The Candice Malcolm Show - Canada’s response to COVID-19 has failed – is there an alternative？

00:00:00.000 The Canadian response to COVID-19 has been confused, contradictory, heavy-handed,

00:00:05.000 and ultimately ineffective at stopping this pandemic. But is there an alternative? Today,

00:00:10.420 I will talk about a group of doctors who say yes, there is. I'm Candice Malcolm,

00:00:13.960 and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:19.660 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for tuning in. Now, here at The Candice Malcolm Show and here

00:00:23.420 at True North, we're often very critical of the government and politicians and health bureaucrats

00:00:28.360 and so-called health experts and the advice that they give to us, often hectoring, often very

00:00:33.740 contradictory, constantly changing, confusing, and ultimately delivered with sort of a disdain

00:00:39.700 towards regular people and our ability to make our own health decisions. Okay, so what's the

00:00:44.900 alternative? We don't often talk about other things that we can do to protect ourselves,

00:00:49.200 other ways that we can get out of this pandemic and get back to normal. Well, today, I want to do

00:00:54.620 just that and talk about some alternative measures that we can take as people, as Canadians, as a

00:00:59.400 society towards getting out of this pandemic. So I am very excited today to talk to Deanna McLeod.

00:01:06.540 Deanna is one of the founders of a group called the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. It's a group of over

00:01:11.700 500 Canadian healthcare professionals that publish and aggregate medical information about COVID-19,

00:01:17.640 COVID treatments, and vaccinations for educational purposes. Deanna is the chair of the Strategic

00:01:23.360 Advisory Committee for the COVID Care Alliance, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, and she also runs an

00:01:28.600 evidence-based medical publishing firm that specializes in oncology publishing. Her firm's

00:01:34.020 work has been published in some of the leading medical journals around the world, including The

00:01:37.480 Lancet and the Journal of Clinical Oncology. So, Deanna, thank you so much for joining us today.

00:01:43.880 Thanks for having me, Candice.

00:01:45.740 Okay, so first, why don't you just tell us about the Canadian COVID Care Alliance? What is this

00:01:50.820 organization and what kind of work do you do? So the Canadian COVID Care Alliance is a group of about

00:01:56.480 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and healthcare practitioners. And we've come together

00:02:02.520 to take a look at the evidence surrounding COVID-19. I'm sure that all of you were aware that, I mean,

00:02:11.300 we were all thrown into this pandemic in early March, and there was a lot of chaos and excitement

00:02:16.400 and surprise as we were all locked down and thrown into the midst of this pandemic. And so a group of

00:02:22.460 us got together and really wanted to take some time and look at some of the evidence and the science.

00:02:27.840 It's a fast-paced field. Things are changing all the time as we learn more about this virus and its

00:02:32.560 treatments. And so we wanted to be positioned as an independent voice that would provide balanced,

00:02:38.900 evidence-based information to Canadians in order to maintain informed consent. Candice, I think you

00:02:45.180 just mentioned something about that, which is the right and dignity to make choices, medical choices

00:02:49.420 for yourself and to direct those choices according to your preferences with all of the information at

00:02:55.320 hand, as well as trying to do hospitalizations, managing that situation. And, you know, as you also

00:03:02.200 mentioned, try and get us out of this pandemic as quickly as possible.

00:03:05.040 Well, it's interesting, the idea of informed consent, because one of the news stories that

00:03:10.280 we've been hearing about is Trudeau and the CBC kind of pushing this idea of eventually having

00:03:15.420 forced vaccines. So the exact opposite of people consenting to a medical treatment or even having

00:03:22.600 any kind of choice, this idea that we might be heading towards forced vaccines is truly terrifying.

00:03:28.820 Although, you know, a year ago, the idea of vaccine mandates was truly terrifying as well.

