
00:45:48.360
would pay attention to those in power and be more inclined to hold them accountable low voter turnout
00:45:53.480
in last year's federal election and the municipal elections calvary shows that 50 plus percent of
00:45:58.440
the citizenship can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process i hear you but i'm not
00:46:03.160
sure forcing people to vote will get a better result i mean some people simply don't know anything
00:46:09.000
about the different candidates or they don't like any of the candidates and forcing them to vote
00:46:13.640
uh with a low information or no information votes it might be worse than not having them vote at all
00:46:20.520
that's the show for today until tomorrow on behalf of all of us here at rebel world headquarters to you
00:46:25.080
at home good night and keep fighting for freedom and let me leave you with our video of the day from
00:46:29.160
drea talking to a doctor explaining why thousands want canada to stop covet 19 shots for pregnant women
00:46:37.000
and children i'll leave you with that goodbye see the big difference i think your audience has to
00:46:43.640
understand is when you have a real clinical trial you are monitoring all injury and on a regular basis
00:46:52.200
uh normally in a trial you for example in the pfizer trial you're supposed to tell whether or not a
00:46:58.040
person actually developed covet as it turns out there was more deaths in the groups that were vaccinated in
00:47:04.840
the in the in the trial than were unvaccinated in the trial and determining whether or not a person
00:47:11.960
actually had covet 19 was at the discretion of the doctor instead of testing everybody in both the
00:47:18.520
vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group the doctor decided who they were going to test so it was an
00:47:24.120
incredible bias that was there but at the end of the day when you run the numbers it pfizer claims with
00:47:31.320
relative risk reduction is about 91 percent uh you know efficacy but that's relative numbers the actual
00:47:41.560
numbers are so few people actually got coveted in the trial that when you calculate what's called the
00:47:48.840
absolute risk reduction uh i did it myself i calculated they it's depending from the data that you're
00:47:56.280
choosing we're going with a number of 0.8 percent relative absolute risk reduction that means if
00:48:02.520
you vaccinated everybody in the country and everything worked well you might expect to reduce the case
00:48:10.440
numbers of covet 19 in the country by 0.8 percent i'm here with dr steven pellick and a beautiful art
00:48:20.280
collection but that's not what this report is about it's about uh something very important that the public
00:48:26.440
should hear about you've initiated a petition uh that i think is a matter of public interest
00:48:33.080
and uh we're gonna link that but we're also going to get your credentials so people know who you are
00:48:39.560
and how it pertains to what we're about to talk about sure no i'm a professor in the department of
00:48:44.600
medicine at the university of british columbia i've been on faculty for about 33 years i'm also the
00:48:50.520
president and founder of connexus bioinformatics corporation in vancouver we've been actually
00:48:57.240
specializing on doing research for about 2 000 labs around the world in 35 countries looking at
00:49:04.040
development of markers for cancer neurological disorders and diabetes but more recently we've been
00:49:10.920
working also on the covet 19 problem with development of of tests to determine whether
00:49:17.000
or not a person has actually been infected with sars cov2 and we've been testing drugs for their
00:49:23.480
ability to inhibit the replication of the virus and finally i'm also involved in the canadian covet
00:49:28.920
care alliance as the chair of the scientific and medical advisory committee i'm actually the vice
00:49:34.840
president and one of the founders of the canadian covet care alliance so i'm pretty well
00:49:40.280
in tune to what's happening in the covet 19 space and so today in this report you're going to want
00:49:46.840
to watch it in full because we're going to discuss some concerns that you have and have brought forward
00:49:52.840
about pregnant women and childbearing aged women getting the vaccine as well as children so you're
00:50:00.360
going to want to watch this in full for informed consent
00:50:03.320
i'd like to start the interview off with a very basic question but one that i think is very
00:50:11.400
important for the public to hear your answer to and is that do you think these vaccines are
00:50:17.960
experimental and if so why or why not yes the vaccines are still clearly experimental they're
00:50:25.240
they're expected to go and complete their phase three trials really at the end of 2022 in fact into
00:50:32.520
2023 so phase three trials normally last about four to five years what we've done is after almost two
00:50:41.160
months into the phase three trials they were already starting to be released for general public use
00:50:47.240
