In this episode, Dr. Jonathan Eyal talks about his new book, "The Pandemic: How the Government Created a New Cause of Death" and the role of the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the massive global pandemic of the 2009-10 flu pandemic. Jonathan is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto and a co-founder of Drastic, an organization dedicated to understanding the science of the pandemic and its impact on our understanding of it. He has been a long-time critic of the government's handling of the Pandemic, and has been instrumental in uncovering some of the involvement of the intelligence agencies and others in the management of this pandemic, as well as the long history of gain-of-function science. In this book, he argues that the government created a new cause of death by misinforming the public about the nature of the virus, and then converting existing deaths into "new deaths" by counting them using a novel and deadly virus as "all-cause mortality." This is an important piece of work, and a must-listen for anyone who wants to understand how the government got us to believe that there is a new and deadly disease, and how we should be counting all deaths as "new causes of death" in order to make sense of the facts and statistics about the current pandemic as a matter of national security and public policy, and why we need to be worried. about it and why it s so dangerous. . I hope you enjoy this episode and share it with your friends, family and family, friends, colleagues, and loved ones, family, and friends, and the ones who are struggling to keep up with the pace of change in our knowledge and understanding what s going on in the 21st century. Thank you so much for listening to this episode. -Jon's words and words of wisdom, and your support of the work of science, and for the work he s done. Thank you Jonathan's words, Drastic's efforts to make it all the best we can all the better! -Jonathan Eyal (Drastic, Inc., Drastic Inc., Inc., LLC., LLC, LLC., etc., etc. Jonathan's blog post: "The Flu Pandemic is a work of art, not just for science, but for all of us, but also for all the people who need to know about it" - ,
00:00:00.000I wanted to bring everybody together because I've read Jonathan's thoughts about this.
00:00:05.000He's one of the most thoughtful critics of the pandemic management from the beginning.
00:00:10.000He was one of the co-founders of Drastic, which was the organization of independent scientists all over the world, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, did really wonderful work in In understanding the science, in unearthing scientific studies that made a lot of this stuff comprehensible.
00:00:31.000And he's also been instrumental in uncovering some of the involvement of the intelligence agencies and others in the management of the pandemic, and also the long history of What we call gain-of-function science.
00:00:50.000And here's the first paragraph, which is a synopsis of the pandemic, of his latest thoughts about it.
00:00:57.000Using a highly coordinated messaging campaign, governments around the world, led by the WHO, changed our minds about all-cause mortality The coronavirus swarm, our immune response to respiratory RNA virus, and the idea of vaccination.
00:01:15.000The goal seems to be to accomplish a worldwide fundamental inversion for natural human rights, the government granted permissions, and ultimately the surrendering of sovereignty over our own bodies in the guise of international public health.
00:01:31.000Well, none of that is particularly new.
00:01:34.000But I think all of us separately have come to the conclusion that that's what's happened.
00:01:40.000And we've all taken our own paths getting there.
00:01:44.000Jonathan, you have some kind of unique take now that I think we all need to talk about and that the public needs to hear.
00:02:15.000The hypothesis that I want to really start with is the idea that the WHO declared a pandemic of a dangerous virus, declared dangerous by them, and this allowed them to convert a large percentage of all-cause mortality into a national security priority of vaccine-preventable deaths.
00:02:32.000Before the pandemic, this would have been called the flu, and before the pandemic, not in the sense of this is the flu, but in the sense of the national security priority that was a vaccine-preventable deaths took the form of the flu and the flu vaccine.
00:02:48.000And the important thing to understand is how that was calculated and how they've stopped calculating it in that way.
00:02:55.000So if I can just summarize as briefly as possible, there's four basic things that we need everybody to understand, and that's not we in this group, but it's we as we spread the message further.
00:03:06.000The first one is that we need everybody to understand that there is a coronavirus swarm.
00:03:11.000So before the pandemic, there used to be hundreds of possible causes for respiratory disease.
00:03:16.000And in general, they were lumped into a pneumonia and influenza category.
00:03:20.000But from 2020 on, we have reformulated the counting of deaths based on hundreds of EUA products, many of which are no longer on the market.
00:03:29.000And all of those were purported to be specific for this novel and deadly virus.
00:03:33.000And this is, incidentally, really the only hard evidence, quote unquote, that we have of the existence of a novel and deadly virus.
00:03:41.000Before the pandemic, there were a wide variety of causes for respiratory disease.
00:03:46.000Some of them were coronavirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, the flu, etc.
00:03:52.000And since the start of the pandemic, we've basically summarized that into one cause.
00:03:57.000The second thing that they've changed is our idea of how we count all mortality or how we think about it.
00:04:03.000They've led us to believe that there's a new cause of death, but the results of having a new cause of death are invisible in all-cause mortality.
00:04:10.000They've convinced the public and governments around the world that a PCR test is evidence of this novel pathogen, and using that PCR test, they have purposefully omitted The all-cause mortality from the discussion in order to convert regular existing deaths into a new cause of death based on this PCR test.
00:04:31.000And so again, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but I hope I'm summarizing it in a way that will start to bring into the idea that we don't even need a particularly dangerous virus for this to occur.
00:04:43.000The next thing they've done is they've confused everyone, including doctors, about our immune system.
00:04:48.000They've led us to believe that seroprevalence is really important, and I think they've done this for purposes of national security.
00:04:54.000They have also accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing antibodies to structural proteins, and these are unproven correlates of immunity.