00:03:34.140 So there are doctors out there, there are healthcare professionals and scientists who don't agree

00:03:41.660 with the current direction that, say, the Trudeau government is taking us with regards to vaccine

00:03:47.440 mandates or mandatory vaccines. What are some of the alternatives that Canadians can be doing

00:03:52.020 to protect ourselves, to stay safe, to stay healthy during this pandemic?

00:03:58.420 Well, I think one of the points that you mentioned is, you know, as it relates to informed consent,

00:04:02.800 it's making sure that you have all the risks, you know, the full gamut of risks and benefits of a

00:04:07.900 treatment, as well as all the alternatives. And so, you know, you can visit the CCCA website to try

00:04:14.400 and to get more information on the risks and benefits of vaccines, and whether mandates are

00:04:20.700 warranted, or even forced vaccination is warranted. We've done a video recently, that's actually quite

00:04:26.620 compelling called more harm than good that actually takes a look at a lot of the specifically the phase

00:04:31.780 three Pfizer vaccine trial, the six month data, which is the most up to date data, remember that

00:04:37.760 the vaccines were approved based on two month data. And what it does is it basically dissects a lot of

00:04:42.580 the details of that trial and helps people understand the true risks and benefits of vaccination.

00:04:49.000 And I think that that would be really amazing opportunity to get informed. And another part of

00:04:53.920 informed consent is also knowing all of your treatment options. And I think that's something

00:04:58.420 that's probably not been very well focused on through this pandemic. And a lot of the messaging

00:05:03.720 that we've received has been very vaccine focused. So I think one of the first things that I would

00:05:09.160 probably want to bring your attention to is the fact that natural immunity is actually a thing.

00:05:14.980 I know a lot of, you know, it is not something that can be promoted and patented and tracked,

00:05:20.460 and potentially benefited from. But it's something that we all have. And our immune systems are quite

00:05:27.720 powerful. And they have two arms to them. There's an innate branch of the immune system, which you can

00:05:33.120 almost think of as, you know, the police force, that's the one that, you know, if you do identify

00:05:38.160 an invader, it comes along and, you know, boots them out of the house, so to speak. And then you have

00:05:42.340 things like antibody, your adaptive immune system, which is like an alarm, which identifies the

00:05:48.140 intruder and helps rally the troops to remove that. And so one of the things that we really

00:05:53.120 haven't focused on a lot, although we have focused on a lot of, you know, vaccine induced immunity,

00:05:59.020 which is focused on antibody production, which is the alarm system, we haven't spent a lot of time

00:06:04.180 focusing on how to build robust innate immunity, which could easily counter that. So that's the ability

00:06:10.320 to rally the troops and remove the invader should they occur. So on that note, how do you focus on

00:06:19.300 responsibly improving your innate immune system? Well, that relates to things like being in good

00:06:23.960 health, getting good sleep, having nutraceuticals, making sure to take vitamin D, vitamin C, you know,

00:06:31.140 doing proper hygiene, you know, basic things like that, maintaining your health is huge in

00:06:37.060 maintaining innate immunity. And then whenever if you were to come in contact with, you know, for

00:06:43.640 instance, the COVID-19, there are a lot of early treatment protocols that are available. One of the

00:06:49.140 things that we've missed in our messaging related to the pandemic is the fact that the pathophysiology

00:06:54.080 of COVID-19 is multiphasic, meaning it has multiple phases to it. And so it is really important. And you

00:07:01.160 can, there are very known and proven treatments that you can use at each of the different phases,

00:07:06.280 and we go on into that a lot on our website, you can look for early multi drug protocols on the

00:07:12.120 CCCCA website for more information. And some of those are ivermectin and fluvoxamine. And there's

00:07:21.040 been a lot of pushback with respect to ivermectin specifically in fluvoxamine. These are generic

00:07:26.820 repurposed drugs. And there's been a lot of talk about them not having sufficient safety data or

00:07:32.700 data to support their use for treatment for COVID-19. However, on that note, the, you know, if if you

00:07:42.200 want to be able to prove something works, then you do a phase three randomized control trial, but it is

00:07:46.480 very common practice for doctors to take repurposed drugs and to use them off label in ways that they feel

00:07:53.040 would suit their patients. And there are proven drugs that have been used to both reduce viral load, as well as

00:07:58.960 manage inflammation, which are a couple of the key components of COVID-19. So.