um through the emergency use authorization i guess about the three month clinical trials were done and
00:50:55.560
then it was available so we don't have any long-term efficacy data or safety data the best we have right
00:51:03.560
now is about a year and a half of data and so far that data is now starting to reveal a lot of problems
00:51:11.160
with the efficacy of these vaccines it's quite evident that now we're going into our third shot and even
00:51:17.000
fourth shot booster shots because the vaccines are not lasting in terms of their efficacy and now we're
00:51:23.800
learning as time goes on that there's a lot more cases of vaccine injury and this is becoming well
00:51:31.560
documented now that's through the veris system for example with this reporting in the united states
00:51:38.360
but you can even go back to the six-month studies now with the pfizer trials and what we're finding
00:51:45.640
there is that the degree of injury that's reported at least five percent of it is serious injury and up to
00:51:53.880
about 70 percent 80 percent is injury of some kind so what's interesting is that when we look in the
00:52:01.400
general public in the reporting systems we have what we call passive reporting what we're seeing is less
00:52:08.120
than one percent injury reports it's as though we're not hearing about significant serious injury and yet we
00:52:17.080
would have predicted that from the phase three trials that have been done up to the six-month point
00:52:22.840
so yes i think we're seeing that the vaccines are failing in terms of efficacy our omicron
00:52:29.880
cases now which is the dominant cases at this time have skyrocketed so we have a lot more cases of people
00:52:37.800
getting sick mild sickness is the good news fortunately it's not translating into increased hospitalizations
00:52:47.160
or increased ic units or increased deaths and so that's that seems as though the virus itself is
00:52:54.680
migrating into a form or evolving into a form i should say which is in fact um more probably infectious
00:53:04.200
but much more mild and those are characteristics we would expect that a a strain that's going to
00:53:11.080
dominate over the other strains will have so that's sort of where we're going with that i just want to
00:53:16.680
backpedal just a minute we're going to talk um in this about concerns specific to children taking
00:53:23.240
these vaccinations as well as um pregnant women or childbearing aged women now before i do that you
00:53:31.480
mentioned VAERS and the adverse reactions with last i checked was i want to say a hundred eight hundred
00:53:37.240
thousand or yes yes i mean the serious things was in terms of number of deaths and some people are
00:53:44.360
confused because the VAERS system you can have international reports as well as reports just from
00:53:49.480
the united states so we know within the united states it's around nine thousand deaths that have been
00:53:55.560
linked in the VAERS system with covid injections right and i guess my question about that specifically
00:54:03.240
was what do you say to the people who say oh well you know it's not a secure system to track these
00:54:10.200
things like anybody can just go on and and make up things there that's true it is there's a certain
00:54:16.840
degree of self-reporting however the system goes back over 30 years and so what we see is that
00:54:24.280
with more than 70 other vaccines that have been covered during that 30-year period in the last year where
00:54:32.360
we have the three vaccines that are in the us they don't have the astrazeneca it was never approved
00:54:37.640
in the us and nor was it approved in about 12 european countries but we have it in canada so just based
00:54:43.640
on those three vaccines we have more serious deaths well more deaths and more serious injury from just
00:54:51.800
those three vaccines in the last year than all the other vaccines put together for the last 30 years
00:54:57.720
so you know this idea of the self-reporting and then you know maybe it's anti-vaxxers that are
00:55:02.680
populating these sites and there are safeguards to within the VAERS system itself to to reduce that
00:55:09.640
kind of abuse it's it's evident just just looking at the history of the VAERS system and a harvard study
00:55:17.720
indicated that only about one to two percent of the total number of cases that are in the VAERS system
00:55:25.560
is representative of what they think is actually happening so most people take those numbers in
00:55:29.960
the VAERS system and they multiply by about 30 so if you have about 9 000 deaths you can multiply 30
00:55:36.840
we're talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths that are likely attributed to the vaccine in the
00:55:41.640
united states alone in a recent stat i mean we're in british columbia but our country canada is highly
00:55:48.520
vaccinated uh british columbia recently said that around 82 percent of people five years old and up
00:55:57.160
have been fully vaccinated what is your biggest concern with these vaccines when it comes to
00:56:03.640
children first you have to look at the risk and the benefit the the risk is that if you're a child
