reSee.it
Token #43773
Subscribe To The Free @reSeeIt Newsletter
Details
| Token ID | reSee.it #43773 |
| 𝕏 Link | https://x.com/_/status/1743483540233425324 |
| Token URI | ipfs://bafybeigorkzgrbz5k623t7aply7lcwktjckppdc7qadsnwe5u4nm3kf4fe |
| Saved Media | ipfs://bafybeidhiiswar2jemzlpeviuegia5on6m7xvwmq7wlbow6qhyc2lfbkre |
| Conversation ID | 1743483540233425324 |
| Posts In Thread | 3 |
| Thread Post IDs | |
| Tweet Created | |
| Author | @c_plushie |
| Author Name | Coronavirus Plushie |
| Author Profile | https://x.com/c_plushie |
| Chain | Polygon |
| Tweet Saved | |
| First Archiver | @sureiamokay |
| Contract Address | 0xe16ebd042074b7c971d62e544146d141c725f618 |
reSee.it
Token #43773
Subscribe To The Free @reSeeIt Newsletter
reSee.it AI Summary
Summary: There is a claim of 17 million deaths from the Covid vaccine, which is compared to a global war. The claim is supported by a study and discussed in an interview with Bret Weinstein. The interview is recommended for viewing.
Thread Text
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
17 million deaths from the Covid vaccine? That's like the death toll of a global war! - Yes, absolutely, this is a great tragedy of history, it's of that proportion. @TuckerCarlson speaks with @BretWeinstein @SeanPlunket @theplatform_nz @stkirsch @DrAseemMalhotra @DowdEdward
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the safety data of Pfizer's vaccine trials, highlighting the short duration of the trials and the potential for serious adverse events. They mention a 1 in 800 rate of serious harm per shot and express concern about the long-term effects and mortality risk. They mention an estimate of 17 million global deaths from the vaccine and compare it to the death toll of a global war. The speaker emphasizes the seriousness of the situation.
Speaker 0: So just first part of the question, what do you think we're gonna see in terms of a a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine, so called?
Speaker 1: Let's say here's here's what we here's what we know. Joseph Freeman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did a, an evaluation of Pfizer's own safety data from its safety trials. These trials were absurdly short. In fact, Pfizer only allowed 1 month Before it vaccinated its controls and made it impossible to detect, further harms. And what they found was A 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse event.
This is not minor stuff. This is serious harm to health. 1 in 800 per shot. That's not per person, that's per shot. 1 in 800 rate which in 1 month that suggests a very, a very high mortality risk.
And in fact, we saw mortality in the in the safety trials. What happens over the long term, we've certainly seen such a range of pathologies that have crippling effects on people's health that, I shudder to think how many people have actually
Speaker 0: So I'm not a math genius, but 1 in 800 shots times billions is, you know, a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yep. There was, a press I was recently at a conference, in Romania on the COVID crisis. And so there was a lot of work trying to unpack what we actually understand, and I saw a credible estimate of something like 17,000,000 deaths globally from this technology. So
Speaker 0: 17,000,000 deaths from the COVID vax?
Speaker 1: Well, when, you know, when you scale up to 1,000,000,000, it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous. Now to your deeper question, I think let's steel man.
Speaker 0: So just for perspective, I mean, that's like the death toll of a global war.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. It is this is a a a great tragedy of history, so that proportion.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Must watch: Full interview https://t.co/uAchTKKyYd
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 60 Is the lesson of the Covid disaster that we should give its architects more power? Bret Weinstein on the WHO’s plans for you. https://t.co/ku3O5BdeoF
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Bret Weinstein discusses the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential dangers of the mRNA vaccine technology. He explains how the pharmaceutical industry operates and highlights the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines. Weinstein also raises concerns about the World Health Organization's pandemic preparedness plan modifications, which could potentially infringe upon individual rights and allow for the censorship of information. He suggests that the West is facing a collapse of its values and warns of a possible turnkey totalitarian state. Weinstein emphasizes the importance of speaking out and standing up for truth, even in the face of danger.
Speaker 0: You're speaking in grand terms that 3 years ago, I might have laughed at. I'm not laughing at all. You're also choosing as, you know, a 50 year old man, to say this stuff out loud and to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it. Why did you decide to do that?
Speaker 1: I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said, I call the force that we're up against Goliath. Goliath made a terrible mistake and made it most egregiously during COVID, which is it took all of the competent people, all of the courageous, and it shoved them
Speaker 0: out
Speaker 1: of the institutions where they were hanging on, and it created, in so doing, the dream team. Creative every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil.
Speaker 0: Amazingly, it was 4 years next month that the 1st stories appeared in the American news media about a virus spreading through a city in Central China, Wuhan. The virus didn't have a name. Over time, it was named COVID, and it changed world history. It wasn't that long ago, but we don't talk about it very much anymore in the way that you don't talk about traumatic things that happened to you. But that doesn't mean it's over, and it doesn't mean that huge decisions aren't being made right now that will affect your life and the lives of your children.
Those decisions are being made. The story is not over, and so we thought it would be worth taking just a moment to explain what that looks like, and there's no better person to do that than Bret Weinstein. He's an evolutionary biologist. He taught at the college level for many years. He's got a fascinating bio, which she should look up because it's an amazing story.
He's now the host with his wife of the Dark Horse podcast and the author of a best selling and very excellent book, that came out not long ago. He joins us now. Brett, great to see you.
Speaker 1: It is great to see you.
Speaker 0: So instead of peppering you with all kinds of pointed questions, I'm I wanna guide you and sit back mostly as you tell the story of COVID in condensed form. What of the outlines of what we know now, and where are we going? What's the next chapter in the story?
Speaker 1: Well, first, let me just respond to something you said upfront. Nobody wants to be thinking about COVID anymore. It was a traumatic and exhausting experience. I don't wanna be thinking about COVID anymore either. But what I fine is that every time I look away and move on to other topics, things move just out of our sideline, And these things couldn't possibly be more important.
So I'm gonna try to explain where we are and how we got here and what the implications are in the present that people are largely not noticing.
Speaker 0: Perfect.
Speaker 1: Alright. So I thought maybe it would be worth starting with just some parts of the education that we all got, during COVID. I know that I learned a tremendous amount about not only, viruses and pandemics and public health, but also about pharma, which is something frankly I thought I knew a lot about. I had, run into it earlier in my academic career. So I thought I was something of an expert, but I got, schooled over the course of COVID.