00:08:05.220 It's so interesting. I just, as soon as you mentioned ivermectin, I thought of Joe Rogan and how he used it

00:08:11.100 and then how there was this really, so Joe Rogan had COVID. He said that he used like a whole bunch of

00:08:17.180 different sort of drugs to try to help with COVID once he had gotten it. And one of the examples that he

00:08:24.320 said was ivermectin. And it was like, as soon as he said that there was this really weird media campaign

00:08:29.600 to sort of demonize him and try to discredit this idea of ivermectin saying that it was used for pigs

00:08:36.800 or it was a horse dewormer or something like that. So can you, can you maybe try to address that, that,

00:08:42.500 that issue and debunk some of the myths? Like is, is ivermectin safe? Is it something that humans can

00:08:47.560 take or is it like that, like CNN has told me, um, something that, uh, is, is only used by

00:08:52.640 veterinarians? Yeah, that, I, I think that you did say that it was the media campaign and that's

00:08:58.980 clear by the fact that they're calling it horse dewormer, uh, rather than actually addressing

00:09:03.400 levels of evidence and data and whether there's sufficient support for that. There's been a lot

00:09:08.040 of controversy. Um, the big, you know, pharmaceutical companies would probably want you to believe that

00:09:12.720 there is no data supporting that because it's a cheap drug and nobody's going to benefit from

00:09:18.120 using ivermectin. And so I could understand why there's a lot of money behind trying to, uh,

00:09:25.120 deep bunk or to kind of attack the benefits of ivermectin. However, from an evidence point of view,

00:09:31.960 um, there are multiple, multiple phase three randomized trials that, uh, and trials that actually show

00:09:38.940 benefit as early drug as prevention, as early treatment, and even in later phases of the disease.

00:09:44.520 And it's quite striking. Um, the data probably isn't to the level of quality that we usually see

00:09:51.300 whenever a pharmaceutical company funds a clinical trial. Um, but this is a safe drug that's been used

00:09:56.860 for years. It, you know, was associated with a Nobel prize. It's been going on. Uh, I think there's 30

00:10:02.740 years of safety data. I mean, when we talk about safety, uh, and drugs, the vaccine has only six months

00:10:08.740 of safety data. And yet we're willing to call that safe. Whereas ivermectin has 30 years of safety

00:10:13.500 data and we're questioning the safety. There seems a little bit odd. Uh, it's been used widely in many

00:10:19.640 populations. So that's another thing that's really great about it. Um, and in terms of efficacy, uh,

00:10:25.480 these phase three trials have been correlated to meta-analyses and these meta-analyses have been

00:10:30.240 published and, uh, and they do show benefit for ivermectin. Although even at the public, you know,

00:10:35.800 it seems at almost every level, even at the medical journal level, there seems to be pushback

00:10:40.060 where they're very, very quick to scrutinize those studies. Uh, whereas they're not as quick

00:10:44.380 to scrutinize vaccine trials. Uh, needless to say that even if there weren't that level of evidence,

00:10:49.420 if, uh, it was shown to be able to reduce viral load, then a physician could, you know,

00:10:54.620 prescribe it off label, uh, and use it for treatment for a patient. So this, this big push and these,

00:11:00.800 this barring of doctors from prescribing it and barring people from talking about it in these

00:11:05.460 mass campaigns to discredit its benefits, um, seem like there's some conflict of interest going on

00:11:11.780 that, that probably doesn't relate to the fact that, uh, a patient is having the option to take

00:11:16.920 something that could be good for them. Well, I, you know, I, I, I won't go, go into that because I,

00:11:22.500 I imagine that, uh, pharmaceuticals, uh, pharmaceutical companies could still make money

00:11:26.760 from selling drugs as well as, as, as, as what they do. So I don't, I don't, I don't really know

00:11:30.980 why they would try to demonize a drug that they could potentially sell and, and make money off of.