00:56:10.280
or an adolescent under 18 years of age it's about one in a hundred thousand that you will end up in
00:56:16.680
hospital so the risk is extremely low and the risk of dying is about one in a million now that's based on
00:56:24.920
the delta and the alpha strains and the wuhan strains we know with omicron that's even more
00:56:31.560
milder so even less of a chance of being hospitalized and seriously ill so that's that's the the risks are
00:56:39.080
very very low for children we also know that from studies done here in bc with the bc women's and
00:56:45.560
children's hospital where they went out and they tested i think it was about 107 schools in the lower
00:56:51.640
mainland they found that three quarters of them had like no cases that they could document of covet
00:56:58.680
there are some hot spots but overall the results of the study is that if you're very young
00:57:06.680
the chances of you acquiring covet from another you know child was extremely low the transmissions
00:57:14.200
from a child to an adult was extremely low like a teacher in the cases where we had covet it was really
00:57:21.320
from other family members that then passed it on to the child so we know that the children not only
00:57:27.960
at very low risk but they're least likely to be transmitting actually covet 19 to others and
00:57:35.400
especially elderly so this idea that you have to protect grandma from your child that's just not borne out
00:57:42.040
by the data never has been and yet here we are delaying school or public school yet again for
00:57:49.080
children um after the winter i would comment that that's one thing that i think the public health
00:57:56.200
office in bc did did right they left our schools open for as long as possible of course it was under
00:58:02.680
conditions of mask wearing and and probably huge psychological damage to the children but at least
00:58:09.400
they were able to go to school and that wasn't true across the country so i think this is one
00:58:14.840
thing that was done right it was based on actual scientific data your other question that was what's
00:58:20.120
the risk to children yeah right and your concern and your concern about the vaccines for them right so i
00:58:27.080
mean the thing with the so the risk is very low as i've tried to explain and sorry sorry the the risk of
00:58:33.800
the covid is low so what's the risk of the vaccines so the problem with the vaccines is
00:58:39.240
they are experimental as we've we've discussed there isn't no low long-term data we're now seeing when we
00:58:45.720
look at the pfizer trials there's serious concerns about how those trials were actually performed and
00:58:52.680
the canadian covid care alliance with which i'm associated with who put together a little video on this
00:58:58.120
um uh it's available at the canadiancovidcare.org website it's called the pfizer inoculations uh more
00:59:07.480
harm than good and that that that video is now viral uh and it's been highlighted on other programs
00:59:16.520
in the united states in particular but basically what we're seeing is with children the actual risks of
00:59:24.280
myocarditis has been really highlighted it looks like with the moderna vaccine it's about one in
00:59:30.440
2700 chance if you're male and you're under 18 or under 24 actually that you can develop myocarditis
00:59:39.480
and it happens in in females as well as males just not as high a frequency and so we're giving the pfizer
00:59:47.400
vaccine originally the estimates were maybe one in 20 000 um children that would be vaccinated would
00:59:56.040
get myocarditis that number from israel studies is now looking closer to one in 5 000 so it's actually
01:00:03.320
still a very very high risk so i think this is just if you're looking at one in a hundred thousand
01:00:09.960
chance of going to the hospital from the covid 19 and maybe one in a five thousand chance of going to
01:00:17.560
the hospital because 99 of people who get myocarditis go to the hospital you're about 20 times higher
01:00:25.480
risk of being hospitalized from the vaccine than from the actual virus your risk of the virus causing
01:00:33.800
myocarditis if you're a child is about two in a billion right so you know you figure one in a
01:00:41.880
hundred thousand and then they figure if you get covid 19 and you're in the hospitals one in 750 so you can
01:00:47.160
run the numbers and you can get that two in a billion so so really there's no real upside to the
01:00:55.240
children they have a very strong innate immune systems that allows them to take on this virus very
01:01:00.920
effectively most people that are infected especially when they're young they don't even have symptoms
01:01:07.640
so one can expect this to be actually spread quite easily especially now that we have the omicron
01:01:13.400
that spreads even easier so and the masks don't really make a difference in the schools
01:01:19.400
the the size of the pores and the masks and the size of the virus when it's in an aerosol form
01:01:26.360
it's just like a mosquito going through a chain-length fence it's just not a barrier so the virus does