00:05:04.000And finally, just to beat a dead horse, they have simplified the immune response to avoid any loss of countermeasure uptake from informed consent, non-participation.
00:05:15.000In other words, they don't want you to understand how complicated the immune system is, otherwise you would have a reason not to participate.
00:05:20.000And so finally, of course, you are all aware of how many different ways they've changed the way we think about vaccination.
00:05:28.000They have done this again in order to make sure that we take the new product up.
00:05:33.000I think it's important to point out that this disingenuous emphasizing of antibodies started many years ago.
00:05:40.000They've lamented for many years that people just don't take the flu vaccine like we'd like them to.
00:05:45.000And have oversimplified it again in order to kind of get us to accept this idea that now that we've transfected so many people, it's a safe methodology and it's just simply not true.
00:06:37.000And that argument precludes the possibility that gain-of-function research may not be that dangerous.
00:06:44.000And in fact, the only thing that we know for sure is that they've been working on immunogenic proteins and that it's very difficult for them to handle coronavirus in a laboratory.
00:06:56.000We don't know whether this came from nature or a marketplace or a laboratory, but I can tell you two years into this commission report, The U.S. government knows more than it's telling us.
00:07:07.000And so, you know, our host, Robert Kennedy, has interviewed Jeffrey Sachs and has talked about this with him.
00:07:13.000He is perpetuating the same narrative.
00:07:15.000If we look at pneumonia and influenza, this is year on year, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
00:07:22.000And we look at the red line being pneumonia and the shaded areas here are influenza deaths.
00:07:32.000You have to use the axes on the right for the shaded area and axes on the left for the red line.
00:07:38.000If we convert this to what they're telling us now, which is pneumonia, influenza, and coronavirus, PIC instead of PNI, now we see this great drop-off in flu and we see this great increase in coronavirus deaths.
00:07:55.000And if we look year on year on year, the actual fraction of pneumonia deaths which are tied to flu is quite small.
00:08:03.000And so what we are looking at here, in my humble opinion, is an attempt to convert more of the unknown pneumonia and respiratory illness to a vaccinatable target.
00:08:14.000If they showed this graph on the PBS NewsHour with all the deaths every week, contrasted to the COVID and to the pneumonia deaths, no one would be that worried about this and the emergency would be obvious.
00:08:26.000So the way they did that, and I'm almost done, the way they did that is they tricked us about how this swarm is composed.
00:08:32.000We know that before the pandemic, there were many hundreds of causes for respiratory disease, and now we're using a PCR test to blame it on a few.
00:08:43.000And I think this is really the best way I guess I can summarize This should be the end here.
00:08:48.000Yeah, so here, what I've been talking about for the last two years on my podcast is how Fauci had these emails and the fusion inhibitor can block the fusion of many different coronaviruses and that endosomal entry is a good target for some of these therapeutics and that they hid the data about all of these molecular signatures.
00:09:10.000But then after two years, I start to feel like maybe they didn't hide any of this.
00:09:15.000Maybe they just very controlled released this information to keep us fighting about this lab leak or natural virus, when in reality, it's probably closer to part of an existing swarm The PCR was originally aimed at the spike protein, but it is no longer aimed there.
00:09:32.000T-cell memory from childhood is protective specifically because we don't focus coronavirus memory on structural proteins.
00:09:39.000And these molecular clues are probably clues to how they've tried to modify proteins to become immunogens so that they can remove the need for an adjuvant.
00:09:48.000And at best, I think this is where gain of function has reached in terms of its limits of its technology and coronavirus, simply because coronavirus is so intractable in the laboratory.
00:10:02.000I think the gain of function of coronavirus is an exaggeration based on a false fidelity that they claim to have.
00:10:09.000NIAID-funded designer protein may or may not be involved in the initial biological incident, which would explain why it doesn't really move like a variant of a virus, because, in fact, it's probably a protein that contaminated the viral swarm that already exists.
00:10:30.000One of the things that interests me about what you say is that at CHD, we've tracked the flu data for many, many years, and they had these periodic meetings, and you can see Fauci on videos, repeating the general message that was drummed in by the communications department at CDC again and again and again.
00:10:52.000People are not frightened enough about flu.
00:11:24.000So about, I think, about 10 or 12 years ago, because nobody was scared of a disease that was killing so few people, they conflated the pneumonia deaths With the flu deaths.
00:11:38.000And pneumonia kills 30 to the worst years, 90,000 people.
00:11:43.000So they started calling those flu deaths.
00:11:45.000But in separate studies, when people studied how many people who died of pneumonia actually had a flu virus in them, I think it was fewer than 7%.
00:12:13.000And all of those pneumonia deaths were switched.
00:12:17.000That's one of the, I think that's one of the phenomena that you Here are slideshows.
00:12:23.000So I want to get the first response from Robert Malone.
00:12:27.000And as most of you know, Robert Malone is the discoverer of in vitro and in vivo RNA transfusion.
00:12:34.000I'm not going to read his whole biography here because everybody in the world now knows who Robert Malone is and how important he's been to not only to our movement, but Just to giving us a real understanding about how pharmacology works and vaccinology works and also the relationships between the military and the pharmaceutical industry.
00:12:58.000So Robert, what is your initial reaction to this?
00:13:04.000Jonathan used the correct term, transfection.
00:13:07.000I think you just kind of tripped over your tongue there.
00:13:09.000And of course, I defer to Merrill as the master in disambiguating the nuance of the DOD and its nefarious actions over time.