What I've come to understand is something I call the game of pharma. If you think about what pharma is, we we tend to imagine that it is an industry that is, hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier. Yes. That's not what it is. In fact, pharma is healthy when people are sick, and many people have noticed instead of of course, it depends on ill health, so it has a perverse incentive.
But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is and what the nature of that bag of tricks is. And to, to describe it, I would say, pharma is a an intellectual property racket, Or at least that's what it has become. That essentially, pharma owns various things. It owns molecules, compounds, it owns technologies. And what it's looking for is, a disease to which these things plausibly apply, and its profits go up to the extent that the disease is widespread, to the extent that the disease is serious, to the extent that competing drugs are unsafe or ineffective to the extent that the government will mandate a drug, to the extent that the medical establishment will declare it the standard of care.
All of these things.
Speaker 0: You've just described pandemic response.
Speaker 1: Well, that I did. And that's where I learned all of these tricks. Was that basically every day of the year, pharma is engaged in, portraying the properties that it owns as more useful than they are, safer than they are, and persuading the medical establishment, the journals, the societies, the hospitals, the government, to direct people towards drugs they wouldn't otherwise be taking. So that's, what the the racket is, and and it it is necessary to understand that because you need to realize that before COVID ever happened, pharma was expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more serious than it was. It was excellent at, portraying a compound as more efficacious that is safer than it is.
And so when COVID happened, all of this occurred at a different scale. COVID was bigger than anything that had ever happened before, but none of it was new to pharma, and all of it was new to us in the public trying to understand what we were supposed to do about this, ostensibly very serious disease. So I'm now going to put a hypothesis on the table about why things unfolded the way they did. And it involves that game of pharma. What was pharma thinking?
Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we all took, the so called vaccines that were on offer. Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we didn't take the alternative repurposed drugs that so many doctors claimed were highly effective.
Speaker 0: As treatments.
Speaker 1: Right. Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, these things were demonized, and we were, told not to take them, and we were mocked if we distrusted that advice. So the question is, what was all that? Why would that have happened? And again, this is this is not certain, but what I've pieced together is that pharma owned what was potentially the, the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable.
It owned a beautiful technology, and I mean that sincerely, something truly brilliant, that would potentially not only allow a bright future from the perspective of, creating new treatments and new I hesitate to use the word vaccine because it doesn't really apply, but new vaccine like technologies, but that it could do this indefinitely into the future, and it could allow you to reformulate every vaccine currently on the market. And what's more the property in question would allow this whole process to be streamlined at an incredible level because effectively all you needed was a sequence, a genetic sequence from a pathogen, and you could literally type it into a machine and produce a vaccine that was Already in use, but for the swapping out of the antigen in question.
Speaker 0: So it's like Legos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's exactly like Legos. And presumably, with some justification to the extent that this technology was safe, pharma would be able to argue, well, we don't really need to go through thorough safety testing of the entire platform each time we deploy it. All we need to do is figure out if the antigen that we've loaded in this time is in some way, more dangerous than the last one. The problem so that the technology in question is the mRNA transfection platform, which was wrongly in this case called a vaccine, and it is ingenious. It solves a really important problem from gene therapy, which is oftentimes you want to get the body to do something.
Let's say that you are missing a functional copy of a gene that produces some product like insulin that you need. Well, you could take insulin, or it would be great if we could convince your body to produce the product itself like a healthy person does. Very hard to do that though because the body is composed in adult humans 30 trillion cells or so. So how do you get cells to take up the message and produce enough of the product to matter? Well, the mRNA technology Allows you to, induce cells to take up an mRNA message, which they will then automatically transcribe.
And, it does this by encapsulating these messages in lipid nanoparticle. Lipid just means fat. And may remember from basic chemistry, like attracts like, like dissolves like. And so these fats get taken up by cells, very regularly for simple chemical reasons, and then the message gets transcribed, and voila, you've gotten cells to produce something that they didn't know how to produce in the 1st place. Useful for, vaccine like technology, useful for curing deficiencies.
The problem, however, is that this amazing technology, which It's very hard to estimate how much money pharma might have made. I think 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars is absolutely certain. 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars is not off the table given That this would allow patentable drugs to be produced indefinitely into the future. But the technology itself has a terrible safety flaw that, in my opinion, never would have gotten through even the most cursory safety tests. And that flaw is that there's no targeting of the lipid nanoparticles.
Lipid nanoparticles will be taken up by any cell they encounter. And while that's not perfectly random, it will be haphazard around the body. Now if they were limited, if they simply stayed in the injection site as we were told when the vaccine rollout began, the the vaccines, the so called vaccines stay in the injection site. Well, then the cells that took up these messages would be in your deltoid, and what happens next wouldn't be terribly serious. The problem is we learned very quickly and should have predicted from the get go that they weren't gonna stay in the delta.
All of anything you inject in that space is going to leak out, and it's gonna circulate around the body. And here's the problem. Forgive me, this is a little bit technical. I know that. But, it involves understanding how immunity naturally develops.
So when you become sick, let's say with a virus, some, particle has gotten into a cell of yours, and it has hijacked it. And it has started it has tricked that cell into producing copies of itself, more viruses, which affect were infect adjacent cells. And if the virus is an effective one, they will also figure out how to jump out of you, like when you cough and get inhaled by the next person and infect their cells. The body's response to seeing a cell of yours, which it recognizes as yours, that is producing an antigen that is to say a protein that it doesn't recognize is to assume that that cell is virally infected
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And to destroy it. That is the only correct thing for the body to do when it encounters a cell of yours making foreign protein. Now this transfection technology, the mRNA vaccine technology as they called it, does exactly this. It tricks your cells into producing foreign antigens, which the immune system cannot help but recognize as an indicator of infection, and it destroys those cells. If those cells are in the muscle in your arm, not a huge deal.
It's not good for you.
Speaker 0: You get a sore arm.
Speaker 1: You get a sore arm, presumably, we might be able to measure a decrease in your strength, but it's not gonna shorten your life. However, if these transfection agents circulate around the body as we know they do and get taken up haphazardly, then whatever tissue starts producing these foreign proteins is going to be attacked by immune system.