01:01:32.520
spread and it will do so easier but that's just the short-term risks the myocarditis alone my biggest
01:01:39.640
concern is the nature of how these experimental vaccines actually work they're either rna vaccines
01:01:48.920
where you're delivering the rna the genetic instructions to make the spike protein the most
01:01:54.920
pathogenic part of the virus it has like 28 proteins but the one the big one that's on the surface
01:02:01.320
that sticks out because it's it's as a spike protein gives it a crown-like appearance this is
01:02:07.080
the the protein that allows the virus to attach to cells to get inside to allow the virus to replicate
01:02:15.160
so what ends up happening is that this this rna is translated into making the protein inside your
01:02:24.760
own body cells and then it migrates to the surface of your own body cells to be presented and stays
01:02:31.320
attached so now in order to elicit an immune response your your white blood cells neutrophils
01:02:39.480
macrophages they have to attack your own cells and actually destroy them and take the pieces of
01:02:46.680
of the parts of the virus from that are digested partly and present them to what we call b cells
01:02:54.440
and t cells that are lymphocytes that are in your in your lymph nodes and in those locations the b cells
01:03:02.360
produce the antibodies so in order to get an antibody response you have to actually kill your own cells
01:03:08.200
and the problem is that the this tissue destruction that occurs in that inflammatory response the
01:03:15.160
first time that you've been vaccinated the effects will be fairly mild but the second time that you
01:03:20.840
get vaccinated you now have t cells that are alert to the spike protein and you have antibodies that
01:03:28.440
recognize the spike protein and so they're all there in that next inflammatory attack and the problem is
01:03:35.080
with repeated inflammatory attacks you end up breaking what we call tolerance and you start to have
01:03:42.600
basically antibodies and t cells that are educated to attack your own body cells and that kind of
01:03:49.720
continuous every time you get a booster shot not even necessarily with the spike protein but with this
01:03:55.800
technology you know people talk about using it for influenza vaccines and other
01:04:00.200
uh opportunities it'll be successive so your your first influenza shot may in fact be your fourth shot
01:04:09.720
because you've had three you know let's say cova 19 shots so this breakage of tolerance
01:04:15.960
it's not just the the site that you've injected your deltoid muscles this virus spreads you know it goes to
01:04:23.480
the liver it goes to the spleen it goes to the um adrenals and it goes to the ovaries and this is where
01:04:30.600
my biggest concern is the virus spreads or you mean the it's the spike protein the the the the sorry the
01:04:39.160
vaccine it can spread from where the site of the injection is through your bloodstream it's very hard
01:04:46.040
to prevent it from actually getting into your blood and from your bloodstream it can travel throughout your
01:04:51.080
body and where we see it accumulates is primarily in like say the liver the spleen the uh adrenal glands
01:04:58.840
which controls you know hormonal uh control and your ovaries which also has hormonal control and if
01:05:04.840
you get an inflammatory response let's say in your ovaries well this is extremely disconcerting um
01:05:11.320
we don't know what the long-term ramifications of this we do know based on on people who have been
01:05:18.040
vaccinated and you look at what the symptoms are they include changes in menstrual cycles
01:05:24.200
heavy bleeding well we hear of people that are menopause that are now starting to basically have
01:05:29.720
periods again this this change is hormonally induced it's regulated largely from the ovaries so
01:05:37.160
it tells us that there's something going on in the ovaries of these people and you know when you're born
01:05:44.120
you have all the old sites that you're going to have for the rest of your life maybe about ten
01:05:48.360
thousand and one of them will be prepared to convert into a fertilizable egg with each period
01:05:55.160
and then as you get older you run out of your old sites when you run out of all your old sites that's
01:06:00.360
you're into menopause so if you have tissue destruction early on that you're damaging those old sites
01:06:06.120
there's fewer of them which means that you may be be less fertile or at least your your infertility will
01:06:14.520
start earlier in your life and as many people are putting off having their children this is this is a
01:06:21.080
great concern too so there's too many unknowns now these trials were not done on children originally
01:06:27.720
and when they were done it was very few children we're talking about maybe 1500 now from say the 5 to
01:06:35.000
11 year olds around the world 1500 children that were actually tested in in basically under three
01:06:42.600
months to then decide that we should be vaccinating all the children this is just crazy