00:13:20.000I've come to personally come to some positions that overlap with Jonathan's, but I'm wary of attributing intent and purpose to Because I'm not able to verify it.
00:13:48.000And the tangible things that I can observe and we can all observe.
00:13:52.000And if they say, if they speak of things like depopulation agendas, well, then we can all agree that they are speaking and writing about depopulation.
00:14:27.000So the logic here, and I think that Jonathan is touching on some underlying truths.
00:14:37.000Robert, let me just interrupt you for a second so that an audience who does not, who's not following what you're saying, is there's a military impulse, a national security impulse that we need vaccine manufacturing capacity that can instantly ramp up if the Russians attacked us with a weaponized anthrax.
00:14:59.000But in the case of influenza, there is a, let's say, a longstanding Urban fairy tale sort of legend, 1918, and what happened, and that it was all due to this horrible H1N1 influenza virus, and it disregards all of the other aspects of that public health event, including the apparent bacterial copathogen, let's say.
00:15:30.000So this story has absolutely been used to justify a variety of public health investments and interventions and has absolutely, just like the biodefense story, has been used to generate an industry with all the associated bells and whistles in terms of the, let's say, biodefense military-industrial complex.
00:15:56.000That also has, by the way, a very strong academic complex component to it.
00:16:01.000Influenza virus has long been kind of weaponized in a...
00:16:08.000As a tool to justify various infrastructure investments and technology.
00:16:17.000So the logic that has been promoted, that's given rise to this whole, we could call it an influenza industry as a subset of the biopharmaceutical, biodefense industrial complex, is justified by the threat of 1918.
00:16:39.000And you can see that in the CDC publications, literature, and the various periodic overstated crisis slash risk events that occur periodically.
00:16:51.000And the logic has been that if we do not have sufficient, warm base is the term, manufacturing capacity, established manufacturing capacity, Then in the event that we do have this very bad thing arise,
00:17:11.000a new recombinant influenza that is highly pathogenic, that we're highly susceptible to, then we will not have the capability to respond to it in a timely fashion.
00:17:23.000Therefore, we must have a warm manufacturing capacity.
00:17:27.000You can't have warm manufacturing capacity.
00:17:33.000The dogs either have to eat the dog food, all of us in the metaphor being the vaccine recipients would be the dogs in that metaphor, or you have to throw the dog food away.
00:17:43.000And so the logic has been explicitly in my industry, having worked on major flu projects for much of my life, And also worked in developing an advanced development manufacturing facility down in Alachua, Florida.
00:18:00.000The logic has been that in influenza, if we do not have a market for these products on an annual basis, then even if we were to build the manufacturing plants, in biologics, it turns out you cannot mothball them.
00:18:22.000It doesn't work as a business model and also from a regulatory standpoint.
00:18:27.000You have to keep these facilities operating and the staff has to be there, etc.
00:18:33.000And so the best way to do that is to spin up a chronic need.
00:18:38.000And what underlies a lot of this is a logic of the ends justify the means.
00:18:46.000If you look underneath much of what drives all of this is the belief system that there is a major public health threat out there on the horizon.
00:18:59.000And it comes from two general sources, emerging infectious disease.
00:19:05.000And this is wrapped around climate change and environmental disruption, wrapped around this same logic of the threat of emerging infectious disease coming out of the African jungle and fruit eating bats or whatever the thing is.
00:19:21.000And the other threat horizon is the engineered pathogen threat horizon.
00:19:31.000Ebola is obviously an example of such a threat, which was so highly pathogenic that it would come out of the forest of God only knows where from time to time and was so pathogenic it would wipe out whole villages and it would do so so quickly that basically it would burn itself out.
00:19:49.000And then we had the recent, relatively recent West African outbreak where it got into cities in West Africa and it continued to spread and adapt to humans.
00:19:58.000And that's what we never wanted to have happen.
00:20:00.000So that's the those are kind of the two big threat scenarios is engineered pathogens.
00:20:05.000And we now live in a world in which literally it is possible with stuff that you can buy off of eBay to recreate the binary weapon, which our side of the West, the United States, engineered as part the United States, engineered as part of the most massive, quote, defense spending activity in the history of the nation, apparently.
00:20:32.000Apparently, I'm told it dwarfed the nuclear investment that gave rise to an extremely potent bioweapon, binary bioweapon, that was field tested and was so lethal that it would kill tank commanders before they would reach the English Channel.
00:20:49.000So that can now be recreated in garages and many other even more nasty engineered pathogens can readily be created by somebody with a undergraduate degree basically in the right tools.
00:21:04.000And the logic is that we have to have sufficient infrastructure in order to be able to respond to those threats.
00:21:13.000And that logic, I think, absolutely bears scrutiny and challenge.
00:21:17.000But based on that logic has been created a truly a biodefense military industrial complex, just the same as building tanks, guns and airplanes, that has become self-sustaining in all the nefarious ways that we understand how this works in D.C. that has become self-sustaining in all the nefarious ways that we understand how this works in D.C. and the U.S. government and globally now within NATO and
00:21:44.000And notoriously was going on in the former Soviet Union.
00:21:47.000So what I what I hear that resonates with me is that there is a long history, absolutely, of government believing based on the logic of utilitarianism, the ends justify the means and the greatest the ends justify the means and the greatest good for the greatest number, that it's OK to employ psychological operations.
