Canada’s response to COVID-19 has failed – is there an alternative？
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
183.93736
Summary
The Canadian response to COVID-19 has been confused, contradictory, heavy-handed, and ultimately ineffective at stopping this pandemic. But is there an alternative? Today, I will talk to a group of doctors who say yes, there is.
Transcript
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,
00:00:19.660
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.
00:01:45.740
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
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,
00:25:29.840
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