Speaker 0: So you definitely wouldn't want any of this getting near a person's heart or brain.
Speaker 1: Definitely not. And, very bad if it happens in your brain. It particularly critical if it happens in your heart because your heart, for reasons we can go into if you want, has an incredibly low capacity for repair. In fact, your heart doesn't really repair. What it does, you get a wound, if loose cells from your heart, your heart then scars over, and that will affect your heart rhythm, your capacity to transport c o two around the body.
It will, potentially shorten your life, and it will also create a vulnerability that you won't know that you have.
Speaker 0: Until you're like playing soccer or something.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So if you imagine somebody has received one of these transfection shots And, especially in the, unfortunate case where it has been injected intravenously, which isn't post to happen, but the instructions on this shot were not to aspirate the needle. A proper injection should involve pulling back on the plunger in the syringe in order to see if there's blood. If there's blood, that indicates that you've landed in, a circulatory vessel, and that you should back the needle off or plunge it farther so that you're not injecting it directly into a vein. But in the case of these shots, amazing as this sounds.
The advice was don't do that because it requires the needle to be in the person's arm longer, might create extra pain, and they didn't wanna create vaccine hesitancy See what's their excuse. So anyway, you might get a big bolus of, this material, and it might flow right through your heart and get taken up by a bunch of cells.
Speaker 0: And just for perspective, do we have any guess as to how many of these shots were given out globally?
Speaker 1: It's definitely in the billions.
Speaker 0: Billions.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's in the bill.
Speaker 0: With the mRNA technology.
Speaker 1: Yes. Which is an amazing fact. I mean, the In addition to the technology itself being remarkable, the rate at which this was scaled up is positively incredible. Now it had terrible downsides. I don't know if we'll have time to get to the downsides of the way they scaled up their production on these.
But if we can separate the marvel of what they did, yes, there's an awful lot of stuff here that's beyond wizardry. It's It's just incredible what they what they accomplished.
Speaker 0: Could Sue I I'm sorry to I don't wanna take you off track, but you were describing what would happen if it went to various organs that would damage them. Could it cause cancers too?
Speaker 1: We can get back to that. We clearly are seeing an uptick in cancers, and an uptick in cancers that are unusual, especially in their speed. So, maybe we maybe if we have time, we can come back to the reasons that that might be occurring. There's a lot of discussion amongst the medical dissidents about why that pattern exists and what it implies. But, yes, clearly cancers are one of the failure modes of the body and this highly novel technology clearly had that as a risk even if we didn't know what mechanism it would happen.
But, yes, if you let's say you're a soccer player and you've been injected with, this stuff and a bolus of it has hit your heart and caused a bunch of your cells to be destroyed by your own immune system, by, cytotoxic t cells and natural killer cells. Well, now you've got a wound if you manage to survive to have it scar over, then that wound will be less of a vulnerability than it would otherwise be. But if in the period after you've been damaged, before your heart has fully scarred, you were to push yourself to some new athletic limit. Now let's say you're in the middle of a particularly intense game. Right?
That would be exactly the time when a weakness in a a vessel wall might cause a a critical failure, and you, you know, you could die on the field. So this is very plausible mechanism to explain the pattern of, sudden deaths that we have seen oftentimes in people who are unusually healthy and outlived. Yes. So go back to the the original story. Pharma had a potentially, tremendously lucrative property that it couldn't bring to market because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem at its heart.
And so what I'm wondering, my hypothesis, is that it recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand, a remedy to allow them to go back to work and to living their lives that would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn't spot these things. And indeed, one of the things that we see in addition to a lot more harm in those safety tests than we were initially allowed to understand, but also the safety testing was radically truncated so that long term harms were impossible to detect. So the hypothesis in question is, pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring an incredibly lucrative technology, to normalize it in the public and the regulatory apparatus, to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.
Speaker 0: So I think that sounds entirely plausible. In fact, likely. Very likely. But the downside for pharma, and of course, the rest of us, is that if you roll out a harmful product evading the conventional safety screens, you're gonna hurt a lot of people, and then what? So just first part of the question, what do you think we're gonna see in terms of a a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine, so called.
Speaker 1: A lot has gone into preventing us from answering that question, and some very dedicated people have done, some very high quality work, and, the numbers are staggering. Now I'm hesitant to say what I think the toll might be because is not my area of expertise and, I would leave it to others. I would say John Campbell would be an excellent source to look at. There's some new material out of New Zealand, which is jaw dropping. I haven't had time to look at it in-depth, so I'm a little, concerned about putting my weight on the ice.
But, let's say here's here's what we here's what we know. Joseph Freeman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did a, an evaluation of Pfizer's own safety data from its safety trials. These trials were absurdly or in fact, Pfizer only allowed 1 month before it vaccinated its controls and made it impossible to detect, further harms. And what they found was a 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse event. This is not minor stuff.
This is serious harm to health. 1 in 800 per shot. That's not per person. That's per shot. 1 in 800 rate, which in 1 month, that suggests, a very, a very high mortality risk.
And in fact, we saw mortality in the safety trials. What happens over the long term, we've certainly seen such a range of pathologies that have crippling effects on people's health that, I shudder to think how many people have actually
Speaker 0: So I'm not a math genius, but 1 in 800 shots times billions is, you know, a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yep. There was, a press I was recently at a conference, in Romania on the COVID crisis. And so there was a lot of work trying to unpack what we actually understand, and I saw a credible estimate of something like 17,000,000 deaths globally from this technology. So
Speaker 0: 17,000,000 deaths from the COVID vaxx?
Speaker 1: Well when, you know, when you scale up to 1,000,000,000, it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous. Now to your deeper question, I think let's steel man.
Speaker 0: Just for perspective. I mean, that's like the death toll of a global war.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. It is this is a a a great tragedy of history, of that proportion. And amazingly, there is no way in which it's over. I mean, we are still apparently recommending these things for healthy children ever stood any chance of getting any benefit from it.
Every chance of suffering harms that are, not only serious, but tragic on the basis that children have long lives ahead of. If you ruin a a child's immune system, in youth, they have to spend the rest of their presumably shortened life in that state. So never made any sense that we were giving this to kids in the 1st place. The fact that we're still doing it when the emergency to the extent there even was 1 is clearly over. And, when there's never been any proper justification of administering it to healthy kids.