00:11:36.220 But one thing that politicians have, especially in Canada, they, they, they, they sort of seem to

00:11:41.400 be in lockstep, lockstep on this idea that a vaccine is the only way out of the pandemic,

00:11:45.960 that, that, that all we have to do is get everyone vaccinated. And that's the only,

00:11:49.880 that's the only solution. And you don't hear doctors or top health experts or politicians

00:11:55.260 talking about other general health measures we can take. Like I read one study that said that

00:12:00.460 78% of people hospitalized with COVID. And I think it was 73% of those who had died

00:12:05.540 were obese or overweight. And that's not something that you ever hear politicians talk about. You

00:12:10.900 never hear them say, do you know what? It's really important that you get your weight down,

00:12:14.400 that you exercise, that you eat healthy, that you make sure that you're not eating a lot of

00:12:18.360 junky food or processed food. Instead, try to have like whole, whole foods and vegetables and those

00:12:23.440 kinds of things. You never hear them talking about that element of it. Why is it that in your opinion,

00:12:29.200 that the vaccine has become this sort of silver bullet that all these politicians have rallied

00:12:35.400 around? I'm not talking about the pharmaceutical companies, because I could see how they would

00:12:38.180 have their own financial incentives to try to, you know, push their product. But, but, but talking

00:12:43.900 about the politicians and the, and the lawmakers and the, and the, and the health experts, why do you

00:12:48.120 think they have all been so enthusiastic about the idea that we need to have vaccines and vaccines

00:12:53.060 are the only way out of the pandemic? Well, that's a, that's a fantastic question. And

00:12:58.720 probably a little bit outside of my area of expertise in the sense of, you know, I would

00:13:03.500 have to enter into the realm of speculation, but there are a couple of curious things about that

00:13:07.960 choice. You know, for instance, I work in the area of oncology, so that's cancer treatment. And

00:13:13.260 one of the things that we pride ourselves in that area is the fact that we have personalized

00:13:18.380 medicine. So we're at the point where we look at individuals, risk factors, their treatment history,

00:13:23.760 their clinical signs and symptoms. And we basically tailor treatments from a number of different

00:13:28.820 treatments, even doing biomarkers and genetic, you know, looking at their mutational records and,

00:13:34.780 and, and try and customize treatments to the actual person. And so I do find it very strange that,

00:13:41.320 you know, where there's so much sophistication and so many levels of sophistication and almost every

00:13:46.440 other discipline that we would turn around and decide that, you know, we need to vaccinate

00:13:51.200 the whole population and that there's just one strategy that's going to, you know, match the

00:13:56.740 myriad of genetic profiles and histories and clinical makeup of all the different people. So I do agree,

00:14:01.980 Candice, that you mentioned things like there are risk factors, obesity, cardiovascular issues.

00:14:07.980 I've even seen research that says that high glucose levels can facilitate entry of the virus in the

00:14:15.580 cells through the ACE2 receptor. So there are a lot of things that we could dig into that would,

00:14:20.520 would give people tools to, to better combat that. However, our health professional politicians,

00:14:27.920 our policymakers have decided that this one size fits all approach would be best. And what's curious

00:14:33.720 about that too, is that the actual study that was used, the phase three trial really only looked at

00:14:39.140 healthy people. And then we turned around and started vaccinating people who weren't even actually

00:14:43.940 studied in the trial. Uh, for instance, high risk individuals, frail, elderly, pregnant women. Uh,

00:14:49.220 so it is a very curious choice that you would, you know, study something narrowly in one group of

00:14:53.780 people and then extrapolate that to everybody. Uh, it, it definitely isn't a sound, uh, evidence to

00:15:00.300 support those policies. Um, and, uh, yeah, so it is questionable. And I think the other key part that's a