00:22:13.000let's call it, you know, we call it what it is, to manipulate populations to generate a chronic market for biologic products with the justification that it's in our best interest, because sometime at some unknown future, what is it because sometime at some unknown future, what is it
00:22:31.000Dick Cheney used to say, Merrill will know, the 1% risk, this is the justification for vaccinating all of the first responders against smallpox and giving them myocarditis, that any 1% risk we have to mitigate, and anything is justified in pursuit of this, And I think we've seen this logic upscaled on a global basis.
00:22:55.000And I think we've seen that logic drive much of this rollout of this technology.
00:23:04.000And I spoke about this last weekend with Paul Merrick.
00:23:11.000If you trace back, it's very clear, and all of us here, I think, know it.
00:23:16.000And I remember when the contracts, when the solicitations went out and the contracts were issued, this was technology pulled out of the trash can that Merck had sat on and basically pocket vetoed.
00:23:31.000And after the patents expired, DARPA picked it up.
00:23:35.000And pushed it forward in their usual way.
00:23:38.000They want things that only have about a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10% success rate.
00:23:43.000And they thought this is a high-risk venture.
00:23:48.000And then money got punched by other players, kind of aping that, into BioNTech and CureVac.
00:23:57.000And DARPA continues, ergo our intelligence community, continues to back this with In-Q-Tel funding the new manufacturing facility up in Canada.
00:24:06.000So the logic underneath this is that we must have a rapid response capability.
00:24:14.000And because the threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens is so great, of course, that creates an incentive to justify and validate that, in fact, that threat is as great as they say it is.
00:24:28.000Because now you've got a multi, you know, really a trillion dollar plus industry that is all predicated on a hypothetical risk.
00:24:40.000And I think that this is in no way apologizing or excusing the behavior.
00:24:46.000But I think if we allow ourselves to get into the intellectual space of the people that have been driving this, and this is an intellectual space that I've contributed to, I've been part of.
00:24:58.000I wrote a paper with Annie DeGroote about the need for rapid response platform and gene to vaccine about a decade ago.
00:25:09.000There was two main platforms that they believed were potentially useful in this context and also for special forces.
00:25:20.000One was a genetic product that would go gene to vaccine.
00:25:25.000And Merck spent billions on the DNA vaccines that could never make it work.
00:25:45.000So they've kind of, the bloom is off the rose with the monoclonal antibody tech, which DOD and HHS spent bunches of money on with the advanced development manufacturing facilities funded by Obama.
00:26:00.000And they believed that the mRNA tech was going to be their ride.
00:26:10.000And it was necessary to push it into the population and get population-based acceptance of this tech using any means necessary.
00:26:23.000And that's kind of my personal current working model for that aspect.
00:26:28.000Now, there's all the other overlay of other parties exploiting this whole situation and potentially giving rise to it to support their own agendas, which are different from this one that we're talking about.
00:26:43.000But in terms of this path of influenza, Warm-based manufacturing need to have some platform for rapid response, both for special forces and for population-based responses.
00:26:57.000We now know that there was a, this is just recently published, there was a planning meeting held by Margaret Liu, who used to head up the DNA vaccine project at Merck, at the WHO, in which all the regulatory agencies were brought together from the West, in which they all agreed in which all the regulatory agencies were brought together from the any of this really happened, that the RNA tech was to be a platform.
00:27:22.000They were going to push it, and once the core platform had been validated, so long as they kept the same basic formulation, they could change the sequence of the RNA ad libitum for whatever pathogen they wanted.
00:27:39.000And basically deploy that in humans with essentially no non-clinical testing and minimal clinical testing.
00:27:47.000And that was accepted as the position by the FDA. By the way, it wasn't universally accepted in that meeting back then, headed up by Margaret Liu.
00:27:58.000But we've now seen this strategy deployed with the bivalent The White House insists it's a new vaccine.
00:28:12.000A product that we're now all recommended to.
00:28:15.000So that's my kind of core response here is my feeling and my belief system overlaps with the one that's been presented, except just to recap...
00:28:27.000I try not to infer purpose other than for those specific things that I have direct experience with, and I can say, yes, for sure, that is a purpose.
00:28:38.000And that purpose includes warm-based manufacturing and the need for rapid response technology platform for the perceived global threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens.
00:28:57.000Merrill Mass earned her B.S. in biology from MIT, her M.D. from the University of Mississippi in 1980, where her husband was a faculty member.
00:29:08.000She is board-certified internist in Maine.
00:29:43.000I want to say a lot of different things.
00:29:45.000First, I am familiar with what Robert just talked about.
00:29:50.000I'll add that the FDA has encouraged many different vaccine platforms.
00:29:56.000That's why they have used dog kidney cells as a platform and monkey cells.
00:30:03.000And why we have this worm baculovirus platform is they're experimenting.
00:30:09.000They're trying to find The best way to do things.
00:30:12.000And for the most part, they're using the flu vaccine to do those experiments.
00:30:17.000So we've had as many as a dozen or more different flu shots in one year that have been approved by the FDA. Now that said, in order to push this flu shot program where over 65% of elders are getting a flu shot every year, thinking it's benefiting them, the government has to have lied to You know, incessantly for decades.
00:30:42.000First of all, they've said that the flu shot works to prevent deaths in the elders but there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case, probably because their immune system doesn't respond as well as young people's to these shots.
00:30:57.000They've also lied about the number of deaths.
00:30:59.000So even though the CDC usually says 30, 40, 50,000 people are dying in a year, what Robert Kennedy was referring to is actual death certificates.
00:31:10.000The death certificate data is usually 1 to 2,000 deaths per year, where it's actually written as the cause of death, primary cause of death.