It just, you know, healthy kids don't die of COVID, and the shot doesn't prevent you from catching or transmitting it. So there wasn't there was just literally no justification you could come up, But I think a lot of us maybe call us normies have a hard time imagining the, the breathtaking evil that it would take to allow such a tragedy to unfold or to, cause it to unfold for profit. I still struggle to imagine.
Speaker 0: I do too.
Speaker 1: But think about think about it this way. Pharma on a normal day is composed of people who have to become even if they were doing their job exactly right. They have to be comfortable with causing a certain amount of death. Right. If you give a drug to people, if the net effect is positive, but it's gonna kill some people who would have lived if they never got it.
Somehow you have to sleep at night having put that drug in into the world. And, you know, we want, if we had a healthy pharma industry, we would want them to produce the drugs that had a net benefit, and that benefit includes some serious harms. So once you have stepped on that slippery slope, though, once you have become comfortable with causing deaths, Then I believe it becomes very easy to rationalize, that the greater good is being served by x, y, or z. And then there's some point at which you're causing enough harm and you're, you know when pharma takes an old out of patent drug and, supersedes it with a new highly profitable drug. They've done something that's negative.
We should almost always prefer the older drug unless the evidence is dreamly convincing. The new drug is just worlds better because an old drug, we know something about its interactions with other things. We know something about its safety profile. New is not better when it comes to molecules that you're going to be taking into your your biology.
Speaker 0: Fair.
Speaker 1: But pharma has to be in the business of getting you to take the new and having you distrust the old. And so, anyway, I think I think there's a way in which the rationalization has no limit, and they've gotten to the point that they are willing to cause a huge amount of death apparently. And even at the point that it's been revealed in public, they don't stop, which is another amazing fact. You would imagine that they would have been embarrassed Into stopping this vaccination program at this point.
Speaker 0: So the problem, though, I would say for for pharma and for the politicians who, support and promote them in the media who do the same, is that, there are people like you who are not crackpots, who are scientists and physicians, long time researchers with fully credentialed work histories, not too many, but a sizable number who will not let go, who are completely dogged in the pursuit of more data about this. So, like, what do they do with you and people like you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the astonishing thing is that a, as you point out, small group of dissidents upended their narrative. Uptake rates on the new boosters are in this low single digits. So a large
Speaker 0: Single digit. Yes. So nobody's taking it.
Speaker 1: Nobody's taking it. Now I'm troubled by the fact that at the same time, we don't see, a massive majority acknowledging that vaccination campaign was a mistake in the 1st place.
Speaker 0: Because they got it, and they don't wanna think about it.
Speaker 1: And I get it. I get it. I wouldn't wanna think about it either, but the problem is it's a moral obligation. Mean, we're still injecting these things into kids, for god's sake. So it is important to stand up and say I was had, and I think all of us were.
I I believe that this vaccine was likely effective when it first came out, and the thing that triggered Heather and me to question it was the fact that we were also told that it was safe, which couldn't possibly be true, might have been harmless, but they couldn't say safe because nobody on earth knew what the long term impacts would be. And when you say safe, you're not, if I say, I drove home drunk, but I made it without harm, so it was safe. You know that I have said something foolish. Yes. And in this case, even if the thing had turned out to be harmless, nobody could know that it well.
So it wasn't safe and for them to assure us that it was was a lie from the get go. That's what caused Heather and me to start looking into it and the deeper we dug, the crazier the story got. Not safe and ineffective. In fact, harmful and, shockingly ineffective at everything that you might want it to be effective at. So the story is an odd one.
The fact that that small number of dissidents was able to upend the narrative, was able to bring people's awareness to the massive levels of harmony ineffectiveness of the shots is in some ways, the most surprising element of the story. And I think it truly surprised, pharma and its partners in social media, in government, in nongovernmental organizations. I think they thought that they owned enough of the media that they could sell us any narrative that they wished. And I think, surprising as it is, they didn't really understand that podcasts could possibly be a countervailing force of significance.
Speaker 0: If you own NBC News, it's enough.
Speaker 1: You would say. Alright? You know, it's a it's a it's failing to update from the buying by the barrel
Speaker 0: Totally.
Speaker 1: Aphorism. So what happened was it turned out that a number of us we're willing to make mistakes and correct them in real time, to talk about this in plain English with the public, to do so, you know, in Joe Rogan's man cave. And the fact is people listened because, of course, this was on everybody's mind and what they were supposed to do to protect, you know, they've been terrified, and they what to do to protect your family's health was a question that everybody wanted to know the answer to. So our ability to reach millions of people surprised those who thought they were just gonna shove this narrative down our throats. And this gets me to the the WHO, the World Health Organization and its pandemic preparedness plan modifications.
What I believe is going on is the World Health Organization is now revising the structures that allowed the dissidents to upend the narrative. And they are looking for a rematch, I think. What they want are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate, various things internationally in a way that would, prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly. So that's the reason that I think people, as much as they want to move on from thinking about COVID, maybe stop thinking about COVID. But do start thinking about what has taken place with respect to medicine, with respect to public health, with respect to pharma, and ask yourself the question, given what you now know, would you want to relive a pandemic like the COVID pandemic without the tools that allowed you to ultimately, in the end, see clearly that it didn't make sense to take another one of these shots, or to have your kids take.
Right, we want those tools. In fact, we need them, and, something is quietly moving just out of sight in order that we will not have access to them the next a time we face a serious emergency.
Speaker 0: So you're saying that an international health organization could just end the first amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yes. And in fact, as much as this sounds I know that it sounds preposterous. But
Speaker 0: It does not sound preposterous.
Speaker 1: The ability to do it is currently under discussion at the international level, and it's almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. In fact, I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup. That we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty. And that that is the purpose of what is being constructed. That it has been, written in such a way that you are your eyes are supposed to glaze over That's
Speaker 0: right.
Speaker 1: As you attempt to sort out what is it, what is under discussion. And if you do that, then come May of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign on to an agreement that in some utterly vaguely described future circumstance, a public health emergency, which the director general of the World Health Organization has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit. In other words, nothing prevents, climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications. An in the case that some emergency or some, pretense of an emergency shows up, the provisions that would kick in are, beyond jaw dropping.
Speaker 0: So before you get into it, and I I just wanna thank you, by the way, for taking the time to go through this proposal because you're absolutely right. It's it's impenetrable. It's designed to be. To to cloak what they're saying rather than eliminate it, what's it called?