00:15:09.460 little bit curious about that decision by, uh, health makers is to, in order to justify max

00:15:14.620 vaccination, which is based on a herd immunity, you actually have the concept of herd immunity is

00:15:20.040 where you, you vaccinate everybody, uh, in order to, you know, you vaccinate healthy people in order

00:15:25.880 to stop the transmission to, uh, people who are at risk. That's usually, you know, that's the concept

00:15:32.180 of herd immunity and that's what, um, mass vaccination is based off of. Uh, however, what's really curious

00:15:38.000 about this is an, in the actual phase three trials, they didn't actually measure transmission

00:15:42.740 as an endpoint. So, and I think what we're all seeing now in Ontario is the fact that if you're

00:15:47.740 vaccinated, you can still transmit COVID, uh, you know, so it, it, it really doesn't make sense that

00:15:53.980 we would be trying to vaccinate with an agent that can't stop transmission because that defeats the

00:16:00.480 whole purpose of vaccination. Uh, so I'm not, I'm not a hundred percent sure why we're continuing to

00:16:06.220 pursue this. It's definitely something that would require a lot of scientific debate. I mean, I would,

00:16:11.380 I would, uh, I think it would be fantastic if we could start to be asking these questions and start

00:16:15.480 to be looking at the data and seeing whether it's supporting our policy. Maybe it was a good idea

00:16:20.020 initially, but perhaps now we've seen that it doesn't work and we should probably, uh, you know,

00:16:25.020 bring in more voices. Uh, one of the things that's curious about how this pandemic was managed

00:16:30.180 was that it's, uh, particularly experts with, uh, expertise in vaccinology and epidemiology and

00:16:35.940 public health that have been managing this thing. And usually you would have emergency management

00:16:40.160 professionals managing a pandemic. And, you know, my thought is perhaps it's time to hand it off now,

00:16:45.700 uh, out of the hands of the people who are specializing in vaccines, uh, and into the hands

00:16:50.800 of, of people who are emergency management professionals, uh, and who have expertise in a broad,

00:16:56.120 uh, uh, area of, uh, specialties, for instance, treatment, uh, virology, immunology, and, uh,

00:17:03.800 and see if we can't have a broader conversation and bring back, you know, the strength of scientific

00:17:08.500 discourse and multi-specialty, uh, voices into this particular situation. So I'm not sure if that

00:17:14.680 answers your question, but that's, uh, those are some of my thoughts. Well, I absolutely want to echo

00:17:19.880 that because it's like the only data point that they look at is COVID and COVID deaths. And, you know,

00:17:25.320 here at True North, we, we try to report on an array of what's happening in society. Like, I'll just

00:17:30.180 give you an example. We had a report that was based on Stats Canada, uh, numbers that, that,

00:17:35.820 that showed that more Canadians under the age of 60 died of diseases of despair caused by the

00:17:41.600 lockdowns, things like depression, suicide, drug overdoses. There's a huge opioid crisis in this

00:17:46.720 country. And it's like, you know, we're, we're, we're focused on how many people are dying of COVID

00:17:51.300 and we're ignoring all of the sort of second order consequences, the, the unseen, um, people who

00:17:56.380 are also being affected because we, we're not looking at the economics. We're not looking at

00:17:59.660 the unintended consequences. We're only looking at COVID and there's, there's so much more to the

00:18:04.200 story. So I completely agree. And another point I want to make, you mentioned that your specialty is

00:18:08.420 in oncology. Uh, one, one of the stories that we covered over at True North is, is this, um, in 2020,

00:18:15.140 2011, 11,581 Canadians died after being put on healthcare waiting lists? So, you know, we, we have

00:18:23.320 people who are not getting the proper, um, checkups that are required, the proper cancer screening that

00:18:28.360 is required, and they're also dying. And this is something that, that we're not really hearing about

00:18:31.780 and talking about in, in, in our public policy, um, discourse. So specifically this, this number,