00:31:18.000In the year where we had the most flu deaths, which was 2017 to 18 on death certificates attributed to influenza, In that flu season.
00:31:29.000So that's probably the number of deaths that we really have from flu.
00:31:35.000Although there are some secondary pneumonia deaths, etc.
00:31:39.000So they've spun up the numbers, they've told people it's going to work when it doesn't work.
00:31:44.000And maybe they're doing that to protect the country in the future, or maybe they're doing that to protect the elites in the future.
00:31:51.000But we have to consider that maybe they're doing it for other reasons.
00:31:56.000Maybe they're lying to us about the reasons.
00:31:59.000And the reasons may be that they want to acclimate us to the fact that we have to go regularly to get vaccinated, that we have to be used to the fact that we're going to be injected every so often with something.
00:32:13.000And the less testing you do, the quicker you make this process.
00:32:18.000And remember, it's under the guise of a potential vaccine.
00:32:22.0001918 swine flu or, you know, a bird flu or a biological attack.
00:32:47.000So anyway, I just say that there's no reason for us to believe that the purpose for all of this is a benign one, although it may be.
00:32:58.000I agree for sure with Jonathan that the U.S. government tried to roll up all flu deaths and as many pneumonia deaths as possible into COVID deaths.
00:33:09.000They wanted to get those numbers up high, and he is correct that in terms of all-cause mortality, there are many countries in which the all-cause mortality, in other words, deaths from everything, including COVID, were no higher than they were in years before COVID. But that's not true of every country.
00:33:29.000So, I mean, I think there were COVID deaths, and I think COVID is a thing.
00:33:36.000And I'm getting to a very curious thing where I have noticed the PhDs and the MDs really differ.
00:33:46.000And the MDs believe that there's a COVID and that it has unique properties and that it can be extremely deadly and can be very disabling to people it doesn't kill.
00:33:59.000The PhDs who are scrutinizing the numbers as correctly, as Jonathan has, say there's no increase in all-cause mortality, therefore it doesn't really seem like anything happened, and this may have just been flu.
00:34:12.000The MDs who are accustomed to really looking at symptoms and signs and lab tests, rather than all cause mortality, see that the characteristics of the illness or the syndrome from SARS-CoV-2, at least in my view, are very different from Then the syndrome I called flu previously.
00:34:35.000So I do think it's a thing, but I do also think that the numbers were juiced to scare everybody and that it wasn't as big of a thing as we were told.
00:34:46.000I think it's very interesting what he said that the work of gain of function may have been to develop more immunogenic proteins because I think that makes a lot of sense.
00:34:58.000Nobody wants to add Adjuvants to vaccines if they don't have to because the adjuvants are causing much of the side effects from the vaccine.
00:35:08.000So to figure out how to add portions onto a protein that will give you the same immune kick without the adjuvant would be useful.
00:35:19.000Again, that's making the assumption that this work is benign, but so much of it has had a military birth process.
00:35:29.000I don't think we can necessarily assume that the work is benign.
00:35:33.000I think for most scientists and doctors, yes, it's benign.
00:35:38.000But when the military is developing projects, they are looking for military applications.
00:36:00.000Tess Lorry, who's one of the heroes of this movement, is the director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, LTD, in Bath, United Kingdom.
00:36:12.000She has a medical degree and a doctorate in philosophy, PhD, from the University of Witzer-Witzerrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.
00:36:25.000She has practiced clinical medicine in both the United Kingdom and South Africa.
00:36:29.000This is a very understated biography because Tess Lorry has been a consultant for many years for the WHO and one of the most A respected and busy consultant that they have.
00:36:41.000And she played a key role in really torching her career in exposing some of the fraud around ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
00:36:51.000And everybody who watches the show knows who she is.
00:36:55.000Oh, Des, please give us your reaction to Jonathan's thesis.
00:37:01.000Well, what really interests me in what you pointed out was how the data shifted between reducing respiratory disease and boosting the COVID disease.
00:37:15.000So I thought a paper I did at the end of December that never got published was I submitted it to the BMJ. There's a table in there that might be interesting because it was a study of the Scottish official statistics.
00:37:29.000And what's interesting about the Scottish statistics, the National Records of Scotland, the database, is that they divide the cases or deaths among care home deaths, home deaths, and hospital deaths.
00:37:44.000And it was, you know, obviously during that first year of COVID-2020...
00:37:48.000We were told the hospitals were overflowing and everything.
00:37:51.000And so these data do not show that, but also they categorized the deaths according to whether they're cancer, whether they're circulatory, whether they're dementia, COVID or respiratory or other.
00:38:07.000And so it's quite easy to see compared to the five-year average, you know, where the deaths are being counted or loaded up.
00:38:15.000So the paper was called Hospital deaths in Scotland have gone down, not up during the COVID-19 pandemic.
00:38:23.000Basically, I just took the data and did simple percentages comparing to the five-year average.
00:38:30.000So it was from week 12, which was the 16th of March to the 14th of December, compared with the five-year average.
00:38:36.000And there were At-home deaths, care home deaths, hospital deaths, and then all together I made the table.
00:38:42.000So overall, deaths for that period were up 15%, which was not huge.
00:38:48.000We were under the impression, you know, that the deaths were much more than 15%.
00:38:52.000But I think what's interesting is respiratory deaths were down 22%.
00:38:58.000Whereas, and COVID of course, so COVID was a new thing, but respiratory deaths were actually down.
00:39:05.000So if you looked at the at-home deaths, cancer deaths were up 47% and dementia and circulatory disease, basically all deaths at home were up on average about 40%.
00:39:17.000And the care home deaths, cancer deaths were down, respiratory disease was down.
00:39:23.000Overall, it was up, but it looks as if the cancer deaths and the respiratory deaths were put into the COVID deaths.
00:39:31.000And then the same with the hospital deaths.
00:39:33.000We see people were actually, the cancer deaths and dementia deaths and circulatory deaths and respiratory disease were all down.
00:39:41.000I mean, the hospital deaths, respiratory disease was down 33%.
00:39:44.000And all of those seem to have been popped into COVID. And the overall hospital deaths were down 3%.
00:39:51.000So it looks like people were dying at home and probably from cancer, circulatory disease, dementia, when they would have been in hospital.
00:40:02.000I think what this shows is that there was a fallout from the lockdowns and all of that, but also that the respiratory deaths from flu and pneumonia and all the usual things...
00:40:14.000We're simply loaded up as COVID deaths and not pneumonia or flu.
00:40:19.000And of course, all deaths were registered, were deaths with a positive PCR test.
00:40:26.000It was dying with COVID, not from COVID. Let me ask you, let me interrupt you for a second, Tess, because those are not raw numbers.
00:40:36.000So when they say 100% rise in COVID deaths, Since there were zero COVID deaths the year before, 100% rise could be one COVID death.
00:40:46.000No, I was just highlighting the percentages, but you can see here, so COVID deaths, all together they've got is 5,700.
00:40:53.000But there were 1,000 reduced, 1,000 lower in the respiratory disease.
00:41:00.000So there were fewer respiratory cases and 5,717.
00:41:05.000But as I say, you have to remember that these are Are people who were dying with COVID, not from COVID. So it was where COVID was mentioned on the death certificate.
00:41:15.000So were they double counting people here, or were they...
00:41:20.000So it's a total death, so they weren't double counting people.
00:41:25.000No, it's basically the cause of death.
00:41:28.000So if it mentioned COVID on the death certificate, Then it would be counted as a COVID death.
00:41:34.000So there were, in Scotland during that period, there were 5,717 deaths with COVID on the death certificate.
00:41:42.000But there were 1,000 fewer that died of flu and pneumonia, and that accounted for it.
00:41:49.000But it's arguable whether cancer deaths and circulatory disease and all these other Causes were also contributed with COVID rather than for whatever other cause.
00:42:03.000I think what's really remarkable is that we've been told the hospitals were overflowing.
00:42:09.000Well, it showed here that there were actually fewer deaths in the hospital and that really many people died at home and probably because they couldn't access proper care as well.
00:42:19.000And they had all the appointments postponed and delayed, partly, and And stress and so on.
00:42:25.000But I think the other remarkable thing is that respiratory disease went down rather than up and everything became COVID. So I think that was really what I wanted to highlight there.
00:42:39.000Jessica Rose, a Canadian researcher with a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and a master's degree in immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland.
00:42:50.000She also holds a PhD in Computational Biology from Bar-Ilan University and two post-doctoral degrees, one in Molecular Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one in Biochemistry from Technon Institute of Technology.
00:43:06.000She was also accepted for her two-month program as a senior researcher at the Weizmann Institute prior to completion of her latest postdoctoral degree in Technicon.
00:43:16.000So Jessica, of course, people know her, has done these extraordinarily revealing and consequential distillations of the VAERS data and the other death and injury data from COVID that have been really transformational.
00:43:35.000Jessica, give us your reaction to Jonathan's thesis.
00:43:40.000Thanks for that, and thanks for inviting me.
00:43:43.000And everyone covered so much good information, so I just want to throw out two things, points of interest first, and then I'll give a wrap-up.
00:43:53.000The pneumonias that you mentioned, JJ, I'm curious about What types of pneumonias those were, but you can answer later.
00:44:01.000Could they have been fungal, for example?
00:44:05.000I agree with what Meryl said about COVID-19 being a real thing, and I'm more on the PhD side.
00:44:12.000That's based on personal experience more than anything else.
00:44:16.000But a lot of times on the subject of inferring purpose behind all this, I get asked a lot during interviews, like, why do I think that they're doing this?
00:44:30.000I don't want to assign myself to a position where I'm thinking along the lines that anyone is doing anything on purpose right now.
00:44:40.000Not for any particular reason other than to keep on a path whereby I think we don't need to infer a purpose.
00:44:47.000This could all potentially have evolved based on the fact that the business model of pharmaceutical companies has been applied to so many other things, so many new things, the profit model, I mean, to medicine.
00:45:04.000So if we lose the regulatory body interference between the humans and a bad product, a bad biological product, for example, what would we get?
00:45:14.000We'd get something like what we're seeing now.
00:45:16.000And also good laboratory practices and good clinical trial practices.
00:45:21.000We all know both of these things are out the window, apparently.
00:45:28.000Most people don't Aren't ready to admit that, but we have clear and present data to show this.
00:45:36.000And yeah, those three things combined really kind of lend itself to, well, it convinces me that I don't need to infer nefariousness into the equation.
00:46:43.000So is this another, I don't know what it would be.
00:46:48.000Is this based on this warm base manufacturing?
00:46:51.000Is this, what is this in your opinion?
00:46:55.000Runaway pharmaceutical capture of the executive branch, the administrative state and all of HHS. I noticed something that I found surprising.
00:47:07.000They're anticipating rollout of mRNA vaccines for COVID for basically all of our livestock industry now.
00:47:16.000And that sure sounds to me like justification of manufacturing capacity.
00:47:26.000Please do not underestimate the power of the logic that it is absolutely...
00:47:34.000I'm speaking of a belief system, okay?
00:48:26.000Like, So every three years, if you're emergent biosystems and you've aggressively prevented any other market entries.
00:48:34.000And by the way, that's another beautiful thing.
00:48:36.000I'm being slightly facetious about the vaccines market.
00:48:41.000Is that once you have an established product, it is wickedly expensive and challenging to bring any competing market into that niche because you have to do a massive non-inferiority study and either win on one of two points.
00:48:59.000It has to be safer or it has to be more effective or both.
00:49:04.000And if you don't meet those criteria, you're not going to get market entry.
00:49:11.000By the way, that is the brilliance, again, in a twisted, wicked way, the logic that the FDA has promoted now, that if you're one of those two companies that has that established preclinical package, which they're now grandfathering that if you're one of those two companies that has that established preclinical package, which they're now grandfathering for And we wondered back then, why were they using luciferase protein instead of spike protein for their nonclinical studies?
00:49:40.000Well, what that does is allow them to bridge to any potential product.
00:49:45.000And the logic is, if you have that formulation, you don't change that formulation and manufacturing process.
00:49:52.000And as Merrill will tell you, the product is the vector sum of everything.
00:49:57.000The documentation, the labeling, the fill-finish, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:50:03.000One of the two that got the golden egg, the goose that lays the golden eggs, you're locked out of that market space because you're going to have to recreate that whole data package in a new competitive environment where those things are already established.
00:50:18.000From the standpoint of pharma, this is an absolutely brilliant business model that now the FDA has basically said, I don't know, Meryl, if you saw our Substack, there's 100 trials now initiated or in progress, 50 are currently enrolling, for new mRNA vaccines of a variety of different types, all grandfathered in without having to have a new preclinical package, as Jessica was saying.
00:50:48.000And over 200 new mRNA-based medical products that employ the same logic.
00:50:57.000Basically, if you're Moderna, BioNTech, and to a lesser extent CureVac, you've got the cash cow to end all cash cows.
00:51:05.000The other thing I wanted to say while I've got the floor that speaks to Jonathan's point and expands it a little bit, It's really important in addressing Jessica's point of what the heck with this bivalent product.
00:51:20.000The problem that has been long known, but absolutely the third rail.
00:51:27.000I've lost, I think, three different jobs or clients by speaking about immune imprinting with influenza vaccines.
00:51:39.000Because if you come to grips with the truth of immune imprinting in influenza, you realize that the logic of an annual influenza vaccine is driving our patients to an immunologic place in which the vaccines will become less and less and less effective over time.
00:52:37.000multiple papers from the top labs in the world with, you know, 20 to 30 authors on them, showing immune imprinting with these multiple jabs.
00:52:47.000And as Jessica said, with this new bivalent product, it is, as I said from the outset, I couldn't design a better product to elicit the adverse events in outcomes associated with immune I couldn't design a better product to elicit the adverse events in outcomes associated with immune printing if I had sat down
00:53:09.000It is the ideal product for driving immune imprinting, which has been the chronic problem with influenza vaccine, and the government doesn't care.
00:53:21.000They just do the, I can't hear you, I can't see you, I can't say it, about immune imprinting, and the press continues to do it.
00:53:30.000I think there's been one article out about immune imprinting in the late press, as opposed to the, I don't know, eight, peer-reviewed from major studies in the scientific press.
00:53:57.000Immune imprinting, otherwise known as original antigenic sin, that's a much sexier term, easier to remember, has to do with the fact that I like to say our immune systems, like all of us, are biased by the last thing that happened to us, by our prior experiences.
00:54:17.000I like to use in talking about this, the military metaphor.
00:54:20.000Our military is always best prepared to fight the last war.
00:54:24.000And the same thing happens in your immune system.
00:54:26.000When it encounters a virus, it basically builds a memory armamentarium, let's say, trying to keep with the metaphor.
00:54:36.000That is cells which have been educated based on that initial exposure.
00:54:41.000And because of the wonderful nuances of how the immune system evolves, your response will forever be biased by those initial things that you've encountered that are related to the new thing that you encounter.
00:54:56.000Basically, your immune system says, oh, I've seen that before.
00:55:00.000I'm going to react the way that I did before, that I learned to react before.
00:55:04.000And the consequence of this is that if a virus or other pathogens are able to evolve in ways that they are not being controlled by the thing that controlled their grandparents, metaphorically speaking, then you're stuck with an army that believes that it's fighting World War I Germans in the time of the Luftwaffe and the Blitzkrieg.
00:55:37.000So a Canadian scientist named Danika Skoransky found after the 2009 swine flu business that those people who had gotten a flu shot the year before were more susceptible to the swine flu.
00:55:52.000Their swine flu shot did not protect them as well and found they were about two and a half times more likely to get the flu if they'd gotten the shots.
00:56:01.000And so it turned out and so she then checked that first in her province of Canada, then in the other provinces of Canada.
00:56:08.000And then a number of countries found the same thing.
00:56:11.000And the CDC tried to shut it up, tried to publish data that made it seem like it wasn't true, but it is true.
00:56:18.000And they've basically suppressed this concept.
00:56:21.000But what seems to be true, given the vaccines we have now, is if you've never had a vaccine for flu or for something else, if you first get it.
00:56:30.000And when you're faced with the very serious disease, a deadly virus, it's going to give you a much better immune effect than if you've been having them year after year.
00:56:42.000When you see that final deadly virus coming those shots are not going to work so well for you.
00:56:49.000And so that's another way of looking at this whole thing.
00:56:57.000One of the reasons why I think an immunogen is such an interesting prospect for gain-of-function focus is because of something that I heard Robert Malone say a couple years ago on a podcast that he was on, is that the viral particles that are produced during a viral infection, many of them are replication incompetent.
00:57:15.000And so in a typical coronavirus infection, the body needs to ignore those particles and not overreact to them.
00:57:22.000If you engineered a coronavirus with an immunogen on the outside that the body couldn't ignore, the normally non-infectious and also non-immunogenic particles would now become immunogenic to your body and create what might be called an incapacitating agent in the form of what appears to be and can be called a virus, but really it's just a novel protein.
00:57:45.000But I can't thank everybody enough for listening and tolerating my slides.
00:58:07.000And it's absolutely true that viral replication, we all think of it as very conservative and this amazing machine that just spits out billions and billions of particles.
00:58:21.000A very large fraction of those are defective in a number of different ways.
00:58:25.000And the ones that aren't defective are often containing, on average, one or more point mutations, particularly with an RNA virus.
00:58:35.000Which is part of what drives the evolution.
00:58:37.000But let's just for the sake of argument call them defective interfering particles.
00:58:43.000It's not that they aren't immunogenic.
00:58:46.000It's that they interfere with a lot of functional activities that might otherwise be able to control virus because they're busy.
00:58:59.000It's as if the defective interfering particles are a sponge sucking up things that might otherwise be useful like that cat is a sponge for Jessica's attention.
00:59:12.000They will, for example, still clean up antibodies and still occupy antibodies, for example.
00:59:22.000But the ability to produce antibodies in any mammal is so profound that it's able to overwhelm them.
00:59:32.000Now, one of the things that we haven't touched on that is important is this cell paper from January of this year that demonstrated in humans, not cell culture, mice, that the levels of spike protein produced from these that the levels of spike protein produced from these genetic products in the plasma is significantly higher than the levels that are obtained after the natural infection in which you have
01:00:00.000this dynamic interchange between an expanding immune response and a growing virus that's trying to dig its foothold into as many cells as it can get.
01:00:11.000And so people, I just wanted to throw that in since we're kind of touching on this.
01:00:16.000People often raise the question, well, why would you see more adverse events with the vaccine products than one often observes with the natural disease?
01:00:27.000And one explanation for that is that spike is, in fact, a toxin in so many different weird and wonderful ways, not the least of which is elicitation of autoimmune responses.
01:00:44.000As opposed to the natural infection, I think Gert talks about this, you gradually see an increase in spike protein in tissues and in plasma, whereas in this case, what you see is this huge surge of We have very different pharmacokinetics,
01:01:16.000And the other factor in this is that in the natural course, as Merrill knows and Tesla knows and all of you know, We often see a cellular response dominating earlier in the infection and then an antibody response coming up really strongly later, which kind of clears out a lot of the residual debris after you've killed off the cells that are infected.
01:01:43.000So the last point, and I think Meryl may have touched on this, I know that Jonathan did.
01:01:49.000The early data was explicitly clear, coming out of groups like Emory, some of the top B-cell labs in the world, that we were seeing very rapid immune responses at two weeks or less after infection with this, quote, novel coronavirus virus.
01:02:12.000That we're being detected as, quote, neutralizing antibodies.
01:02:28.000But it was clear within a month and a half that we were seeing recall immune responses, not primary immune responses.
01:02:40.000And so since we were kind of on that, I wanted to just kind of shovel those attaboys at you.
01:02:48.000Can you explain those terms so that the general public can understand what recall and response is?
01:02:56.000Okay, so we were talking a moment ago with the metaphor of your immune system as an army.
01:03:03.000That develops a memory based on its prior capabilities.
01:03:09.000So immune response being an army and memory cells being stockpiled tanks and soldiers.
01:03:18.000In a primary response, which is to say the first time that you've seen something that looks like this bad thing, this different thing, it takes a while for there's a whole series of immune maturation processes that have to happen before you're generating a good, robust antibody and T-effector response.
01:03:45.000And this whole cascade involving class switching, all kinds of cool immunology stuff, generally means that it takes about three to four weeks before you get a good titer up and rolling.
01:04:08.000They already know what they're supposed to do.
01:04:10.000And the switch needs to be turned on and they need to start doing their business.
01:04:14.000You typically see those antibody responses and cellular immune responses happening.
01:04:20.000Within, certainly within two weeks, within about 14 days.
01:04:23.000And so you can really tell, this is a key thing in vaccinology.
01:04:27.000When you're designing a clinical trial, you must do a two-week bleed.
01:04:31.000In addition, typical endpoint of three to four weeks, because you could be fooling yourself in thinking you're getting a nice, robust primary response when all you're getting is just another, a recall response.
01:04:45.000And that's why I've always objected to this statement That these vaccine responses represent a true prime boost.
01:04:59.000Every one of us were already primed, just as Jonathan's saying.
01:05:03.000Every one of us had already been infected with the circulating cold coronavirus with significant cross-reactivity, which is why these vaccines, quote-unquote, We're not ever eliciting a primary immune response.
01:05:17.000They were eliciting a boost and then a subsequent boost with the two-shot protocol and then boosting and boosting and boosting and boosting.