Speaker 1: Well, the funny thing is actually, I was looking, this morning to find out what the current name is, and the names have actually been shifted slightly. Clearly a feature.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's a shape shifting
Speaker 1: It Yeah.
Speaker 0: With agreement.
Speaker 1: It is. So what I would do in order, and and I'm it's unclear to me how much that's just simply designed to confuse somebody who tries to sort it out And how much that's designed to, for example, game the search engine technology that might allow you to crack that changes because to the extent that the name has shifted. So
Speaker 0: Smart.
Speaker 1: I call it the, World Health Organization pandemic preparedness plan. Right? And what is under discussion, are some modifications to the global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty. But all of this makes it sound minor and procedural. What has been proposed our, and again, the number of things included here is incredible.
It's hard even for those of us who have been focused on this to track all of the important things under discussion and to deduce the meaning of some of the more subtle provisions. But, they, the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will, be allowed to define a public health emergency Any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies. The remedies that are named include vaccines, gene therapy technology is literally named in, the set of things that the World Health Organization is gonna reserve the right to mandate, that it will be in a position to, require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel. In other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted, these technologies are, clearly being described. It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications.
So this looks like they're preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, off the table. They also have reserved the ability to dictate how these, measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well, the right to dictate that's that, of course, misinformation is how they're going to describe it.
Speaker 0: Well, in fact, I wanna ask you to pause and play a a sound bite from, in which he alludes to this, and I wanna get your assessment. But here it is.
Speaker 2: We continue to see misinformation On social media and in mainstream media about the pandemic accord that countries are now negotiating. The claim That the accord will cede power to WHO is quite simply false. It's fake news. Countries will decide what the accord says and countries alone. And countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws.
No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO. If any politician, businessperson, Or anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn't, we would be more than happy to discuss it and explain it.
Speaker 0: So he's going to be more than happy to discuss and explain the misinformation that you're Yeah. That is That's now spreading.
Speaker 1: That is comforting. Well, on the one hand, I must say, I have not seen that. And, it is tremendously good news actually. What it means is that once again, we have managed to raise awareness of something in time that there is conceivably a better outcome still available to us. So.
Speaker 0: They're spooked enough to bother to lie about it.
Speaker 1: There's there's You couldn't have said it, more accurately. Yes. Those were clearly lies, and of course, his saying that into a camera is supposed to convince you, you know, nobody could possibly lie so directly, so there must be some truth in what he's saying, which is, of course, nonsense. And anybody who goes back to, Matt Orfalo's compendium of various things that people have said into cameras over the course of COVID That they then swear they didn't say, you know, months later, knows that these folks are very comfortable at saying totally false things into a camera. It doesn't cause them to to think twice or sweat or anything.
But it's great that we have managed to raise enough awareness that Tedros is actually addressing, our spreading of what it actually is is malinformation. You're aware of this, this extension? No. Yeah. Oh, it's beautiful.
Speaker 0: So I was I was I'm so old that I was still stuck in the truth or falsehood binary. Yeah. Where what mattered was whether it was true or not?
Speaker 1: No. And no, the, malinformation is actually exactly what you need to know about to see, how antiquated that notion is because, this is actually the Department of Homeland Security actually issued a memo, in which it defined 3 kinds of, I kid you not, terrorism, misdis and malinformation. Misinformation are errors. Disinformation are intentional errors. Lies and malinformation are things that are based in truth but cause you to distrust authority.
Speaker 0: So malinformation is what you commit when you catch them lying.
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. Yeah. It is it is discussing the lies of your your government, is malinformation and therefore a kind of terrorism, which I should point out as funny as that is and as obviously Orwellian as that is, it's also terrifying because if you have tracked the history of the spreading tyranny from the beginning of the war on terror. You know that terrorism is not a normal English word the way it once was.
Terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate. So at the point of the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government. They are also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you. They are not normal rights. So, these things are all terrifying.
And I do think as much as
Speaker 0: My jaw's open.
Speaker 1: The the COVID pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us. Something that, former NSA officer William Binney once described as the turnkey totalitarian state. The totalitarian state is erected around you, but it's not activated. And then once it's built, the key gets turned. And so we are now seeing, I believe, something that even outstrips William Binney's description because it's the turnkey totalitarian planet.
Right, the World Health Organization is above the level of nations and it is going to be in a position if, these provisions pass to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions despite what Tedros has just told you. So that is, frightening. It's not inherently about health. What I think has happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind. It's not a loophole in our governance documents.
Our constitution doesn't describe exemptions from your rights during time of a pandemic emergency. Your rights simply are what they are. And they're not supposed to go anywhere just because there's a disease spreading. But nonetheless, people's willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency, has allowed this tyranny to to use it as a Trojan horse. Yes.
And I think that's also, it's something people need to become aware of. That, there are a number of features of our environment that are, basically, they are blind spots that we can't see past. Vaccine was 1, and I know I was an an enthusiast about vaccines. I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist. But I'm now very alarmed at how they are produced, and I'm even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn't meet the definition.
Right. That because many of us believe that vaccines, were an extremely elegant, low harm, high, efficacy method of preventing disease. When they called this mRNA tech technology a vaccine, many of us, gave it more credibility than we should have. If they had called it a gene transfection technology, We would have thought, wait, what? You know, that that's that sounds highly novel, and it sounds dangerous.
And how much do we know about the long term implications? But because they called it a vaccine, people were much readily much more willing to to accept it. Public health functions the same way. If you think about it, public health step back a second. Your relationship with your doctor, your personal health, ought to be very important to you.
But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level affect your personal health and your doctor's not in a position to do anything about
Speaker 0: right.
Speaker 1: So somebody dumping pollution into a stream from which you're pulling fish, you know, you might detect the harm at the population level. You might need a regulation at a population level in order to protect you. Your doctor's not in a position. Right. And you have pill to correct it.
So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our well-being is real. But once you decide that there's something above doctors relative to your health, then that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been, adopted. It's like, It's like the sheep's clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because in theory, it's trying to protect us from harms that we would like to be protect.