00:18:37.140 11,581, uh, people died. Is this something that concerns you? Um, I think the question and answer is

00:18:44.060 pretty obvious, but, but what, what, what can be done and, and what do you, what do you think about

00:18:47.480 this? Um, so just to confirm, I, I can't, uh, confirm the 11,000 number that you cited, but I do

00:18:54.340 know that I see regular reports right across all many specialties in cancer that say that, um, that

00:19:01.260 the lockdowns of causes delayed in, in screening for sure. So what, what that means is that, uh, cancers

00:19:08.560 that were, should be, or usually are detected earlier are now more advanced. And what that means for

00:19:13.300 cancer is that if you have more advanced disease, your prognosis or your chance of survival or doing

00:19:18.000 well or living long, uh, goes down dramatically. And that's especially so with, uh, very aggressive

00:19:23.160 cancers, for instance, lung cancer, uh, and pancreatic cancer. I've had conversations with

00:19:28.120 medical oncologists here in Canada that have seen, you know, changes in their practices. Um, I think the

00:19:34.000 other thing that I've noticed too, just in terms of cancer management is that, um, you know, the healthcare

00:19:40.080 practitioners are, are, are wearied, um, you know, whenever we finally do open up, then all of a

00:19:46.240 sudden there's this huge, you know, deluge of, of cancer patients who come rushing in, you know,

00:19:50.620 we exhaust our, our, our healthcare practitioners, uh, you know, then we lock down again and then

00:19:55.400 everybody can't come in. And, you know, this type of, uh, you know, opening and closing is just not

00:20:00.140 good for a good medical care. Um, you know, I think the other thing too, is that, uh, you know,

00:20:06.060 then you have, uh, more advanced disease, you've got more complicated, more burdensome treatment

00:20:10.580 protocols, uh, which require more healthcare resources. So it's really not a, a, a, a sustainable,

00:20:17.020 um, approach. Uh, and just to go back to our initial point where we were talking about, uh,

00:20:24.900 you know, looking at the whole picture, uh, it seems like there's an inordinate focus on cases.

00:20:30.220 Uh, you know, we were just analyzing the Ontario data recently, and we noticed that, you know,

00:20:35.400 cases that the deaths have stayed and remained low. Uh, so there was a, you know, as the cases

00:20:41.080 increased, uh, deaths increased in the first wave and in the second wave, but by the third wave,

00:20:45.300 there was what we called an uncoupling of the cases from deaths. And so the death rates have

00:20:49.940 been actually low, uh, since about, I would say about March of this year. Uh, and we don't even see

00:20:56.700 them going up. We didn't see them raise at all for wave three. And we're, we're not expecting to see

00:21:01.440 them raise for wave four, uh, with Omicron just because it's so mild. So, you know, by all

00:21:06.880 definitions of pandemic traditionally, uh, was defined as something that caused worldwide sickness

00:21:13.160 and death. Uh, and I think we're at the point where the death component is now missing. I think

00:21:18.260 that if we decided to open up our approaches to COVID treatment, COVID treatment and include multi-drug

00:21:24.000 therapies that we could probably treat those who would still be at risk. Uh, and that would free the

00:21:29.480 rest of us to return to normal life. And I think that this big focus on cases and, uh, you know,

00:21:35.440 with this assumption that, uh, you know, that it causes transmission and that we can actually stop

00:21:40.200 transmission by, you know, shutting down the economy or, or, you know, locking everybody down

00:21:45.420 or vaccinating them. You know, I just don't think that those are tenable positions anymore. You know,

00:21:50.320 we we've shut down how many times now, uh, and the COVID-19 is still with us. You know,

00:21:56.100 at best you can slow the, slow the spread for a while, but, um, it's not a long-term strategy.