Speaker 0: And it generates such fear it's such a huge scale that it it weakens people's moral immune systems absolutely things they would never accept
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And, as you know and as as I know, when we raised questions about what was being, being delivered to us under the guise of public health. We were demonized as if we had a moral defect. It wasn't even a cognitive defect, where we were failing to understand the wisdom of these vaccines. It was a moral defect, where we were failing to protect others who were vulnerable by questioning these things.
And so, the idea that health is at stake in some vague larger sense that requires us to to override the natural relationship between doctors and patients is itself a coup against medicine by something else. And we need to become aware of that.
Speaker 0: So just to just to check kind of, like, the souls of the people who are running all of this, public health establishment international public health establishment. Now that, you know, some researchers believe up to 17,000,000 people could have been killed by these mRNA shots, as any international public health official said, well, hold on a second. We need to get to the bottom of that? Has that provoked any response the people in charge of our public health?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm trying to think globally whether they're good examples. There are certainly some folks who have stood up in the European parliament.
Speaker 0: But I mean, in World Health Organization, CDC.
Speaker 1: No. I don't think so. I don't think we we have not seen an acknowledgment of the harm and error.
Speaker 0: They don't have internet access? They don't know? Like, what is that?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the incredible thing is I still see claims, that just simply if they initially had believed them, then they are long ago falsified, but they're still being advanced for whoever hasn't noticed, you know, the idea that it's a good idea to vaccinate your kids with mRNA shots being one of right, to the extent that there was a panic that caused us to give these, shots to people who couldn't possibly benefit from them, you would expect us to have backed that off extremely rapidly as it became impossible, to defend those shots. And yet, because there's still presumably some market for it, we are we are still doing it. So we are living some crazy story in which things that are perfectly obvious are, still somehow have not lodged themselves in the official public record. And, you know, I think that has a lot to do with, frankly, the death of journalism. Yes.
A lot of us are doing jobs that we didn't train for. Heather and I are doing some journalistic job that we certainly didn't train for. We trained to think about biology and, you know, we do that in front of a camera, and so that functions as a kind of stand in for journalism. But the handful of journalists who still exist, I think without exception, are not scientifically trained. Right?
You know, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, you. We don't have very many people doing investigative journalism, and the ones who are doing it. They don't have the skill set that would make this a natural topic to investigate. So we have to boot up some kind of new institution that will allow us to do this job well. And presumably, that will While taking the few investigative journalists, who remember how to do that job and the few scientists and doctors who are willing to still do their job and, you know, put us together.
Right? Podcast is in the right place to do it. If that's all we got, that's all we got. But, there's got to be a better a better method.
Speaker 0: So if this is ratified or signed on to by the United States in May, 6 months from now that sounds like that's it
Speaker 1: we don't know I will say I have very little hope that the US will derail this. I have the sense that whatever has captured our government, is driving this as well. And so in in effect, the US wants this change. It will, in fact, you know, in the same way that the five eyes nations agree to mutually violate the rights of each other's citizens because That was not prevented in any of our constitutions. I think the US wants something to force it to violate our constitutional protections, And the World Health Organization is going to be that entity.
That said, I have recently been to the Czech Republic, and I've been to Romania, and I've heard from other parts of the former Eastern Bloc that there is resistance that people who have faced tyranny in living memory, are much less ready to accept these changes and that they are actually beginning to to mount a response. I worry that it will be too thin and easily defeated, especially if they Do not understand that actually the world is depending on them. That the traditionally the countries we traditionally think of as part of the west are compromised. And that, these countries which have more recently joined or rejoined the west are the best hope we've got. That they are in a position to derail, this set of provisions, and that we are depending on them to do it.
Speaker 0: So I I I just wanna end for a few moments on your on the overview here. So you have all these remarkable things converging in a single 12 month period. You have war, pestilence, political unrest, apparently unsolvable political unrest. What do you think we're looking at in the West? Like, what is this moment?
And how does it end?
Speaker 1: Well, so I have long been interested in questions of good governance and the west. And, I'm sad to report that I think the west has actually collapsed. And what we are left with is now, a nebulous echo. The values of the west still function, but they function, in a vague way. And we have seen that they can evaporate quickly under the right circumstances.
I suspect and I really don't know I don't think anybody knows but I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that, consent of the governed is too dangerous to tolerate, and that it has begun to unhook it. And we do not know how this works. We can see some of the partners who are involved in this, but I don't think we know ultimately who's driving it or where they're going. I think many of the notions that we picked up about, nations, and who our friends are and who our enemies are are, they are now more misleading than they are informative. In other words, I don't think the US has an enemy called China.
I think there are elements within the US that are partnered within, with elements within the Chinese Communist Party for practical reasons. And so are, you know, the the notion that these, 2 parties are competing with each other just distracts us from what's actually taking place. But Let's just put it this way. We have a large global population. Most people have, no useful role through no fault of their own.
They have not been given a, an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute. And I wonder if the rent seeking elites that have ordered so much power, are not unhooking our rights because effectively, they're afraid of some global French revolution moment as people realize that they've been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we're seeing? Certainly feels like we're facing an end game, where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day, are now being dispensed with. And we're being, you know, we're watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do.
It's not an accident. Whether they, you know, the the thing that worries me most actually is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it's being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They're going to create a kind of chaos from which, humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sense that, unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious, that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone, including themselves, in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.
Speaker 0: How do you see my last question. How do you see your I mean, you're you're you're speaking in in grand terms that 3 years ago, I I might have laughed at. I'm not laughing at all, and I think you're absolutely right. But you're also choosing as, you know, a 50 ish man year old man to say this stuff out loud in to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it. Like, so how do you why did you decide to do that?
And how do you think that ends?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, we are all the products of whatever developmental environment produced us. And As I've said on multiple topics where my family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because we speak out. I don't think I had a choice. I just I I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said. And, you know, I heard a a very good speech, By Bobby Kennedy junior.
He though neither of us are libertarians, he was at the Liberty Conference in in Memphis. And the last thing he said in that speech, struck me to my core. Something I've thought often and said almost never. But there are fates far worse than death. And I think, for my part, I have I have lived an incredible life.
I have I there's plenty I still want to do, and I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to. I have a marvelous family. I live in a wonderful place, and I've got lots of things. Bucket list, but I got lots of things on my bucket list. However, humanity is depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place, to grapple with what it might mean, to describe it, so that the public understands where their interests are.
It is depending on us to do what needs to be done. If we're to have a chance of delivering a planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them if we're gonna deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lives, we have to speak up. And I don't know. I don't know how to get people to do that. I'm I'm very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger, and I know that everybody's circumstances are different.
Some people are struggling to simply to feed a family, keep a roof over their heads. Those people obviously have a great deal less liberty, with respect to to standing up and saying what needs to be said. But this is really it's what we call in game theory a collective action problem. If everybody responds to their personal well-being. If everybody says that's too dangerous to stand up, you know, I'm not suicidal.
I'm I I can't do it. Then not enough people stand up to change the course of history. Whereas if people somehow put aside the obvious danger to their ability to earn and maybe to their lives of saying what needs to be said, then we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful. But I would also point out this interesting error.
So I call the force that were up against Goliath, just so I I remember what the battle is. Goliath made a terrible mistake, and it made it most egregiously during COVID, which is it took all of the competent people, took all of the courageous people, and it shoved them out of the institutions where they were hanging on. And it created, in so doing, the dream team. Created every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil. All of those people are now at least somewhat awake.
They've now been picked on by the same enemy. And yeah, alright, we're outgunned. It has a tremendous amount of power, but but we've got all of the people who know how to think. So I hate to say it, or maybe I like to say it, but I don't think it's a slam dunk, but I like our odds.
Speaker 0: I've never met a more fluent biologist. I have to say. Brett Watts that. Amazing conversation. Bless you.
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any 1 person or any 1 organism. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
17 Millions deaths, study by @denisrancourt and others https://t.co/MdWqWNvtE6
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Study Finds A Staggering 17 Million Deaths After Covid Vaccine Rollout @denisrancourt @jmyremets and @Marine_Baudin_ speak to @BLNewsMedia about the study. @billmaher @SethMacFarlane @SeanPlunket @theplatform_nz @stkirsch
Video Transcript AI Summary
At the International Crisis Summit 4 in Romania, Doctors Denis Rancour, Marine Bodin, and Jeremy Mercier discuss their paper on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. They claim that their analysis shows that these vaccines have caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide. The data they studied includes all-cause mortality, not just COVID-related deaths. They found a correlation between vaccine campaigns and spikes in mortality, particularly after booster shots. The doctors argue against the idea that new variants are responsible for these peaks, as they occur simultaneously worldwide. They also highlight the increased risk of death with age and comorbidities. The paper was published on September 17th, 2021, but has not received much attention from mainstream media.
Speaker 0: Good day, ladies and gentlemen. We're here at International Crisis Summit 4 here in Romania. It's November 19, and an honor to be here with Doctor. Denis Rancour, Doctor. Marine Bodin and Doctor.
Jeremy Mercier. They have written a stunning paper that the world should know about that Says that the COVID nineteen mRNA genetic injections have killed
Speaker 1: 17,000,000 people.
Speaker 0: Absolutely stunning. Can you please tell us more about the paper?
Speaker 2: That's the global number. We studied many countries in Latin America and in the equatorial region. So we have a representative sample of the world, we believe. Many inject it's what, it's Ankur. 10% of the world population, 9% of injections or the other way around.
So the number we extract from our analysis allows us [We calculate the toxicity of the vaccine for all ages, and the number allows us given the number of doses that have been given worldwide to conclude that 17,000,000 people would have been killed by this vaccine.
Speaker 3: And what I would like to add, it's, the data we're working with It's all cause mortality, so nothing related to COVID mortality or anything else. It's like you just come deaf, so it's 0 one. There is no bias in attributing any cause or something.
Speaker 1: Yes. So [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] This idea of working on an unbiased data is very important because most people are working on COVID death, which mean nothing basically, growth in the U. S. And we're very proud of the growth in the U. S.
And we're very proud of the To the whole world because we have data on countries and on very Four continents. Four continents as well. So it's a very solid data.
Speaker 3: And it is a data that you can have by function of time. So it could be by day, by week, by month, by a function of characteristic of the individuals like the sex, So the age and other characteristics and by jurisdictions as well. So it's very powerful.
Speaker 2: And having it by Time, like by week or by month and by age group means that you can actually see when there's a rollout of a booster, for example, which happens very quickly in time for a given age group, You can actually see immediately following it a maximum in the all cause mortality. So an excess mortality actual peak that's Temporally associated with that rollout. We see that repeatedly for each rollout. Consistently across all countries. All the countries that have And we're very pleased with the results of the [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] And we can quantify it, therefore.
And so we can quantify the toxicity of the vaccine, your risk of dying per injection.
Speaker 1: [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] And what's really interesting with it's not cherry picking, choosing those countries. It's very important to understand that when you look at all cause mortality, you see That deaths are increasing in the in the winter and decreasing in the summer and it's the opposite in the southern hemisphere [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] Their summer is our winter, so in the summer, you should have low debt. But during the COVID vaccine campaign, suddenly, you see spikes in mortality Right after vaccine campaigns and it's very clear because it's in the summer where you should see a low death period. So it's Incredible to see such a dramatic correlation between vaccination campaigns and Spike
Speaker 3: dance. Especially in the boosters, like for the southern boosters, like if you have a peak across the booster, we'll roll out basically everywhere at the same time around the world. And in the Southern Hemisphere, it's a trough, as Janine just explained, so we should have a trough. But then we have an actual winter peak, actual booster peak and another winter peak. And that's Everywhere in all 17 countries we worked out, when data is good in the Southern Hemisphere, we saw that
Speaker 1: And something you never saw before. It's a new phenomenon. Yes.
Speaker 2: And once you see it, once you recognize it and you know that the boosters are lethal in this way, then you go back to the data where you're dealing with winter [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] And you see that those winters are particularly intense when they had a booster at the same time. And so you can quantify it in the northern hemisphere as well. So all around, and we're now expanding this to be more than 100 countries, but we systematically [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] See definitively that there is more mortality during the vaccine campaigns and that there are specific Peaks in mortality associated with each rollout in each age group and in many places around the world that cannot be understood in terms of all of a sudden there's a new deadly variant that and we give arguments in the Paper as to why it cannot be this silly argument that a new variant is always popping up at this time. One of the arguments is if it were a question of variants, It could not these peaks could not be synchronous around the world when everyone decided to follow the same schedule and put out their boosters at the same time.
A new variant occurs in one place and has to spread. You don't get synchronous peaks on the entire hemisphere. So that's one of the counter arguments to the variant theory, but we have a whole series and we explained it in the paper. So we wrote this is our most recent And we really did it in detail, but it's not the 1st paper that we've written about the toxicity of the vaccines because we've done a series, right, with Israel, Australia. Well, the first one
Speaker 3: Canada,
Speaker 2: from India. Yes. I noticed in my reading and in my study what was happening in India. So So I went ahead and just wrote a paper very, very quickly because I didn't need dead end analysis because people had already studied India and had shown the data, And I saw this incredible increase of mortality with the vaccination campaign, but didn't associate it to the vaccination campaign. [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] So all I did was point out there it is, no excess mortality whatsoever in India until they roll out the vaccine and there's a huge peak.
That's not a coincidence. And I explained how it couldn't be a coincidence and so on. So I quickly looked at 4 papers, reviewed them and said, hey, India is a classic example of mortality induced by vaccination.
Speaker 0: And Romania, you showed some data yesterday, the exact same. No excess death increase after for COVID was
Speaker 2: yes, not right after.
Speaker 1: So March, April 2020, no change in mortality.
Speaker 2: At the same time, where in the Western world, you typically often had hot spots that had peaks then, the Eastern Bloc countries and Romania do not have Excess mortality at the beginning of the pandemic, okay? But in the following fall, They do have a very large increase before they start vaccinating, and that is classic for Russia and the Eastern Bloc countries, and we're still Trying to understand that, and you've interviewed people that they're helping you to understand this. It's a very aggressive social policy, social medical policy,
Speaker 0: very, very aggressive. So we're talking about 17,000,000 at the time of publishing. When was that most recent paper published?
Speaker 3: 17th September.
Speaker 0: And what would that data be if you were to update it? Are you able to give any approximation?
Speaker 2: About the same because you see it's based on the [SPEAKER RONALD ROGER:] Quantified toxicity of the vaccine multiplied by the number of doses. And since the doses are saturating now, it's a plateau you see. So basically, they're not Vaccinating much more around the world anymore. So the total number of doses is remaining the same. So our estimate wouldn't change.
That's probably Close to a saturation of value. But now there may be longer time effects due to you were going to say Turbocancers or something like that maybe, and we're going to look at that. But the data we have up till now is robust data for The deaths that immediately follow the injections.
Speaker 0: It's absolutely, incredible to me that this was published September 17th this year. It's not made headlines. Mainstream media, silence, deafening.
Speaker 1: We got one fact Checking from the Yeah, the
Speaker 2: fact checkers. We have some fact checkers. No, there was a big fact And the 2 different fact checkers that I saw were giving different
Speaker 0: Can you speak to one of those criticisms and then the response to it?
Speaker 2: Yes. The one in English that I remember is that, [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:] Oh, well, look, we were measuring in many countries, we were measuring COVID deaths, at the same time as a function of time. And these peaks in mortality that they're talking about, there are peaks in COVID deaths as well. I mean, that's just a silly ridiculous criticism because COVID death means respiratory problems, and we acknowledge that the vaccine will kill people, but that the actual mechanism From the weakened, attacked, metabolism will often be bacterial pneumonia or whatever. It'll be respiratory.
That's the main killer. So we're not You see, when you say the vaccine killed someone, what you mean is it accelerated their death such that it occurs soon after vaccination. That's That's what you mean. You get a peak there, right? And but you're not saying that there were no comorbidities.
You're not saying that these are deaths that were caused Solely by a toxic injection. No, you're saying because there was a toxic injection with the comorbidities that exist in that fragile population, people died because of it immediately following it. They try to blur things by claiming, oh, comorbidities. Yes, and that's why you should not inject them because they're at higher risk. But you did, you did, and you killed them.
Speaker 1: [SPEAKER CARLOS GOMES DA SILVA:] And I wanted to say we need to insist on the fact that the older you are, the more risk you have of taking the injection. [SPEAKER DOCTOR. DANIEL RANTZOR:] We calculated this VTFR, vaccine dose fatality rate, that increases exponentially with age. So that's very important data
Speaker 2: to consider. Yes. We were the first to demonstrate The toxicity of the vaccine increases exponentially with your age and has a doubling time of 4 or 5 years in age. So every 4 or 5 years in age, your risk of dying from the next injection doubles. And so in Romania, when you get into the 80 plus year olds, You're looking at a very high risk of dying for injection.
Like our estimates right now are 1 death per 5 to 10 injections in Romania in the 80 plus year olds. Yes.
Speaker 3: And that's why it implies that Prioritizing vaccination for the elderly people or fragile people, it's really not something we should do. And we saw this also in Peru And also, actually in India. They are specifically in the vaccine festival campaign, they specifically say that. Okay. So Yes, exactly.
This is a list of people with comorbidities that you should go get the vaccines.
Speaker 1: [SPEAKER UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:]
Speaker 2: Yes, they killed 3,700,000 people in India with the vaccine rollout.
Speaker 0: How are these deaths being covered up? Not
Speaker 2: With propaganda. Yes. And they're covered up locally because an elderly person dies and nobody complains and Nobody
Speaker 1: goes out
Speaker 2: of their way to make the relationship to the injection.
Speaker 0: Fantastic work that you're doing. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: If
Speaker 2: I could add, All of our research reports on these questions are at correlation
Speaker 0: canada.org. Fantastic. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ash.
Post Media
Details
| Token ID | reSee.it #43773 |
| 𝕏 Link | https://x.com/_/status/1743483540233425324 |
| Token URI | ipfs://bafybeigorkzgrbz5k623t7aply7lcwktjckppdc7qadsnwe5u4nm3kf4fe |
| Saved Media | ipfs://bafybeidhiiswar2jemzlpeviuegia5on6m7xvwmq7wlbow6qhyc2lfbkre |
| Conversation ID | 1743483540233425324 |
| Posts In Thread | 3 |
| Thread Post IDs | |
| 𝕏 Post Created | |
| Author | @c_plushie |
| Author Name | Coronavirus Plushie |
| Author Profile | https://x.com/c_plushie |
| Chain | Polygon |
| 𝕏 Post Saved | |
| First Archiver | @sureiamokay |
| Contract Address | 0xe16ebd042074b7c971d62e544146d141c725f618 |