00:22:02.320 And to your point, Candace, you know, emergency management professionals, uh, what they would do

00:22:07.120 is they would look at the whole picture of society. They would consider the economic costs. They would

00:22:11.460 you know, the secondary health costs, you mentioned opioid crisis, mental health, uh, they would look

00:22:17.160 at COVID-19 and they would look at that holistically. However, I don't really think that we can expect

00:22:22.220 that people who are public health officials with no expertise in emergency management, uh, and risk

00:22:29.020 and, you know, harm risk reduction management, uh, could be able to make those decisions. You know,

00:22:34.900 personally, I think that it's not only time, uh, to broaden our approach to managing COVID from,

00:22:40.820 you know, including treatment to acknowledging natural immunity, but that we should probably invite

00:22:45.300 the professionals in, uh, and, uh, and see if we can't navigate our way out. Because I,

00:22:50.320 I do believe that this particular position is untenable.

00:22:54.520 Well, you're just, you're saying so many things that are common sense and sound so good.

00:22:58.400 Um, to me, I wish that more public health experts and people out there, uh, working with governments

00:23:03.120 and speaking to the media, uh, would listen and, and, and take cues from what you and your

00:23:06.920 organization are saying. Deanna, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us at True North,

00:23:10.800 the Candace Malcolm show. Uh, can you, can you just finish off by telling our audience,

00:23:15.140 uh, where they can find your work, uh, the Canadian COVID care Alliance, and maybe, uh,

00:23:19.680 a preview of anything you, you have coming up, um, from the, uh, COVID care Alliance?

00:23:24.960 Yeah. So, um, you, you can find our work at the Canadian COVID care, uh, Canadian COVID care

00:23:30.620 alliance.org. Um, it's a website. Our website is a rich resource of all sorts of, uh, of it provides

00:23:39.080 a rich resources, uh, in terms of COVID-19 treatment and management. We've got to things that

00:23:43.760 are about building your immunity. We mentioned that on the show, we've got stuff on, uh, early

00:23:48.300 treatment, multi-drug therapy protocols that you can look up and reference. Uh, we have upcoming

00:23:54.100 work on natural immunity, how to build your natural, uh, how to build your immunity, um,

00:23:59.480 and the role that natural immunity plays. Um, we've just published a video called more harm than

00:24:05.240 good that dissects the six month phaser vaccine trials. That's an excellent resource for, uh,

00:24:10.760 inform, you know, if you want to inform yourself as to whether vaccines are good for you,

00:24:14.340 as it outlines the risks and benefits, uh, of that particular, uh, intervention. Um, and

00:24:20.000 then we also have one called dispelling the myth of the unvaccinated, which we're working

00:24:23.780 on presently and hope to launch. And that looks at, uh, the face that the, the Ontario, uh,

00:24:29.940 COVID event data. So, uh, cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and it challenges the narrative

00:24:36.380 that the unvaccinated are the ones that are spreading the disease. Uh, and it really goes 0.99

00:24:40.980 down and looks at all that data and as well as clinical trial data. And it really shows

00:24:45.620 that, um, that that's actually not the case. And one of the interesting points I'm sure

00:24:51.040 everybody might be aware of at this point is that the rate of infection in fully vaccinated

00:24:55.980 people is now higher, uh, than all other groups, uh, you know, with the, uh, arrival

00:25:02.060 of Omicron. So it really gives us pause to, again, think about whether our current approach,

00:25:08.380 our current policies, our current mandates, or even, you know, uh, whether we want to

00:25:12.700 stand up against forced vaccination. Those are probably really great resources to look

00:25:17.040 at and to consider in case you want to, uh, advocate, uh, for a better policy locally.

00:25:24.380 Okay. Well, thank you so much. I encourage everyone to go and check that out. Deanna,

00:25:27.900 thank you so much for joining the show.

00:25:29.840 Thanks very much, Candice. Thanks for having me.

00:25:32.780 All right. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is the Candice Malcolm

00:25:36.000 Show.

00:25:38.380 Thank you.

The Candice Malcolm Show - January 18, 2022

Canada’s response to COVID-19 has failed – is there an alternative？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript