Bitchute Transcripts

read transcript to 2hr podcast VACCINES REVEALED - EPISODE 2 SUZANNE HUMPHRIES, M.D.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fyYQTNrM27iO/

Welcome to episode 2 of vaccines revealed. I'm your host, doctor Patrick Gentempo. We've got a heck of a day planned for you today. In this episode we open with an interview of doctor Suzanne Humphreys, and Suzanne Humphreys is considered by many to be one of the greatest experts on this issue in the world. You want to hear what she has to say about this.

Secondly, we have part 1 of my interview with Sayer Gee. Sayer Gee is a healthcare activist that's known throughout the world, he's the founder of GreenMedInfo, and he has such an elegant way of describing the considerations around this vaccine issue that you'll want to hear. And in our final interview for today's episode we have legal scholar Mary Holland, an enormous expert in the legal side of the whole vaccine issue, and let me tell you, that's a big piece of this puzzle as you're learning about vaccines, as you're learning about what's going on there in the world, understanding the legal dimensions of this issue is absolutely critical. So I'm thrilled that you are here with me right now and my sincere hope is that it adds value to your decisions and your life. My name is doctor Suzanne Humphries.

I'm a medical doctor. My specialty is internal medicine and nephrology, which is kidney specialty. And over the past 3 to 4 years, I have moved more towards a holistic orientation, with an emphasis on the study of vaccination, efficacy, and safety, and necessity. Doctor Humphreys, when you first began practicing medicine, what were your views on vaccinations and vaccines in general, and how have they evolved or changed, and what are they today? Today, I'm anti vaccine.

However, 10 years ago, I was not anti vaccine. I was agnostic about vaccines. I was raised up medically in a system that loved vaccines and that has faith in vaccination. I've written many orders for vaccines. I've received vaccines growing up, I received them before medical school.

And frankly, I never thought about them all that much because we're not taught about what's in vaccines in medical school, we're not really taught anything about the downside of vaccines in medical school. We're given the schedule for pediatric vaccinations and told when they're due and we administer them, which is what I did rotating through my pediatric rotation, really not thinking about it at all, never asking patients when their last vaccine was when they would present with a problem. And given that vaccines are actually drugs that have lots of chemicals and impact on the immune system, we really should be asking that. So So it wasn't until later in my career that I began asking those questions after I started noticing certain things happen. And that's when I started doing my research, And I moved from agnostic to someone who questions the necessity of vaccination in this day and age where we are today.

Do you think vaccines are safe? Well, the reason I say that I don't believe that there's, guarantee for safety with vaccination has to do with where vaccines originate, what is in them, and the lack of studies that we have comparing vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals. And the reason most of us have faith and don't question vaccines is because we've all been vaccinated, because we don't have a look at a group that's been completely unvaccinated. And it wasn't until I actually had experience with a group of people, children, who were totally unvaccinated, that I started to see that what we expect as childhood illnesses, and as all the things that happen as we age, has something to do with vaccination, because that was the only thing that was different about these children that I met about 4 years ago. I've never seen such healthy children.

They had they did get whooping cough, they did get chicken pox, they had the normal childhood illnesses, but they never required antibiotics. They were never sick for longer than 24 to 48 hours. They were brighter, smarter. It was like talking to aliens after seeing and meeting unvaccinated children. And that's one of the things that got me to really start investigating further, was when I noticed that difference.

And I think most doctors and people like you don't have the opportunity to really appreciate the difference between a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person, let alone populations. What we need is a study that actually looks at these vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, and that study hasn't been done. And whenever you want to test at any drug to see what the effects are, negative or positive, you need to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. And if you want to know the long term effects, or downside or upside, of the intervention, you have to follow people out for a long period of time. That's never been done with any vaccine.

If you think about what's in a vaccine, which most people actually don't think about, because they don't know, because it's really not advertised to doctors, it's not advertised to people who are recipients, potential recipients of vaccines. Once you start to look at how a vaccine is made and what's in it, questions have to arise as what could possibly go wrong here that we're not picking up in later years because some of these issues take weeks, months, or years to develop. Mhmm. Okay? So in order to make a vaccine, you have to first obtain the virus or a toxin from the bacteria or a piece of the bacterial cell wall.

So you first have to extract disease from an animal or a human. So for instance, with measles, they got blood of somebody who had measles, and they incubated that through a series of cell lines. Because you can't just inject live measles into a person, you first have to do what they call attenuating it, which is to make it less virulent. So in order to do that, you pass it through different cell lines. So some of the cell lines that they pass this measles through are human cells, amniotic cells of human beings, chicken cells, monkey kidney cells.

Okay? So that's what they do after they get original virus, they have to pass it through to attenuate it. Then after they do that, they have to multiply it so that they can make massive amounts of vaccine. In order to multiply it, they'll multiply it on all different kinds of cells, like something called a made in Darby kidneys, this isn't for measles but for flu shots, for instance, made in Darby kidney cells, which are Cocker Spaniel kidney cells that have been made tumorigenics so that they multiply rapidly. Now part of those cells go into the vaccinee.

Fibroblast from fetal lung cells, which came from an abortion in 1966, are some of the other cells that these vaccine cultures are grown on. There's a myriad of monkey kidney cells that are still used today, and they've been used for a very long time. So all of these things, all of these animal cells, animal DNA, are part and parcel with a vaccine, and it's even listed on some of the package inserts. So you can imagine that different diseases can be picked up along the way, and that has happened in the past. There have been monkey viruses that were finally, after 30 years, acknowledged to have been causing tumors in human beings, and associated, heavily associated with tumors in human beings.

Simian virus 40, if anyone looks that up, you'll, it's all over the medical literature, this is not occult science. In addition to that, there are various unknowns that can't be picked up during testing because if you don't know something is in a vaccine, you can't test for it, you have to have a specific test developed to detect any sort of unknown viruses. And things have been found by third parties, viruses, stray viruses, have been found by third parties in vaccines. So there is a lot that we don't know that happens with vaccines. So say somebody gets a vaccine, and they develop a viral illness afterwards or tumors afterwards, can we guarantee that person that the vaccine didn't cause that?

No, we can't guarantee it, but most doctors in the medical profession and most laypeople will never make any connection between the two things. And there haven't been any studies to really assess the difference in cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated. But we do know that cancer rates have gone up as vaccines have, as the practice of vaccination has grown, we do know that. In addition to any kind of stray viruses that come from animals and animal cells and animal DNA, there are all sorts of chemicals that come along with vaccines. Formaldehyde, which is a known toxin and carcinogen.

There still is mercury in vaccines and there was a lot of mercury in vaccines before they removed it, but there's still trace amounts of mercury in in some pediatric vaccines and there's still mercury in the multidose flu shots. Are there any things in vaccinations that are beneficial or necessary for good health? Well, I believe that people should maintain the right to have vaccines if they want them. What concerns me most about the practice of vaccination is that people who don't want them are losing their rights to refuse them, and that there are more and more vaccines being recommended to children and to adults all the time. When I was growing up, there were about 6 vaccines in the schedule.

Now there are about 32 vaccines in the schedule. When I was growing up we didn't get our first vaccines until we were around kindergarten age. Now infants are getting their first vaccine when they're hours old. When I was growing up, adults didn't get vaccines routinely and regularly, but now adults are being recommended to get influenza vaccines, whooping cough vaccines, and measles vaccines. So the more vaccines we use, ironically, the more vaccines we need.

Because what happens is we lose the natural immunity, for instance with measles, people would develop long term immunity for up to 75 years. There are studies that were done in the Faroe Islands that showed that once somebody had measles they stayed vaccination, the kind of immunity that's provoked is not the same as when you develop disease, and it doesn't last as long. Okay. So if you vaccinate a little girl for measles, she may stay immune to measles for 20 to 30 years. But when she goes to have her first baby, she's not going to be passing her immunity onto that baby the same and as well as she would have had she had the natural disease.

Because vaccines don't impart the mucosal immunity, so her breast milk won't be as full of protection as it would have been. This is proven in science medical literature as well. I've written about it and it's in conventional medical literature, that vaccinated women do not impart the same degree of benefit to their infants as women who have had the natural disease. In addition to that, both her child and she will not maintain long term immunity because we're not, we don't have measles around circulating anymore. Because part of the herd immunity that was happening, where the term herd immunity was coined, had to do with measles, it had to do with the percentage of people who had had measles and were immune to it.

And it had to do with the circulation, the ongoing circulation of that virus in the community, which was actually beneficial to adults because they were re exposed over and over. The same with whooping cough, the same with chicken pox. Okay. Look at chicken pox today. Chicken pox, most people know of chicken pox as a pretty benign entity.

Now we're vaccinating for chickenpox, and, hey, the vaccine's working. We're not seeing as much chickenpox. Right? So that seems like a good thing. However, what we're seeing more of now is shingles because those of us adults who need to be exposed to ongoing chicken pox through children aren't, so we're not getting those natural boosters.

And so what happens is our immunity level starts to drop and we, the virus can come out our spinal cord and give us shingles, which is basically, it's very painful pustules in a specific area on the skin. This has happened both in children and in adults now. I don't think this is an overall benefit. There are many countries who have refused the very vaccines that we're giving in the United States. So there are other countries who actually agree with me and their policies are in line with with with my thinking, that there are too many vaccines too early, and that there's no end in sight to how many vaccines people are going to be recommended to have.

Because the more acceptance people have, and the more fear they have about disease, and the less they know about what they can actually do for these various diseases, which there is a lot we can do and a lot we know about today that actually promotes health, the the more of a problem it is. There's no possible way that injecting animal matter, live viruses, and toxins, as well as chemicals, formaldehyde, aluminum, actually promotes health. This is not a holistic practice, anyone would have to agree to that. There's nothing biochemically, or medically necessary about anything that's in a vaccine. It does not fortify us.

Vitamin D does, vitamin C does, good nutrition does, good hand washing does, getting sleep and getting adequate nutrition all benefit us and fortify us, and all of those things are what contributed to the decrease in mortality of the supposed vaccine preventable diseases before these vaccines were ever invented. And what most people are unaware of is that the mortality for diseases like measles and whooping cough was down almost a 100% before the vaccines even came on the scene in the developed world. That's pretty startling. Now, imagine if somebody invented a drug that decreased mortality by nearly a 100% for any disease, that would be a pretty big deal, wouldn't it? You would hear about it all the time, but yet we don't hear about how hygiene and nutrition is really what prolonged our life expectancy and made us healthier as humanity after the 1800s when we really hit a big pothole as far as sickness and disease went.

I think that's a major big deal that needs more focus. But when these vaccine campaigns are initiated, we never hear about vitamin d and handwashing and even fermented foods that contain isoflavones that can actually that actually have benefited and documented effectiveness in polio prevention. Why aren't we hearing about this with the hype? All we're hearing about is scaring the population and getting them off to get their flu shots because we're running out of supplies. I don't believe any of that's true, I've investigated that.

I've investigated the data on prevention of these diseases, especially influenza with the flu shots. I don't think the data is there. There are other professionals that agree with me. Doctor Thomas Jefferson, who heads the Cochrane Collaborative Research Database on influenza, also agrees with me. He has been outspoken about how the pharmaceutical industry and policies are really hyping up the danger of influenza and the effectiveness of these vaccines, but you would never know that by listening to the television or reading the newspaper.

And I'm quite concerned about the, about the publicity that vaccinations are getting because it's not balanced, and the science isn't there because we've never done a vaccinated, unvaccinated study. Because we haven't done even vaccine studies that are done properly don't follow people out long enough beyond 4 weeks. Most of them, it's 24 to 48 hours. They're not looking for the right things. They're not using just one vaccine.

We have to look at necessity. We have to look at effectiveness. And what effectiveness means is not just does it stimulate an antibody in our systems. That is almost always how trials are done, however, is just to look at how much antibody is stimulated in our systems after we're injected with the vaccine, and what kind of titer, usually around 1 to 4, is considered immune for various viruses. In order to really know if a vaccine is effective, we would have to intentionally expose the vaccinee to the virus and see if they became ill.

We would also have to know whether that person was already immune to that particular virus or not. Because say I'm already immune to chickenpox or to the flu, whatever strain is circulating, and you give me a vaccine and I don't get sick. Well, we don't know if I didn't get sick because I was already immune because I've contacted it naturally in the past and perhaps had a subclinical case, which does happen with measles, with chicken pox, with influenza. Or whether the vaccine actually had that much of an effect that prevented me from becoming ill. We don't have studies like that.

We just have studies that look at the antibody generation after a particular injection. Now, the other problem is that the influenza virus is an RNA virus, and it's a very unstable virus, which is why we have to every year go and create a new vaccine that has different strains in it, because there's all this strain shifting. There's drifting and shifting, which are 2 different things. But but just to say that it's an unstable genetic makeup that changes. And so if you don't have an exact match in your immunity, in your immune system from that vaccine, then that you can't say that that vaccine actually helped you.

So, say, we vaccinated the entire population, well, how many of them actually were prevented from getting the circulating strains? Well, we don't really know that, but they have taken some look at this. In order to take a look at it, you would have to, basically get a viral culture from a person who becomes ill and verify that it is influenza a or influenza b and what strain it is, and then to see if it actually is a strain that matches the vaccine that the person received. And they find that it's actually a fairly low percentage of matches that happen when those studies are done, somewhere around 13%. So can we really, now looking at that, can we say that we have 99% effectiveness if there's kind of a wild card in strain matching and strain shifting?

No, we can't. But what's more important to me is that the focus has long been on giving vaccines to prevent disease. When there are so many and like I said before, a vaccine does not fortify our immune system. It stimulates the immune system, but it doesn't make it healthier, smarter, or stronger. It basically makes it have to work harder so that it can't be doing other things in the meantime.

There was a study that came out in 2012 by an author named Cowling, c o w l I n g, and they used a true placebo in this study, a saline placebo, and they vaccinated half of the people and they didn't vaccinate the other half of the people. They found that there was no difference in the contraction of influenza between the groups, and they found that the vaccinated group had a 5 to 6 times higher rate of non influenza viral illnesses. Why could that possibly be? Well, we know why that could be. There there there there have been theories written about how immunity works for for since the 19 forties 19 fifties.

One of the theories is has been coined original antigenic sin. What that means is that your first exposure to a virus leads you to respond to that particular virus, so that if you're exposed to another virus that's similar to it, you won't fully respond to that second virus. We saw this happen in the swine flu pandemic year, where people were more susceptible to the swine flu who had had the seasonal flu vaccine the year before. That's also documented. There are so many unknowns about the immune system, but we do see in this study that there were more non influenza viral infections in the people who got vaccinated.

So what happened to their immune systems? Did they did they develop enough antibody? Well, they probably did, but it didn't protect them. Why didn't it protect them? That those kind of studies need to be done because the the viruses that they contracted, one of the coxsackievirus, echovirus, these are viruses that are pretty nasty that we don't have vaccines for, and that back during the polio days, were responsible for part of the paralysis that we were seeing that was called polio, that actually wasn't caused by polioviruses.

These are questions that need to be answered, because vaccines have other effects. They do have downside, and there's still so much we don't know about the immune system. The immunology literature admits that we barely know the tip of the iceberg about how the human immune system actually works. It involves cascades of of of t cells and b cells, and antibody generation, but antibody generation is actually what happens at the end of an infection. What happens the first line of defense for all of us, the reason we don't die from every infection we have, is because we were endowed with an innate immune system.

This is the part of the immune system that vaccines don't provide, which is, it's basically the immune system that our thymus was educated in, and over and over and over as we've survived exposure in the environment. Those are the cells that are ready and and waiting to attack, the ones that don't have to be trained. That's a powerful part of our immune system that's significantly overlooked. That part of our immune system requires vitamin c. I believe that most people are walking around in a subclinical state of scurvy, because the recommended daily allowances for vitamin c is is only 90 milligrams per day.

That's not enough when you consider what we're exposed to in this day and age. If you smoke 1 cigarette, that utilizes about 50 milligrams of vitamin c. So that should tell you that most people, just what we're breathing, what we're eating, what we're having to process, because vitamin c does so much detoxification and supports our immune system that we're not getting enough. So if we just look at that, like, why aren't scientists looking at that and advertising that? Well, how much money could we make by selling vitamin c?

Not very much. How much money do we make by selling vaccines and implementing them to the entire world's population starting at one day of age, and giving flu vaccines to 6 month old babies for every year for their entire life? How much money is to be made on that? Significant amounts of money. It's an industry.

It's an industry with think tanks. It's an industry with government support. Natural holistic health doesn't have that. That the population is not being offered fair and balanced information, and they're not being offered alternatives that actually fortify their innate immune system and their overall health. Were there specific events that challenged your personal views on vaccines?

Well, the evolution to where I am now started when I first met a population of school children who were totally unvaccinated. And I noticed that they none of them were as sick as I was growing up, and none of them were as sick as the patients that I had tended to during my pediatric rotations. Their parents didn't expect their children to be that sick because they weren't that sick. So that that was part of the beginning. But then when I was working in the hospital in 2009, in succession, I saw 3 patients brought into the hospital with fulminant acute kidney failure.

Meaning they weren't making urine and they required immediate dialysis. And they had, just weeks to months before, had perfectly normal kidney function. 2 out of 3 of them volunteered to me that I was fine until I had that vaccine. I talked to the administration of the hospital because I thought they would wanna know about this. But instead of wanting to know, they actively, rapidly refuted any potential correlation between the vaccine and the kidney failure.

Despite the fact that the nephrology kidney literature is full of case reports and potential mechanisms for how the components of vaccines and the intentional inflammation that's caused by vaccinations can either exacerbate underlying kidney problems or create new kidney problems and vasculitis, which affects the kidneys. The fact that the potential connection was denied by my colleagues and by the hospital administration, necessitated me to start doing some research. And as I started researching just the influenza vaccine, a whole barrage of new information was available to me, not just on that vaccine, but on many other vaccines, on how vaccines are made, on the components, and on the absolute denial that vaccines have any downside by the medical profession. Because of that, I was really drawn into the history of vaccination. And then I started to discover that what we were told and what I had heard time and again by my colleagues in the hospital and by the hospital administration, which was the response to me about the flu vaccines, was that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination, and polio was eradicated in the western hemisphere by vaccines, so what's my problem with vaccines?

And at that point, I didn't have an answer to question because I was never taught anything about smallpox and polio in medical school. But when I started to do the research and read the history books, both the pro vaccine and the anti vaccine literature, I was startled. First of all, because what was in those smallpox vaccines is absolutely disgusting. And even some of the most ardent pro vaccine people today don't wanna give smallpox vaccines to the population because they know how how devastating that is to the immune system. They were vaccines that were loaded with animal matter and and debris, and that caused all sorts of secondary infections in people.

Yet that is the one vaccine that's credited with the only eradication we've ever had. Isn't that strange? Well, when I dug deeper, I found that the most highly vaccinated populations for smallpox were the populations that developed some of the worst and most devastating and deadly smallpox epidemics. This is not something that you can even have a philosophy about, it's hard data that you can look at, what the vaccination rates were in different towns throughout Europe, different countries, and also in the United States. Because we started taking data in the United States in 1900, and in the UK, in England, in 18/38, they started gathering data.

So we have data from back there. So we were able to actually see what the death rates were from certain diseases and what the vaccination rates were, especially with smallpox. And there is a correlation between the deadliest epidemics and the most highly vaccinated populations, and this happened in Japan, in Germany, in England, and United States. That made me wanna learn even more about smallpox and the smallpox history, history, which is what what we wrote in our book. Polio was another one because that's one of the vaccines that really scares people, because they don't want their kid ending up in one of those iron lungs or or having a crippled limb like that.

And I used to share that fear. However, when I started reading about polio, because I was told that, you know, I should believe in vaccines because of smallpox and polio, It was unbelievable what the history of that vaccine is, what the history of what what poliomyelitis really is, and how it's been defined over the years, and how that's changed. It's incredible. And it's so contorted and complicated that it it took me 70 pages of writing to just barely tell the beginning of the story. So the fact that these vaccines are what doctors use to uphold their belief today in vaccination, I think also needs to be critically looked at by these doctors that are upholding their vaccine belief based on that.

Because what we understand collectively is really not in line with what the history books and what the data show. Any time I was consulted on a patient with kidney failure, and any other drug was thought by me to be causing the kidney problem, be it a cholesterol medication, a high blood pressure medication, a pain pill, an antibiotic, all very common causes of kidney failure. Anytime I ever made that correlation, no questions asked, the drug was stopped, end of story. I was never considered a quack in my career. I was a highly respected nephrologist, I earned a good living, and I was teaching the entire time.

Nobody ever had a problem with me ethically or philosophically. It was only until I started questioning the practice of vaccination that this occurred. And this happens with all sorts of credible scientists, once they turn their backs on the practice of vaccination, who are automatically considered a quack, no matter whether we're Nobel Prize winners or not, no matter whether we were neurosurgeons, no matter whether we were successful obstetricians, doctors of chiropractic, PhDs in neuroscience, PhDs in biology, PhDs in immunology. These are all people that are out there now speaking against the practice of vaccination who are categorically, no questions asked, considered quacks. I think that that should raise a red flag for people, and what I found is that when most people hear me speak and hear the pro vaccine side speak, they're intelligent enough to make up their own mind.

What is our best defense against disease? Well, as far as fortifying our own immune systems, I believe this begins probably generations before we're even born. Because there's a whole field now that's that's basically blossoming called epigenetics, which has to do with what's above the genome. It has to do with what our ancestors were exposed to, what kind of stresses they had, what they were eating, and what kind of disease susceptibilities we have. So we basically, what we do has an effect upon what our children's susceptibility will be.

I think this is very pronounced during the period of pregnancy. And I'm very alarmed by the fact that pregnant women are now being recommended to get influenza vaccines and whooping cough vaccines, diphtheria pertussis, tetanus vaccines, while they're pregnant. I'm very alarmed by that because the immune system begins during pregnancy. In addition to that, once an infant is born, there's a whole process in the birth that has to do with the immune system. Human beings do something that no other animal does, and that is we immediately clamp the cord when the baby is being born.

There's no other animal that does that. It actually doesn't make any biological sense. And what we're essentially doing is depriving that newborn baby of 1 third of its blood volume, of stem cells that that baby needs. The placenta is packed with stem cells, and that's basically a stem cell transfusion. And scientists are just beginning to understand all of the other benefits of allowing that flow into the baby.

This is the way humanity and all mammals were actually designed for the birth process. So why are we clamping the cord immediately? That needs to be questioned. Because that has long term effects as far as immunity goes onto children. It has effects onto anemia, stem cell transfusions, and, basically, those stem cells are able to go in and mop up damage that occurred.

After the baby is born, it should be put immediately to the breast, nothing in between. So the immune system begins going down the vaginal tract, getting the first swallow of probiotics. A c section deprives that baby of that beginning of immunity. There's so much that has to do with normal microbes that live in our bodies, and this is very important. I think one of the most important factors in our immunity that's leading people to believe that they need vaccines is that we are not cultivating the microbes that we need.

We're not giving ourselves the probiotics that we need throughout life, we're deprived of them at birth, we're deprived of activated T cells, immune globulins, and probiotics that come through breast milk. A breastfed baby is completely different as far as what their stool component is to a formula fed baby. Those things are very important foundations, and the foundations of anything, whether it's a building or whether it's a human being, are extremely important, and much more important, in my opinion, than fighting disease with vaccines. And I'd really like to see more of a focus there, And really educating parents and mothers as to why they should breastfeed and how long they should exclusively do it for. Because if they understood what they're giving those babies with that breast milk, they would be much more motivated to do it than just hearing, well, it's just better.

And most doctors don't actually understand all the components that are in breast milk, and scientists are continuously discovering more benefits of breastfeeding. It has to do with higher IQs, lower type 1 diabetes, better immunity in the long run. So that's the foundation. After that, has to do with nutrition. If a mother's eating poorly, her breast milk is not as high quality.

If a child, when they start eating, is eating, chemicals and high rates of sugar and carbohydrates and not enough fresh fruits and vegetables, their mitochondria aren't getting the power that they need to have to sustain an immune system. They're not getting the vitamins and the minerals that they need for good strong bones and an immune system. Those things are very important. I think birth and nutrition, primarily the most important things. Then we have supplements.

I like vitamin c because it's something that, as as mammals, as as human beings, I should say, we don't make. Human beings, primates, and guinea pigs don't synthesize in our food. And because of the toxins and the viruses and the food that we're exposed to now, and the levels of stress that most of us are exposed to, that consumes vitamin C. And because vitamin C is a necessary factor for immune function, we're all in need of it. There's no known toxic dose of vitamin C.

There's never been a death from vitamin C. There are some mild potential downsides to vitamin C in very high doses that people who are using it need to be aware of. But people need more education on the use of sodium ascorbate because I have firsthand experience with it in the pediatric population, and how incredibly effective it is in calming the cough of whooping cough. I have had dozens of parents consult me because they had heard on the news how deadly whooping cough is. I've had newborn anywhere from newborns up to 64 year old people consulting me, terrified that they've developed whooping cough or that their children have developed whooping cough.

The first thing I have to do is calm down their fear. The second thing I have to do is get them on high enough levels of sodium ascorbate. Within 24 to 48 hours, those parents are relaxed, the babies do fine, the toddlers do fine. Can anybody say that about an antibiotic? What what do antibiotics do?

They destroy the normal gut flora, which is part of our immune system, and that's another burgeoning arm of science, is how our gut flora is actually part and parcel with our immune system. Even that that goes with the mother too. That, you know, the the lining of the intestine in the mother is lined with these things called Peyer's patches, and they hypertrophy when she's breastfeeding because her body is taking what she's eating and and the bacteria in her system into her system and out into the breast milk that educates that baby, what's her, what's bacteria that's good and beneficial, what's disease and what's not. And basically educating that baby's thymus and their immune system. So the bacteria in our bodies, on our skin, in our throats, the proper balance of those bacteria in conjunction with a functional immune system is the best defense against any disease.

Period. Sarah, first of all, thank you for doing this, with us. We're very passionate about getting this information out to the world as I know you are. What got you started? I mean, why why are you an advocate, for the things that you advocate for?

I believe that what got me started in it was at at a very young age I was vaccine injured. So from 6 months of age onward until, you know, 18, I was diagnosed with bronchial asthma. Had, you know, many allopathic interventions to keep me alive actually. And so in in many ways, I believe that I'm sort of like the ideal case of someone who, became an activist on the issue and educated on the issue because it was a necessity for me to figure out what had gone wrong in my health and well-being and then how to maintain it. And then of course being a parent of 2 children, the decision cannot not be academic.

It's clearly, in many ways a life or death decision and it's a basic responsibility. So I had to go into the literature to really see what does the evidence say, are vaccines as safe and effective as we're being told, and I was shocked to find that quite frankly there's very little literature that unequivocally demonstrates those two things, safety and efficacy. Right. And, in that process it became apparent to me that if if I was given this opportunity to learn the truth that, especially with the technologies available to to today, it would be easy to get that information out to the public. And and so that became a a hobby passion, and then it became, you know, what what I do as a living as well.

You grew up in a, let's say, biologically oriented household. I mean, your father is a PhD, so you were vaccine injured. Tell about your father's credentials and kinda what his context was. Yeah. My father is a remarkable man because in many ways he's more of a philosopher than a conventional scientist, you know.

Just loved talking about his theories and he was very much into experimental research. And I remember very early on he took me into the laboratory at Rutgers and he would just dispassionately, you know, vivisect a rat and keep its liver alive like some Frankenstein setting with a perfusion station and it was all like for the benefit of human kind. Right? Ostensibly, he was studying actually acetaminophen or Tylenol toxicity for many years. But I was just so like grossed out by it.

I felt wow, this is really the dark side of medicine. Like we're going to vivisect and and and and torture and poison animals to try to figure out how to heal the body. And and so early on I was always sort of, you know, obsessed in a way with trying to understand, like, how was I born in this circumstance, like, you know, my own health issues. I was basically through osmosis exposed to, you know, biomedicine at a very early age. My inclination was more towards the artistic realms, philosophy, art, But over time I found myself, being at least, able to to decipher the obscure language of biomedicine much easier because I had had an upbringing by, you know, a very intelligent successful scientist.

So it's interesting, yeah, because as you said, you you explored philosophy, but you also your your father, you said his PhD was in, what what, subject? Well, he's in toxicology, so but molecular biology was focus. Was his focus. Yeah. Yeah.

So and and did you refer to him as a theoretical biologist? Yeah. Because he, could have taken the route of, you know, getting grants and and climbing the ladder of of clout and even even, salary, in in Rutgers is a research institution, but he chose instead just to follow his his path of of trying to understand the nature of the cell and ultimately through that lens the nature of the universe. So he's sort of doing a theory of everything and, so that sort of inculcated to me a real interest in what is life and all these questions. So it was natural for me to go to college and and study philosophy.

I focused on the philosophy of science or phenomenology because I guess in many ways I was still trying to figure all these things out. You know, what is true? How does the body work? How do you get sick? How do you heal?

These are always questions all of us have to ask just by being alive. And now, your work in time has evolved into GreenMedInfo. Yeah. So what is GreenMedInfo? Why does it exist in the world?

Yeah. So what it is, is it's just a byproduct of me deciding that this treasure house of research we all have available to us, the National Library of Medicine produces Medline which is accessible through PubMed dotgov, the search engine, and I liken it to the global brain. Clearly it's on the Internet, there's 26,000,000 citations but it's the medical convolution of that brain. So you Google but you're Googling everything that scientists have ever published on biology, medicine, life science and it's really quite remarkable. So, once I got familiar with it, I realized I could type in vaccine and type in maybe adverse effects and there are literally tens of thousands of studies.

And so I would use the, research to balance out my assumptions or my own experiences. If I knew that turmeric for example reduced inflammation personally, I could go on Medline and I would literally find 1,000 plus studies showing this to be true. And I had never known that, the public doesn't know it. They still think that natural alternative medicine is quackery and woo and not evidence based. They still think that if there are problems with vaccines, that there's no research to support that, and there actually is quite a lot of research.

So agreement info was a byproduct of this discovery. I realized that if I indexed all these different ailments and substances and interventions like vaccination, the public would have an alternative, high gravitas source of of information so they could have informed consent in their medical decisions. May I give my compliments for agreementinfo.com and and know that it's having an effect in the world and that this information needs to get out there. So I'm an admirer of your work. Thank you.

Interesting then, so the picture that gets painted is you are a vaccine injured child, your father is a science researcher in the field of biology. Yeah. And that you evolved now to say that I've got a philosophical context for things, I've got background and experience through my upbringing and my education, and now you wanna get information out to the world. So given your experience to date, what is your overall view of of vaccines and the whole vaccine, campaign, if you will, out in the world? The forced vaccination campaign.

Yes. Well, my exploration of the published literature on the topic has been very interesting because despite the fact that publication bias is a prevalent phenomenon, meaning Merck, GlaxoSmith, Klein can put 1,000,000,000 of dollars into, creating research that they then after the results are available can choose not to publish. There could be null findings or there could be negative findings and although ethically you should make that information available, that doesn't happen of course so there is a lot of influence already at the level of how things even become published in these high gravitas journals. So when, you know, legislators or vaccine advocates, reference the published research and say, oh, look at all these studies showing there's no link with autism or, you know, vaccines are safe and effective. They're talking about an excretive industry.

Like the, the whole array of published research is already so biased. And so what I was more amazed about was that when I looked at the adverse events research, there were literally thousands of studies proving that anything from sudden infant death syndrome, to any disease you can think of is actually linked in the literature. There's at least a signal connecting those, those, you know, events. And so, you know, many of us, again, who have a personal choice, that we don't, you know, believe that our body should, you know, be exposed to this, especially this route of exposure. We didn't necessarily know that the research supported us in this way.

So agreement info, one of the the projects is to just collate all this research that isn't being reported on or that this claim doesn't exist showing, the link between hundreds of of diseases, some of them the very diseases that they're trying to prevent, and the vaccinations. So basically what you're saying is that, the people who profit these huge multi $1,000,000,000 companies, who profit from vaccines, are also charged in many cases with the responsibility of researching the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. And quite frankly, if they don't like the result, they can just bury it, redesign, and try to create another result. And incidentally, I've also known, you know, in my own reviews that sometimes what they'll do is say, oh, well, we see an effect, you know, we see a negative effect in 18 months. Yes.

What's the data show if we cut it off at 12 months? Exactly. Right? And they'll just ignore the rest of you know, this is this is kind of the fox guarding the hen house is what you're saying here to a degree. Absolutely.

The statistics don't lie, but statisticians do is the whole sort of aphorism. And in the case of published literature on vaccines, it's pretty amazing, that this discussion isn't even really held. Like, the assumption is that, you know, you know, it's really more a case of, science by proclamation or it's not evidence based medicine, it's, eminence based medicine. So you go to CDC site and there's a page on, oh, there's no link between autism and vaccination. And they reference a handful of studies, that actually when you look at the authors, they have direct, you know, consulting relationships with, you know, vaccine manufacturers.

And it's just so clear that they're not actually providing, the so called evidence that, you know, is supposed to validate these statements. So a lot of it is based on we assume by there's a cult of authority. If the CDC says it's true, that's science. Well, when you look at the science itself, especially in the case of the Cochrane collaboration which is an independent, you know, group internationally of scientists that are intending to disentangle industry influence from the actual research, and they're doing meta analysis. All the published literature on flu vaccine, for example, has been meta analyzed by the Cochranextile.

So explain what you mean by meta analysis for somebody who may not understand the term? Yeah. So, all these different randomized controlled, trials, they'll look at everyone that's ever been performed and then they'll they'll look at the total result after you look at all of those. And what they have found invariably, children, under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and those who work with the elderly as health care, none of the, reviews on the flu vaccine safety and efficacy show that they're safe and effective. They just don't show it.

There's never been conclusive evidence to to that. And so, in fact, in the case of children under 2, there was only one safety study that was ever performed, and yet it's mandated and, you know, Health Canada and the, FDA that children 6 months or older or infants, should get the annual flu vaccine. So we've got the vaccine manufacturers doing the research. We know that they if they don't like the results, they can basically bury them and start over or redesign what have you. Exactly.

But there's this other element that is unprecedented and that is that the vaccine, manufacturers are not liable for any damage that they do. That the government, who the CDC is a branch of that government, literally indemnifies the vaccine manufacturers for damage. So why would that be? And the and the answer is because the actuaries who rate the risk say that the risk is too high, we can't insure you, and then the government says well fine if the risk is that high we'll insure you because we have an agenda to to get this out there, get this vaccine agenda put into the public. So isn't it interesting with what you're saying that you have the insurance companies will not indemnify, because they they don't have a political axe to grind here, they don't have an agenda.

They look and say, what's the risk here and can I make money Yes? If I get paid insurance money Exactly. To to indemnify the risk. And the insurance company said, no, we won't do it. Exactly.

Right. Which tells you something. Yes. Right? In and of itself.

Yes. And then you have the government saying, will and So there's no other precedent that shows that the government Yes. Will indemnify a private industry Yes. For something that they wanna give, not even in put into the public and say, hey, the public should have an option. Yes.

But they wanna force children to get this. Yes. The only parallel I can think of is in the nuclear industry, which of course is one of the most, deadly of all because they use really materials that could be used for weapons of mass destruction as the basis for how they produce energy. They are indemnified. Their their risk is underwritten by world governments for the same reason.

Right. So what you're pointing out is such a profound indication of a submerged iceberg of harm that is orders of magnitude higher than the, you know, official, you know, statements seem to imply. So now we have, at this point, you know, looking at kind of the history or trajectory of vaccines. When we were children, and I'm, you know, especially when I was children many years, you know, as a child many years ago, you know, if you look at the vaccine schedule compared to today, how has it changed over time? Well, because as you say, the indemnification manufacturers and this sort of, like, unilateral suppression of evidence that they are not safe and not effective.

Mhmm. There is a just feeding frenzy. Right? There's something like 271 vaccines in the pipeline, just waiting for FDA approval, and vaccines in the pipeline just waiting for FDA approval. And when you have vaccine safety spokespersons who own patents on the very, vaccines are supposed to be impartially assessing for risk, like doctor Paul Offit, saying that you can have as many vaccines as 10,000 simultaneously safely.

Clearly, there's no reason why these companies won't be pouring 1,000,000,000 more dollars into expanding that schedule. So as a present, we're dealing with what, almost 6 it's like 69, 70 vaccines by age 6. And what here's one of the points I would love to make, is if you look at a vaccine today, what's what's happening is a lot of them are grown still through live cell cultures. Mhmm. Those live cell cultures and like things like fetal, you know, albumin contain literally tens of thousands of different proteins and lipids and other structures, which when injected into the body will produce an antigenic reaction.

So each one of those could be considered a separate vaccine. So when you look at things like HPV vaccine, it's a genetically modified yeast that has HPV protein as a component. There are literally tens of thousands of other proteins that are antigenic in that vaccine. So in fact, brewer's yeast contains a set of proteins that overlap so perfectly with the human genome. Up to 33% of the proteome of yeast is the almost identical to the human proteome.

So when you inject that vaccine, ostensibly with one antigen, you know, HPV protein into the body of a child, literally, the immune system, could feel assaulted by thousands of different pathogenic proteins simultaneously. Which explains why it has the highest adverse events reporting record of any vaccine on the market. So the point is is that we are dealing with more than just what ostensibly is maybe 69, 70 vaccines for a young child at age 6. We're we're technically dealing with, what could be considered, orders of magnitude more vaccines in in in the in the real world effects it has on the body. Sort of like a Trojan horse, you know, like, you have these things, you know, the primary target is is this one thing, but all these others, it's a package deal.

It's you know, you don't you can't really isolate, like you said, which, you know, I never something I never thought of before, but, actually, that that can explain a lot of why bodies would violently react as they do sometimes with vaccines. Absolutely. Because the assumption is that if you target humoral immunity, you know, meaning the adaptive pull of the immune system secretes these antibodies to the b cells and that, that is how immunity works. Right? That you get the right antibody, attaches to the antigen and you neutralize the infection.

If that is the way that the immune system works, that's great, but that isn't. Most of our exposure to infectious agents is through the mucosa. Right? Initially, it's through digestive tract, which is why the majority of our immune cells are located there. It differentiates the boundary of self and other and that nasal passages and the secretory IgA is released directly interferes with the entry into obviously muscle and then blood.

So what we're doing is we're injecting directly, evading the natural route of exposure which is eons of evolution coevolution. Right. And and now we're assuming that by jacking up the antibody titers, it's like kicking a beehive literally. Those bees are freaking out, they're angry, and you're assuming that they're just gonna attack exactly the pathogen that you think is going to cause this disease. Right?

It's absurd and ultimately, what it's done is create TH two dominance, which as you know is associated with all types of autoimmune conditions, atopic cancer itself. Which is in your own case, you you know, you were having issues with asthma and so on as a consequence of being vaccinated. Exactly. That's one of them. And we know now through the hygiene hypothesis is when you sterilize the environment, you remove all the quote germs, which by the way were up to 99 times more of the protein coding, genes in our entire synbion system.

Because we're like a, we're like this entity composed of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and then, yes, human cells. 99% of that is from pathogens. Right. You know? And so, when we assume that, you know, there's a one, you know, measles virus out there that's just gonna kill us, and that we're gonna vaccinate our body and put the living disease inside of us along with all these other antigens, that that's gonna improve immunity, it's kind of an absurd proposition.

And and incidentally, could you talk about humoral immunity, which means, you know, the blood. Right? Like they're saying, oh, there's antibodies in the blood as a result of the antigen. So the antibodies, you know, for for people, you know, to understand that Yes. The antibodies are are, you know, these your body's immune system that can say, hey, we're built up a a force or an army here to defend ourselves or to attack these, you know, bad actors that are in our blood with the antigens that are in the vaccines.

Exactly. But humoral immunity is not the same thing as cellular immunity either. And that's another thing saying, oh, well, look, we can prove vaccines work because there's antibodies in the blood, which means you're defended. But that's not the same thing as saying the cell is defended which is ultimately what needs to happen. It's inferred, but it's not that's not necessarily true.

Now, there's a new wave of research in fact, that shows that sterilizing immunity is possible without any participation of the so called humoral pole of the immune system. And so, the idea that, again, just increasing antibody titers by number without even being able to qualify whether they actually, bind with the antigen that it's intended to is really pseudoscience and it's outdated science. But here's the problem, in 1999, the FDA approved surrogate markers of efficacy for approving vaccines. So the HPV vaccine was never once studied or proven clinically to prevent a single case of cervical cancer. Right.

It was it was shoved through by using, surrogate markers, meaning the antibody tighter level was considered equivalent to the clinical endpoint, which was, you know, save, young girls lives from cervical cancer. This is absolutely not evidence based, and it is why we're seeing an acceleration of approval for vaccines today. You know, the analogy I give on the indemnity side is how would you how safe would you feel getting on an airplane if the carriers, United, Delta or any of them Yes. Had no liability if the plane crashes, if you have any kind of a problem saying, oh, the government wants people to be able to get on airplanes. Therefore, it's but it's unsafe.

It's completely unsafe. They're gonna crash pretty often, but no problem. The government's gonna indemnify the air carriers. Yes. So imagine what motivation would would United or Delta or any other ones to provide safe transportation if they weren't responsible for it.

And that's one thing because it's people can choose to fly or not. But in this case, you got the government saying we're gonna indemnify them and we wanna force this on everybody. Absolutely true. And as you know, the way that the adverse report system is set up, it's passive surveillance. So if someone gets a vaccine and then they suddenly have a fibral seizure and they end up dying, that's usually gonna end up reported.

Mhmm. But literally, with autoimmune conditions and things like adventitious or secret viruses that are sort of by mistake in the vaccines getting into your body in 10, 15 years down the line contributing on a multifactorial basis to some chronic health issue, it will never be diagnosable. Exactly right. It it can't be traced because, yes, like you said, the dramatic, you know, changes that could be seen immediately after the vaccine, the reaction, etcetera, which unfortunately there's too many of those. I I know one recently personally that the child died within 48 hours of the vaccine, the 3 month old infant.

You know, Those are the easy ones to track. Yes. But it's the things like you were talking about in your own personal experience, saying, I got these chronic somewhat debilitating illnesses. My body is just struggling. It's not functioning right.

Yes. You know, I can't breathe right. I've got asthma. I've got these, you know, allergies, these other things. That stuff, you know, it's almost impossible to try to track the implications of that.

Absolutely. That's where, you know, when you're aware of these possibilities and you speak to them, they say, oh, you're a conspiracy theorist or just some pseudo scientific anti vaxxer. The reality is the CDC's own website talks about sudden infant death syndrome. Right. Around 3 to 6 when they start initiating, you know, a real intense, set of these vaccines is when SIDS happens.

So what they do is they just throw idiopathic syndrome on top of what is clearly a cause and effect, relationship. And even state on the website, oh, and this is the reason why people are concerned because this is when the vaccine start, this is when SIDS incidents start. And they just say, but because there's never been proof that a vaccine causes SIDS, this this relationship is is is is not causal. So it's like this very, disingenuous, and it's it's pretty much a cover up. It's really disturbing when you look at what's at stake here.

I mean, it's not like covering up something that's kind of minor, but it's something that literally is not only affecting kids, but the entire family unit. The ripple effects are staggering. When you have a kid that's injured by vaccines or a kid that's got health problems or dies, you know, in the most tragic circumstance, and and there's all these questions as to why. And the thing that really upsets me is how they try to make the parents feel crazy. Yes.

In other words, basically saying, oh, that has nothing to do with the vaccine. You're you know, there's no cause and effect there. And and now the mothers or or the father, especially a mother who's intuitive is saying, but no, wait a minute. After the kid was vaccinated, here's what happened. I I knew my child before that and they completely changed.

So how are you saying that the vaccine no. You you you that's it's all in your head. You're you're a stupid parent. You we're scientists. We understand these things.

That that to me, it infuriates me on a level that I can't even begin to communicate. Yes. But I would tell you, and this is the whole thing, you know, somebody first of all, if the if the if the full unbridled truth were told Yes. Which is what we wanna do here. Yes.

And then people could choose. You know, if you know the truth now and you wanna choose to make that decision Yes. Then that's your decision. Yes. Yes.

But the fact that they're trying to take away choice Mhmm. Force this issue amongst people Yes. Knowing. I mean, there's there's no such thing as a person in the world who says that vaccines carry no risk or Right. Let me put it this way, rationally.

Somebody said there's no risk. We can debate what the risk is. Yes. Exactly. But there's risk.

Right. And and a parent not being able to choose whether or not or a child being taken away from parent. I know a mother in Houston just had this happen. Yes. They took the child and vaccinated the child against the mother's wishes.

Exactly. It's the we're starting to get into territory on a moral and political level Yes. That is chilling. Absolutely. Mary, it's so great to meet with you again.

Likewise, I've been an amazing fan of yours. I love your work, and I'd like for you to explain who you are, where you are, what your position is, what your role at at the university is, and what your work has been focused on for the last few years. So I am a lawyer, and I teach at NYU Law School. And I, am a research scholar, and I also teach lawyering skills to foreign trained lawyers. But my personal agenda research agenda has been in the area of vaccine law and policy.

And surprisingly to me, Tony, in that these are global medical interventions for almost every child on the planet, there's a very little scholarship about these laws and policies. So I was surprised, actually, when I really started getting involved in this area several years ago, to see that there there wasn't as much as I would have expected. So over the last several years, I have really tried to, talk look at and write about the constitutional issues related to vaccine policies. I've also looked at the vaccine injury compensation program, and specifically, I've looked there on the issues about autism as a vaccine injury. I've also looked at the underlying rationale for vaccination is to achieve herd immunity.

I'm recently working on a paper on that. And I've also been working on the federal law, analyzing the laws that create the architecture for our policies in this country. So, there's a national, the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. So all of those have been things I've been writing about in scholarly journals and, as you know, you've contributed, beautifully. I co edited a book called Vaccine Epidemic.

It it's come out in 2 editions, a hardback and a paperback. And that was an attempt to look at the vaccination issue from many different perspectives, medical perspective, scientific perspective, ethical perspective, philosophical perspective, religious perspective, legal perspective, parents' perspective, children's perspectives, business perspective. So, looking at it from a, like a prism, there's a lot going on here. And so that was an effort to kind of expand the dialogue and look at this as a serious issue. I think it's often trivialized and it's sort of portraying in black and white fundamentalist terms, you know, you're pro vaccine or you're anti vaccine, and that's crazy.

It's it's much more complicated than that. It's a very complicated issue. So I've been, striving to continue to work in this area. I think it's very important. Why do you think it is such a polarized issue?

I mean, why is it that you're either pro vaccine or anti vaccine? Where do you think that that, polarization comes from? I'm not sure I have a full answer. I think it's crazy, as I say. I think it's not pro and anti, and I reject those terms.

I completely reject those terms. No one would ever say I'm pro aspirin or anti aspirin, or I'm pro medicine or anti medicine, or I'm pro doctor, or I'm anti doctor. Nobody would ever frame a dialogue like that. It's complicated. I think the reason that it's become so complex is the country has a trend starting in the beginning well, starting actually in 19th century, but certainly gaining momentum in the 20th century, and particularly starting in 19 fifties, to decide to eradicate certain diseases and to vaccinate every child.

And I think once you adopt a kind of one size fits all or, you know, a sort of a a totalistic approach like that, then you have to start looking at it as the good. And so vaccines have been sold very strongly as safe and effective for everybody. Now, the evidence doesn't suggest that. The law certainly doesn't support that. Legally, vaccines are considered unavoidably unsafe, like all prescription drugs.

They have real risks. But we've been sold on this idea that they're safe and effective. And so anybody who criticizes safety or who questions the effectiveness or who questions the policies is easily labeled anti vaccine, often improperly so. But it's an easy label to tag to sort of keep the debate very simple. But where do you think that is coming from?

Like, who is I certainly think okay. So so who's behind this? So the these policies have been driven by the pharmaceutical industry that profits from the mandates of vaccines. It's driven by the government, federal and state, who have enacted laws to make these mandatory interventions. And it's promoted by the medical establishment, if you will.

Certainly, by doctors groups, pediatricians groups, infectious disease groups, who also, I think, truly believe that these interventions are positive. But they also benefit financially. Right? So we have sort of the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the government, federal and state, and then we also have the media. Right?

So the big pharmaceutical companies are major players in media foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. But many big foundations that very aggressively support public health, including vaccination efforts. Why do you think the government is involved? I mean, what what's in it for the government to be quelling the conversation, you know, and labeling people who question safety or question the ethics or the legalities? What's in it for the government to quell that conversation?

Well, I think because the government has taken such an aggressive stance, starting really you could even argue starting way back at the beginning of the 20th century. The government has said states can mandate vaccines. Then the government has said these interventions are safe and effective. We want all children to be vaccinated. We advise the federal government that states impose these mandates.

Government's taking an aggressive position. It's a good thing. So, anybody who comes along and says it's a bad thing or it's not as good as you say it is or we should really shift things around a little bit. It's challenging orthodoxy. This is orthodoxy.

And not only is it sort of people are making money and there's a revolving door that I'm sure you've been talking to others about, but there's something else going on here, which is that this 1986 statute that I mentioned, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. It was a statute passed by Congress that suggested that vaccines were so important in achieving public health for children that it was that the industry and doctors needed blanket liability protection, almost blanket liability protection. So, in other words, the government decided that it was in the public interest that individuals not be able to sue any doctor or any pharmaceutical company for a federally recommended vaccine. And Health and Human Services is the respondent for all cases of vaccine injury. So the government has a sort of bottom line interest, among other things, in suggesting that, oh, vaccines are safe and effective.

There really are no injuries. Any any claims about lack of safety are exaggerated. It goes against orthodoxy. It goes against a policy that the government, federal state, has been aggressively pushing for, you know, more than 50 years. So if you're injured, you have to go to the government then to receive any compensation.

No. It's a very, very peculiar, program in my judgment. There there are other federal compensation programs, but they tend to be much more limited. There is a federal vaccine injury compensation program, which provides that anybody who receives a federally recommended vaccine, now child or adult, must file their injury claim in this program, which is located in Washington under the Court of Federal Claims. You cannot go if you think you got an adulterated vaccine or you think that you got a vaccine that was improperly designed.

It contained, let's say, aluminum or mercury as vaccines do, you may not go to your local state or federal court and file a court case. That is prohibited. You must go to this federal compensation program. And when you go there, you have to go within 3 years, you have to sue Health and Human Services. You cannot sue the pharmaceutical maker or the doctor directly.

And the government, HHS, is represented by the Department of Justice. So you're suing the government, and the government's representing themselves. And pharma is completely off the hook, and doctors are completely off the hook. So why are pharma and doctors so disinterested in a dialogue? Well, they don't really have to care.

Right? They have no liability. If, like, for Vioxx or for some other drug for statins that's caused harm or that's controversial where the drug manufacturer and the doctors actually have to answer. They have to be accountable in some sense. Then they can't really resist that dialogue.

But here, pharma and doctors have a completely blank slate. They have no real threat of liability. And that's completely distorted this dialogue. Is there any other industry that has complete, you know, carte blanche? Not like not that I'm aware of like this.

And there was I don't wanna overstate. The 86 law on paper says that you have to file first in this compensation program. And then if you don't get a result that you like or if it's you wait 240 days and they don't actually hear your case, you can go file in a civil court. So in theory, the door is open for you to go elsewhere for most claims. The problem is, Tony, as you well know, the science on vaccine safety and vaccine injury is very poor.

The science really hasn't been done. So, proving that a child's seizures that literally occurred within minutes of a vaccination and proving that that was because of the vaccine, it's much easier said than done. It's very hard to prove that and you have to have causation. You have to be able to prove causation. So, in truth, there's kind of this dead end.

You really can't go any place else. You have to go to this program. And I, personally, having studied it at some depth, think that it is really a huge part of the problem in this debate. And that, in my view, we would do well to have Congress repeal the 86 Act. And has that ever been brought up?

I believe it's gonna be brought up this fall. I believe that we're gonna see some legislation that will propose repeal. Now the vaccine industry, of course, they claim that they don't really make money off of vaccinations. And that so if if they were liable, that they wouldn't be able to produce them at all. I mean, the the and, you know, I was under the impression also when I was training in pediatrics years ago that, you know, people didn't make money off of vaccines.

If the industry did it because for the good of for the good of the country. Well, that was what they argued in 86, and that was that sort of held the day. Right? That swayed that swayed congress back in 86. But, you know, life has changed.

Right? So nowadays, we have a pipeline of 100 of vaccines. It's a $30,000,000,000 a year industry. It used to be that there were like 30, 40 vaccine manufacturers. We now have 4.

They serve the US market and most of the global market. So, this is an oligopoly. It's extremely profitable. The margins are higher than in other areas of pharma. And the schedule for children, as you know, is nothing like what it was in 1986.

In 1986, there was the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, the measles, mumps, rubella, and the oral polio. In point of fact, those vaccines have changed. Those have been found to be not as safe as they could be. So now we have the the intramuscular poliovirus and we have the DTaP vaccine, the acellular pertussis, because those two vaccines were not as safe as they should. But in addition to those 7, we now have 9 other federally recommended childhood vaccines.

So we the federal government is recommending 70 doses of 16 vaccines for children under 18. That's unprecedented. There's no science showing that that's safe. There's no science of any study of comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children with that schedule. That's irresponsible.

I think that's just irresponsible. So, you know, I I I've spoken with the NIH, the Department of Adjuvants, and I was told that aluminum is safe, that they really, you know, regard it as safe. And I asked, you know, were there safety studies? Could you show me the safety studies? Could you send them to me?

And they actually were very quick to admit that there were no safety studies, but that it's generally regarded as safe. That's the status. It's it's benefiting from the status. But, again, it's not based on anything but a belief for them. I mean, are there other situations do are you implying that, like, a lot of the vaccine schedule and a lot of the policy is based on belief as opposed to I mean, I keep hearing people I'm interviewing that there's really no safety studies.

I mean, it's amazing that there's really no safety studies, that people can't find them. I know I've heard Sebelius, the head of the HHS, say emphatically that there's lots of safety studies, that these things are looked at all the time, and I also could not find them. Right. Right. Well, I'm not a scientist, but my study of this is that while vaccines are individually assessed and they do go through some procedures within the Food and Drug Administration and within the Centers For Disease Control, and then they have to be recommended by the advisory committee on immunization practices.

It's not as if there's no process, but the totality of the circumstances, a typical test in law has never been evaluated. The the baby infant monkeys started to develop some of the symptoms that we see in autism or some of the symptoms that we see these monkeys couldn't suck. They didn't have normal reflexes. They probably wouldn't have survived in the wild. So we don't have the studies that prove that these things are safe.

And it's, in my view, as a lawyer, very important. Legally, vaccines are treated the same way as prescription drugs. They are unavoidably unsafe. They carry risks for everyone. The federal government and doctors would tell us the risk is infinitesimal, 1 in a 1000000.

You might get a little swelling at this site. But that's not what they, you know, if you follow the money, they want blanket liability protection. So, there's a kind of a contradiction here. On the one hand, they're sold as safe and effective. Everybody should get it, one size fits all.

And on the other hand, blanket liability protection, unavoidably unsafe. Right. Why would they get it? Really correspond. In my book, that's a fundamental contradiction and it belies that there's something not quite right about where we are on this issue.

So you brought up a few really interesting issues that I wanna ask you about. 1 is the federal advisory committees and conflicts of interest. Right. And the other question is, you know, do you know the outcomes of the vaccine court? I mean, have how much is the vaccine court paid out?

How difficult is it to even get to court or have them hear your case to then, you know, win in court? Right. And if so, what do these injured children look like? So, I mean, those are 2 issues that are just really burning issues. Sure.

I'd love to talk about so first about the conflicts of interest on the federal advisory committee. So as you know, it's commonplace to have federal advisory committee members who have conflicts of interest. And the rationale for that is, oh, well, we just don't have people with expertise who can really serve in this role unless they have conflicts of interest. And, you know, most of them have received fees from the pharmaceutical industry. So there is a process whereby those adviser have to get waivers.

And, there's been a tremendous abuse of that. So there was a study about 10 years ago in congress of the conflicts of interest, specifically with respect to the rotavirus vaccine. They found that there were rampant conflict conflicts of interest. And then you look at that, you know, 10 years on, very little had changed. In fact, I looked at a study by the office of the inspector general for HHS about conflicts of interest in CDC advisory panels, and they thought that some of these people needed to be criminally prosecuted.

So, I mean, there are really serious conflicts of interest that I think should trouble us as citizens, that we're not having people with a medical scientific background with no other agenda than the public's interest. We have people who own stock in vaccines. It's that simple. We have people on these committees who will get fees for speaking engagements. These people are not unbiased decision makers and that should trouble everybody.

Do you think it would be possible to get people I do. I think we should have much more stringent laws on conflicts of interest in the medical area in particular. We saw the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, go 1 year in a day from being the head of the CDC to the vaccine division at Merck, to direct the vaccine division. So she had made several decisions that were extremely favorable, you know, licensing Gardasil after it had been fast tracked, making, sort of being the spokesperson for the concession in the Hannah Poling case where there was a huge attempt to minimize the fact that the federal government had compensated a case of vaccine injury, which led to autism. So Gerberding was getting her payoff one day 1 year and one day.

How can we imagine that she wasn't thinking about what she was going to be doing, after her tenure at CDC. I think those terms should be 10 years. I think we should get people who really care about the public as the director of the CDC, not somebody who's looking to get a payout a year later and to do favors while they're in office. I think there's serious problems. On these advisory committees, I don't buy that we can't find people without conflicts.

I don't buy that at all. And I think I don't either. I don't buy it. And I also think that there's a much less of a public role in these advisory committees than is necessary. On that advisory committee for immunization practice, there is one seat for a member of the public.

One seat out of 20. That's not acceptable to me. If if vaccination in particular is going to be a mandate, it's something that's universal, it affects every member of society, then we need lots of different inputs into those decisions. We need people with a religious background. We need people with a parent perspective.

We need people from an elderly perspective. We don't just need people who have a sort of a professional bias towards this, if if not even a financial one. I think we also need people who have a statistical background. So they can look at this. Absolutely.

I just think it needs to be much broader. I think that when this advisory committee on immunization practice has started, it was in the fifties. It was at a time period where I think there was this kind of we were as a country and maybe as a world, it was the Sputnik era. We were in the thrall of science has all the answers, you know. It's science is going to be the great, you know, o it's gonna open the door to to heaven.

And, you know, I think we're older and wide, I don't know if the rest of the world bought it. But I think in the US to some extent we did and I saw, we we saw these white coated doctors. Tony, they said back in the fifties, you know, measles will be gone. That just the disease will be off the face of the earth. There will be no moms.

You know, there won't be vaccination in 10 years. These diseases will have disappeared. Well, they were wrong. They were really wrong. But that was the ethos back in the fifties.

And it's shocking when you look at the court decisions from that era of parents who genuinely said, I don't wanna vaccinate my child. It violates my core religious beliefs. This is not my view of healing. This is not my view of the divine. And courts are very unreceptive, very, very unreceptive to people who take a different view.

This orthodoxy had lots of supporters in science, medicine, pharma, the press. I do not call it the vaccine court. And I tell all of my colleagues, I I I think it's important. It was never set up as a court. It wasn't?

No. It was set up as a compensation program. It was set up to be administrative. It was set up so that there would be clear cut injuries. If somebody had a seizure or somebody had anaphylaxis within 24 hours of this shot or 3 days of that shot, there would be a presumption that that person had suffered vaccine injury.

They wouldn't have to prove it. They wouldn't have to go through a long rigmarole. The idea was within 1 year, poof, you show the evidence, you have your doctor's report, it's within 3 days, we pay you out, you go home, you go on with your life. And is that not the reality? Oh, my god.

So that was the idea that that was gonna be almost all of the cases and it was gonna be for this limited number of vaccines. So, it's completely the opposite of that. Right? So, it was set up as an administrative program but it functions now with none of the protections of the court. No rules of civil procedure, no rules of evidence, no discovery, no jury, no real judge who's looking at the facts and the law.

It's set up now with these special masters who serve under judges and 90% of the cases have to go through a causation process. They have to prove that the injury that the child or the adult suffered was due to the vaccine. As I've said, the science isn't there. One judge says, it's it's an area of science, it's bereft of science. There's very little science.

So proving causation is extremely difficult. And there are myriad problems in this administrative this is an administrative proceeding procedure gone awry. This is absolutely gone amok. There are cases that have won. A very have been covered.

20% out of all so there's so many hurdles, Tony. It first of all, most people don't know about it. The federal government spends 1,000,000,000 of dollars on vaccines, and it spends $10,000 to let people know about the vaccine injury compensation program. $10,000. That's the public record.

$10,000. So that tells you a little bit about how much they want people to know about the reality of vaccine injury. Most people who would want to be able to go and recover for vaccine injuries can't sue because the 3 year statute of limitations period has already run. And most doctors, they don't understand what a vaccine injury is. It takes some time in the world that we live in today to understand what an injury is.

But most people don't sue. But then of those that do sue, less than 1 in 5 is ever compensated. And they're compensated, Tony, after literally 10 oh, more than 10 years of litigation. The families are harassed. The families are demeaned.

The lawyers don't get paid. They're supposed to be paid by the program itself. The doctors and the scientists who would testify won't get their fees until after the case is settled, maybe 13 years out. It's it's a setup. It's absolutely a setup.

This is verges on a kangaroo court. In my mind, it is absolutely set up so that it's it's a steam valve. Right? A little bit of acknowledgment of vaccine injury happens just enough to keep the lid on the programs as they exist today. So it's amazing anyone has won.

It is amazing. And how much do you know how much money has been spent? Yes. Do you also know if I mean, we don't hear from these patients, you know. So I've never seen anyone in the news.

Yeah. So I can tell you a little bit about that. The program has compensated over 25100 people since it started in the late, 19 eighties and has paid out over $3,000,000,000 So it gives you some idea of the scale. When these people are injured, huge cognitive deficits, paraplegics, these are people who have been catastrophically injured. So the payouts can be rather a lot.

They can be very small, but they can be in the multimillions of dollars because these are people who need 24 hour care. So I worked with a team of people, 3 lawyers and one non lawyer. And the non lawyer supervised a team of interviewers to interview people who'd been compensated. So with great difficulty, we tried to do a Freedom of Information Act request to get the names of people who'd been compensated and get contact information. And we were told by the Freedom of Information Officer at Health and Human Services that would cost us $75100 and it would take us 4 years.

So we opted to do the work ourselves, which was very painstaking, and Louis Conte was the principal investigator. And he put together a team of interviewers, and through really open source access, we found names and information, and they contacted families. And what people told us again and again was that it was demeaning. It was that that the Department of Justice questioned everything they did. They they drew out the process.

In some cases, we learned that really the the respondent and their lawyers were waiting for a child to die from seizures so that the amount of the payout would be less. I mean, it was it was a description of a grotesque kind of proceeding. So it was very negative overall. It was a very, very from people that were very credible. We we talked with people all over the country, people from all walks of life.

And we heard very little that was positive about this program. And are they allowed to speak? I mean, do they sign a waiver? They don't sign a waiver. But in point of fact, there's still continuing money that they have to access through indirectly through the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services.

So we we certainly did encounter families that did seem to feel a kind of intimidation, that should they be openly critical of the compensation program or openly critical of vaccine mandates that had entered their child, that they could potentially suffer consequences that would harm their child. So, of course, parents didn't wanna do that. I mean, I imagine since it's so difficult, 1 Right. To recognize an injury or to have your doctor report it, which we didn't talk about, but I know that that's the case. And it's so difficult to steer your course on this in this not core, but this compensation program.

But those that win have to be unbelievably devastated. They're devastated. You know, it's interest I I have one friend who went through this program on behalf of her son who suffered autism as a result of vaccine injuries. And, he was thrown out of the program as most of the autism cases have been, but not all. So long as they don't use the word autism, many have been compensated.

We can talk about that. Yeah. I'd love to hear. Her view is is that the walking wounded are not compensated, but those that are wounded on the battlefield, some of those are compensated. And I think that's right.

So, let me give you some examples. We got to know these families who'd been compensated. One was a family in Florida. The child is now in his forties. He is confined to his bed.

He can't brush his teeth. He can't talk. He can't he's not potty trained. He's completely nonverbal. He suffers seizures.

Completely brain damage. Completely brain dead. Basically, completely, you know, almost brain dead, 24 hours of care. Parents have devoted their lives to him. Another mother who spoke, we the Elizabeth Burke Center for Autism Law and Advocacy Group, I've been involved in trying to bring some attention to this issue.

We held a press conference. Another wonderful woman, doctor Sarah Bridges, a psychologist from the Chicago area, spoke about her experience with the program and her son. So her son, immediately after a DPT shot, suffered severe brain injury, has suffered lifelong seizures, so he has to wear a football helmet. He is nonverbal. He's in his thirties, I believe, needs 24 hour care, can't communicate with people verbally, you know, coordination issues.

I mean, these are devastating. Another girl who was this is a shocking one. A case went from the vaccine injury compensation program. I was involved in this and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Hannah Brusowitz case. Brusowitz versus American Home Product.

So Hannah Brusowitz suffered an immediate DPT vaccine reaction. Within 2 hours, had a 150 seizures, brought a case, became nonverbal seizures, autism, mental retardation, just a whole panoply of medical serious medical conditions. And that family went from the vaccine injury compensation program then to state court. It was removed to federal court, went all the way to the Supreme Court. That child, after 20 years of what was, I think, inconceivably anything other than a vaccine injury lost.

So, you know, we can pretend that these aren't vaccine injuries, but at the end of the day, states are gonna be paying for this. This is gonna be Medicaid and we're gonna have, as we already do, some huge crises about, you know, adequate care for these kids. People in the state system who care for people like this are often not qualified and there's tremendous issues of wandering as I'm sure you know and of abuse of these people. Oh, and go along. There's there's there's there's a lot of issues that we're just beginning to see because there is this huge bump in the number of people starting in the late eighties who have autism.

These are now people who are reaching their early twenties. Keep saying that. And you know I have to say that, of course, if you read the literature put out by the CDC, the Academy of Pediatrics, they they emphatically say that the link between those two things have been Yes. Debunked. Now I haven't actually found any of the papers that they cite To be correct.

That actually qualifies to make that statement personally, knowing what I know about, you know, qualifying to say something has an attributable rate of whatever. But but, clearly, that is the position of the government. Yes. And, you know, on one hand, the government's gonna be paying out all this money to take care of these kids. On the other hand, they're saying it's not related.

You'd think that they'd want to expose this because then the drug companies could be on the line, although maybe they wouldn't be because now they've got all this immunity. So, you know, one of the things I wanna explore is 1986, that was created for a reason. It must have been that there were cases Right. And the drug companies were paying. Absolutely.

And I know that the the original DPT, not the DTAP. Right. The DPT caused a lot of injuries. Seizure, brain damage, death. Right.

Had a autism had a very high rate of all these things. Right. But supposedly, that, you know, that's not being given anymore. Do you know what it looked like, what compensation looked like prior? Okay.

Yeah. So in 86, parents started to organize. There was a group called Dissatisfied Parents Together, DPT, because the the view was is that the pertussis component was extremely reactogenic and it was causing severe injuries. So, it was causing, you know, mental retardation, seizures, autism. And had there been a lot of money's paid out?

So there were a lot of cases in the early eighties and some of the awards at that time, $2,000,000 was a huge award. And so the pharmaceutical industry did go to their friends in congress and they said, look, we're just gonna stop manufacturing. And some of them actually had and, it was basically a blackmail strategy. It was a blackmail strategy. If you don't give us liability protection, we will just take these off the market.

And Congress, in its wisdom, thought that that was such a great threat that they needed to comply. Now, I am of the view that we probably were mistaken in introducing vaccines where the diseases were not eradicated. Right? So now we have mutating viruses, mutating bacteria. We really can't take out these vaccines because now we have moms who don't have immunity, they're not passing on to their children through breast feed feeding and so on.

So we've created a kind of chimera that we don't fully understand. Well, we've got whole pockets of people who've been immunized who are you know, there's outbreaks of measles and mumps in these pockets. And now we're seeing Polio was surging in places where there's a lot of stress and and refugee camps like in Syria. And these people had been vaccinated, so I don't think eradication is actually possible. No?

It didn't work. Right. So what they what we were sold on in the fifties sixties, it has not worked. And that's never been really acknowledged. So they sort of say, oh, well, that was you know, we we always intended that these would be vaccines and we would just keep doing it and doing it, but that was not the intention.

Back in the fifties and sixties, the intention was that these diseases would be eradicated. What I hear also from the side of people who wanna call the conversation is that even if it's true, we don't want the public to know that there's risks because then they might get be confused, and they might not vaccinate, and that we'll have a bigger public health I mean, from an ethical standpoint, how does that argument sit with you? It doesn't sit with me. So I believe that the hallmark of modern medicine is informed consent. If we learned anything from World War 2, it was that you can't impose medical treatments on people without their informed consent.

That was the lesson of Nuremberg. And it was expanded from just scientific experimentation to prior free and informed consent for all medical interventions, including preventive interventions. That's the global gold standard. That's what the United States rhetorically agrees to. That's what almost all countries in the world would agree to in the declaration on human rights and bioethics.

And that's what we should have. And imposing these medical interventions on all children is saying, you can't go to school unless you take these mandates, unless you take these vaccines. Telling parents, you're a negligent parent unless you provide these vaccines to your kids. That's just it violates our most basic notion of medicine. It has to be a choice based on information.

So I think these the the the notion of mandates is offensive to modern medicine, and I don't really understand why doctors don't stand up on that. Peer countries, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, they have federal rights of exemption. Anybody can say no for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be your belief in god. It doesn't have to be, you know, that you have a medical condition.

You have a federal right simply to say no. In the United States, for children, there is no ethical right to say no, in many states. There's no basis. There's no religious or philosophical these mandates in the United States are based on antiquated law that, in these mandates in the United States are based on antiquated law that, in my view, has been very poorly interpreted. So this really stems from 1905 in smallpox epidemics.

And the mandates that were being imposed in 1905 were dramatically different than what we're doing today. Now there was a mandate that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Cambridge because there was a deadly airborne epidemic that was deadly, and it was a universal mandate for all adults. Children were exempt. It was mandatory on adults. And if adult didn't wanna comply, the adult could pay a fine.

The idea that what we're doing today is remotely related to that is almost laughable. You know, mandating 35 to 45 vaccines, recommending vaccines starting on the day of birth, only for children, the most vulnerable population that still has a developing immune system. It's ridiculous. I mean, the the notion of this decision from 1905, Jacobson versus Massachusetts, was that you imposed this universally, A real notion of herd immunity. The idea that we can somehow vaccinate young children and that creates, you know, magically herd immunity for the whole population is ridiculous.

It is. It's ridiculous. Of course. I mean, it's not based in science. It's not based in science.

It's based in belief. Right. And I mean, I think there is a serious argument to be made that vaccination has become an established religion in this country. I think it's a serious argument because it's not based on science. It's not based on the medicine.

And Jacobsen in 1905 said it has to be based on science and medicine. Mandates have to be based on science and medicine. And today, we see proliferation of flu vaccines, as you know, mandates for health care workers. These are not based in science. This is based in greed.

I think these are truly based in in in misinformation and good intentions. Well, let's talk about the greed part on the on the flu vaccine because that's really interesting. I I think you've written about, and I believe it was you might be wrong. Schools. Like, there's pressure on principals.

Yes. That and that principals actually pay out of their own pocket if they don't have a certain percentage of the kids being vaccinated. And certainly with flu vaccine, we're seeing hospitals. There's a lot of pressure, and it's financial pressure. It's actually financial pressure even though the studies the scientific studies and these large meta analysis show that the flu vaccine isn't gonna do anything to you know, if you vaccinate health care workers.

So can you do you know any of that information? I do. So as you know, there's a strong push, by private hospitals, nursing homes, other health facilities to impose mandates for annual flu vaccines on their workers. And there are thousands of people who've now been thrown out of their jobs for failure to comply. Courts have sort of gone both ways on whether or not these mandates by a private entity can be enforced or not.

Over overall, they seem to be gaining those. You asked about, the financial penalties. So, yes, we've found on the Internet letters related to public schools here in New York City where an individual principal can suffer a personal financial fine if 98 percent of the children in the school are not fully vaccinated. Legal? No.

Of course, it's not legal. Of course, that violates first amendment rights because in New York state, we do have a right to religious exemption. But I mean, is it legal to make the to mandate that the principles I I doubt it. Personally. But I don't know that it's been I don't know that it's been litigated.

But it's remarkable. It's remarkable. And it it does seem to go to this orthodoxy conception that there's a belief system here that somehow it would be acceptable to impose anything on 98% of a school body. Well and was it brought up in that hearing that, you know, look. New Jersey's been mandating, annual flu vaccine for for preschoolers, and it hasn't done anything for their flu.

That right. I mean, they had they were in high in terms of last year, I was looking at their numbers. Mhmm. And in terms of recorded flu, which of course is not influenza. We all know that, you know, most flus are not actually influenza anyway.

Right. But even in terms of their reported documented influenza and their reported flu, they were among one of the highest states, you know, in terms of flu. So clearly, the annual flu vaccine hasn't done anything. I think that goes to our my view that this is more about the money. Right?

So if you impose a vaccination mandate, you can be relatively sure that with no marketing expense, no liability expense, you can impose a cost on people and there will be money to the vaccine manufacturers. There will be money to the doctors. There will be money to the city from federal infectious disease authorities. So, some people benefit from mandates and that's a big part of our issue is that we're not looking at this, you know, the the true cost and benefits are not borne by all of us. The benefits go to the pharmaceutical industry, they go to the medical industry, they go to the newspapers that have pharmaceutical advertisers.

The costs go to the public, and the costs are poorly understood by the public. People don't understand what a vaccine injury looks like. Mhmm. Autism is surely a vaccine injury. There's no question about that.

So I was telling you a little bit about a study that I did with others of compensated cases in the vaccine injury compensation program. We wanted to contact families whose child had suffered a vaccine injury that was a was, related to brain to the brain. So we looked for specifically cases that were seizures or for cases, where there was what's called encephalopathy, brain damage. We first looked at cases that had been published, and 17 published cases from the vaccine injury compensation program, we found references to autism. Some of them explicitly said the vaccine injury led to the autism in settlement decisions or in published decisions of this case.

Most of them were older, but not all of them. Autism wasn't a big deal until the early nineties when it became an epidemic. But then we contacted people who had reached settlement agreements. They weren't published cases. And we were able to reach over 60 people who had settlements who told us, oh, yes.

My child, after the vaccine injury, got an autism diagnosis. Of course, they have seizures and they have autism. And we were pretty stunned by this because the government, certainly, and the medical community and the scientific community are all about, you know, vaccines don't cause autism. You know, it's the one thing we know. We don't know what causes it, but we're sure it can't be vaccines.

So we were pretty stunned to find that there were we found 83 cases out of a sample size of a 150. So, you know, more than half more than half of a sample size, we found of cognitive injury of compensated cases. So this was based on science, based on that, of course, they had autism. And we thought, gee, that's so surprising. People may not believe us that this is what the parents reported to us.

Let's just actually go one step further and see if we can verify the parental report of autism. So we worked with a developmental pediatrician, and we actually gave a screening questionnaire to about 40 families. And this is all in a published paper called unanswered questions. It's in the PACE Environmental Law Review. And in those 40 questionnaires that parents or caregivers filled out, every single one came back exactly what they had told us.

In other words, if the if the parents said, oh, my child has, you know, sort of severe autism that came back severe. If the parents said, you know, not severe but not mild, it came back as medium. If it came back as, you know, if they said mild, it came back as mild. In other words, the parents were extremely credible reporters of autism. So there's no question that the federal government knows that autism is a sequela of vaccine injury.

There's no question that the federal government has compensated 100 of cases of vaccine induced brain injury associated with autism. The way that it's all about the wording and parsing. So there's instead of saying that vaccines cause autism, what they have acknowledged is that vaccines cause brain damage and brain damage manifests as autism. So, they don't say a causes c, but they do say explicitly a causes b brain injury, and brain injury shows up as autism. That's just unassailable.

It's I think that violates math rules. I mean, if a needs to b and b equals c, then a needs to c. Violates more than math rules. I, you know, it violates certainly ethical rules, and I would argue that this needs very serious investigation. And I'm very happy that there is gonna be a hearing about the vaccine injury compensation program in December.

What about other countries? Do you know other countries where there's been legal cases where, you know, the the courts have decided that the child's injuries were, you know, due to the vaccine and the injuries look like autism or are diagnosed with autism? There are other countries with these compensation programs, and I'm actually starting to do some sort of global assessment of these compensation programs because I think it's interesting. I think what we'd find what are some of the other injuries? I mean, what are the other injuries?

What is so chronic in children today? Asthma, there are some sort of transverse myelitis, so sort of paralytic disorders, Guillain Barre, autism, attention deficit disorder, anaphylaxis, severe allergies. These are the things that are compensated in the vaccine injury program. This data set of 25100 people who've been compensated can tell us a lot about the problems that we are experiencing in our health issues in the country. It's not heart disease.

For the most part, it's not cancer. It's autoimmune disorders and it's cognitive disorders. And it needs to be studied. You know, a a responsible government would see this as an extraordinary repository which would shed light on the health crisis in the country. But in a government that was trying to hide something or was trying to cover something up would not look at this database, and that's what we see.

From a financial standpoint, clearly, the industry would suffer. And our government I I believe, and you could probably tell me more, but I I know that many of our decisions as a country have been to support large large industry. Absolutely. No. I think this is all being motivated in a very, very shortsighted way by protecting industry.

I think the revolving door between the pharmaceutical industry and health and human services is So it wasn't just Julie Gerberding. There's been other Oh, sure. There have been lots. People from the CDC go into pharma right afterwards. This is that that's the people on the advisory committee on immunization practices.

They work with pharma. This is a constellation. It's not just 1. So Poloff, it's one of those 2. Right?

Absolutely. He's the poster child of, the sort of the government spokesman, the pharma spokesman, the medical spokesman. And he owned a patent or a home owned patent. Made over we know that he made 1,000,000 of dollars on the rotavirus patent through the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. And there were even some problems with his There were severe problems.

Severe problems. Children children suffered into deception. Right? So children suffered severe digestive tract And some died. And some died.

That's right. And, but he's a key spokesman. But you asked about other countries that may have compensated. Yes. So Italy recently, did compensate a child for an MMR injury who developed autism.

You know, no question. If this were looked at in an unbiased way, as, you know, doctor Wakefield started to do and and then got sort of completely, sideswiped, but the evidence is overwhelming. I think that some meta analysis is in the works that will come out within the next year that will be very persuasive, particularly on the issue of the mercury containing preservative by Mirasol. I mean, I don't know how one with common sense can imagine that it would be safe to inject a day old infant with mercury, but that's what we did. And and that is where we see the spike in cases of autism.

You mentioned doctor Wakefield. Yes. He's, like, the most polarizing name in this issue. Right. Most people believe that he was found guilty.

They all believe that there was some kind of legal justice served. Can you tell us what really happened? I mean, what I don't know what you know, but, you know, from a legal perspective, was this somebody who actually had a trial? Doctor Wakefield was part of a team of, I believe, 13 doctors and scientists who did what he describes accurately as a humble case series in the late 19 nineties to look at children who had autism and severe gastrointestinal problems. And what he found was that the gastrointestinal disease seemed to be a result of vaccine injury.

There seemed to be some link between this gastrointestinal disease and autism and the MMR vaccine in particular, and he hypothesized that it was the measles component of the vaccine. It was a very humble case series. Families had come to him. He had started doing measles research. And the article could not be more scientific.

It says this is just a case series. This is just a hypothesis. We think this deserves further study. It was very, very humble. It was very humble.

So you read it and it wasn't like this is what's the problem? No. Not in the slightest. I mean, it was it was not in the slightest. What what was different though is after the study was published, doctor Wakefield and others did decide to do a press conference, and that did get a lot of attention in the United Kingdom.

And in fact, in the United Kingdom, that led to parents being fearful about giving their children the MMR for good reason. And so parents were then starting to selectively vaccinate with the the m and the m and the r separately. And then the government in its wisdom decided to make the separate MMRs unavailable. And then families had to go either go to France or not vaccinate. And in the UK, unlike the US, they have a federal exemption right.

They can just say no. And so a lot of families did. And in fact, whether related or not, there then became a more prevalent rate of measles, and certainly doctor Wakefield was the sacrificial lamb for that issue. Were there deaths? There were deaths.

There were deaths. I mean, measles is a very serious illness. I don't want to, downplay that at all. I certainly wouldn't tag that on doctor Wakefield in the slightest. He was telling the truth about his research and what he uncovered in a very important memoir of his, a book, Callous Disregard, is that, again, this really goes back to the liability issue.

This goes back to the money and goes back to the law. The UK had purchased a strain of measles vaccine from the pharmaceutical industry. It had already been used in Canada. They knew that it was very reactogenic, and they bought it anyway. And they made it available.

And so they were very the government, knowing that, was very concerned about its own liability. So it needed to deflect attention from real injuries, and Wakefield was disclosing a story they weren't interested in. He was also testifying on behalf of parents in an injury compensation program about vaccines and autism. There seems to have been a lot of cooperation between the US and the UK on that. Certainly, a lot of evidence was brought into the compensation program here from there.

So in fact, doctor Wakefield and 2 other doctors were brought before a doctor's peer review process. It was not a criminal proceeding at all, but they were brought before proceeding. And, it was found that doctor Wakefield had violated his ethical medical norms. And, unfortunately, because he was at that time in the United States and he was no longer covered by his malpractice insurance in the UK, he was unable to go forward in that litigation and to exonerate himself. His colleague, doctor John Walker Smith, who was the chief clinical person on that paper, did pursue it all the way to the basically, the high appeals court below the highest court in the UK, and he was fully exonerated, completely exonerated.

For the same charges that were made against Wakefield? Very, very similar. Not exactly, Tony. I don't wanna overstate. Not exactly, but almost the same.

It was the same work. It was the same article. He was found to have absolutely been within his, you know, professional judgment to have done everything that he did. The court went out of its way because Wakefield wasn't before them to say, you know, we don't really know what would happen with Wakefield. Wakefield is, you know, has brought a case against the British medical term.

So, but he was tried, and he was convicted in the press. Right? So there was clearly a multimillion dollar press campaign to vilify doctor Wakefield as somehow even Bill Gates went on television just to basically allege that doctor Wakefield was a baby killer. I mean, extraordinary, extraordinary allegations against this doctor. The autism epidemic is very serious.

I think because governments have a sense of culpability about it, I think there is a kind of willful blindness. They are not acknowledging the scope of this problem because they are complicit in this problem. It is related to vaccination. I think the evidence shows that today. But, again, that's not sort of been touted in the mainstream yet, but I think that's the reality that we live in.

So I had never heard about this reactive measles component that was used by England, and he exposed that. That they had already known in Canada. The government knew it. They bought it. And so he really alleges that this is corruption.

This is just out and out corruption. They did something that was stupid. They did it on the cheap. They knew that what they had done was wrong. They knew that they could be on the hook.

They signed a liability waiver for pharma that the government was gonna be on the hook, just like what we have in the US after the 86 law. It was a bust. There was a lot of reactions to the measles. He uncovered that. And so then they vilified him.

It seems like several times a year, I'll read that one of the major pharmaceutical companies is paying out on these on criminal fines, like huge amounts of money on criminal fines. And I think just about every single one of the major players have. And that begs the question, what do lawyers say? I mean, if they say anything, what do lawyers say about, oh, my my god. We've got this whole industry that on a regular basis is found guilty on criminal behavior?

Tony, it it it just, boggles my mind that we could imagine somehow that the pharmaceutical industry who do suffer huge, the biggest ever civil fines and criminal fines, that that they could behave that way with respect to prescription drugs, but they would be Boy Scouts when it comes to vaccines. That is a level of kind of cognitive dissonance that I cannot understand. That's crazy. That's that I'm completely incredulous about that. What has been the fines in the other areas is that they've hidden the science, that they have, kept information that was that they were required by the FDA to provide.

They they didn't provide that information. They've used false marketing information. They've marketed things where they had no right to do so. It was off label. I don't see why we would think that the same things aren't going on with vaccines.

They suppressed information, in regarding safety issues. Yes. One of the examples that stands out in my mind is is Vioxx. Right? So Vioxx was a drug where Merck apparently knew that it was going to cause this pain killer was going to cause heart disease and a certain and and heart attacks and death in a certain number of people.

And in fact, I believe it's a 100000 people died. And And that's just what's reported. I mean, this is probably what reported, and and it was an FDA scientist who I believe was threatened with his job. He testified to congress. But that level of malfeasance, that level of of of disregard for human life, You know, to imagine that those are the same companies, predators who are producing vaccines, I find extraordinary.

But you also said the FDA whistleblower was threatened. Yes. I was So that means the FDA did not want him to come forward with the information. That's what we learned. I think his name is doctor Graham, and I've seen him on film talking about, what happened to him.

I think we have to understand that these federal regulatory agencies in the medical complex, NIH, FDA, CDC, HHS, you know, the Division of Injury Compensation Program, they are very closely related to the pharmaceutical industry that we call CAPTURE. I think they're CAPTURE agencies. I think they are really working largely on behalf of industry. The notion that they are really serving infants and young children without doing any independent science, taking what pharma tells them, and then mandating it. It's extremely troubling.

It's extremely troubling. So we have these federal regulatory agencies. They they were created to regulate industry to protect the public's interest. Correct? I mean, that's my understanding.

You know, what do you think happened? I mean, what how is it that a whistleblower at the FDA who's telling the public that 100 of 100 of 1000 of people or, a 100000 people or more could be dying from this one drug. You know, it's dangerous. We knew it was dangerous when it got approved or they hid stuff. Why would the FDA wanna protect the industry and not you know, you'd think they'd be if they were a federal agency with the public's best interest at hand, they would encourage their scientists to come forward and say, no.

This is dangerous. Right. So where do you think the world compass is? What's going on? I think we really do have an exceptionally serious problem with regulatory agencies that have, in effect, been captured by industry.

And I don't think it's just the regulatory agencies. I think we have a system of government where who pays the most, you know, calls the tune. So we have legislators and even the executive branch. They're very sensitive to who's paying for their campaign money, who's insuring their jobs after they get out, where's their job on K Street. We have a system of government that is hugely influenced by industry.

Industry has the most ready cash available and it has the greatest sort of incentives for these people once they're out of government. So, we don't have a system that effectively regulates these entities. On the on the contrary, they are really, the regulators are being run by industry. And I think we see that in biotech. I think we see that in pharma.

I think we see that in other areas. And it's extremely dangerous. And that's why I think we have to, as citizens, strengthen the rights of parents, particularly around the vaccine issue. I think we absolutely should have the same federal right that people have in Canada or the UK or Japan or Sweden or France to say no to any vaccine. I think that's essential.

That's just basic freedom over bodily integrity. That's just basic informed consent. So we really are living in a very dangerous place right now. I really hope you got a lot out of today's episode. Amazing information.

However, tomorrow is one of my favorite days. I sit down with Robert Kennedy Junior, an icon in America who's been an activist for things that are wrong in America, environmental issues, and you're gonna learn why he took a hiatus from most of his legal work to focus specifically on this vaccine issue and mercury in vaccines, which is especially important to him. I was startled with the intellectual prowess and the organization of the information. You will love this interview. You will also be somewhat outraged by what he has discovered in his journey around vaccines.

In addition to that, we have Scott and Melissa Miller. These are filmmakers who made a film that is incredible and different from any other vaccine film I've ever seen. Why? Because it's addressing the Anthrax vaccine in the military, completely startling information there. See how this very successful filmmaker got hooked on this particular issue, and the beautiful film they made.

This is the worldwide premiere that we're going to be showing on a subsequent episode of Vaccine Syndrome. You will be riveted with that one. Then also we have one of our strategic alliances for Vaccines Revealed, Vaxxed the movie, which was a very controversial movie. Maybe you saw it in the headlines because it was gonna be shown at the Tribeca Film Festival, and then as is typically the case, the media wants to black out this information, and by doing so they got the film yanked out of Tribeca, but then Robert De Niro had some very strong words about this whole vaccine issue, and vaxx has been seen by many people worldwide. Well they've made a condensed version of the film for 20 minutes that they have shared with us to present and we're sharing that with you tomorrow.

So you have a big day tomorrow in episode 3. I look forward to being there with you. Please share this information and tell everyone you know they need to learn about this.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 1hr podcast GREG HUNTER USA WATCHDOG: CV19 VAX IS DEATH BY GOVERNMENT – DR. SHERRI TENPENNY

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Otkg3UWgRF2l/ 

I'm Greg Hunter. Welcome to usawatchdog.com. Haven't had this guest on in a while. She is another truth truth warrior doctor. None of the doctors who went against these kill shots made money.

They all were punished, and she was punished. She had her license suspended. Her medical license. She's an MD. Yeah.

Or a DO. Is that right? You're a DO. So she's a DO. I'm gonna keep going.

So she had her medical license suspended. How dare she talk junk about not taking these bioweapon vaccines? How dare she talk junk about telling people maybe you might wanna have some, ivermectin, some treatment like, Chris Cuomo is getting. He's admitted he's getting treatment. It's doctor Sherry Tenpenny.

Doctor Tenpenny, thank you for joining us today on usawatchdog.com. Thank you so much for having me on your show, Greg. I really appreciate being here. You just had your license restored. You know, you had bunches of legal, bills, I'm sure, for this that you had to go add them for it.

It's been a long drawn up process. Finally, it was like you told them to put up or shut up. Oh, you were gonna take them to court, basically. You got your license back. Tell me what this was all about.

Why why did they take your license and really never told you, you know, prove to you that you were were hurting people, which you were not. Well, it it all started back in actually, June of 2021 when I testified at the at the US at the, Ohio, State Department, the Health Department Committee. And one of them the thing that is never said, Greg, you never hear it, is that one of the committee members asked me towards the end of my, testimony, my end of my statement, she said, you know, because put this in context. You know, the Pfizer shot just came out in December of 2020. The the AstraZeneca and Moderna shot came out in January of 21.

So this is June of 21. It's just a couple of months later. And she asked me, have you seen any unusual, side effects, from these vaccines? And you never hear her asking that question. You just hear my response to her question, which was, yes, we've seen a lot of unusual things.

I'm sure that a lot of people have have seen across the Internet, pictures of all these people. They put a coin on their forehead or a key or something on their arm, and it sticks. So it appears as though there's something in those shots that is causing people to be magnetic. And that was my response. And the media went wild and made me into a tinfoil hat stupid conspiracy theorist that that just doesn't you know, she says that people get magnetized from getting the shot.

That's not what I said, and it was taken out of context, which is what the mainstream media does all the time. You know, it was, you know, Jimmy Kimmel and all the rest of the of the crowd, you know, Brian Williams, all those people were saying, oh, well, she says this. And and so, after that test and I also talked about 5 g because there are are legitimate papers talking about the interface between the, carbon the the, carbon carbon, particles inside of the vaccines and, and other things that are inside of the vaccines, that there is a, an interface for 5 g. I didn't make that up. I was saying that this was something that was already published, and I was making a statement about it.

Well, again, I was just taken to task for this. So that was June of 21. In September of 21, I got a 22 22 page document from the state medical board that came 2 of them came by certified mail, one came by regular mail, and one came by courier. So I guess they wanted to make sure that I got it, and I couldn't use it as a defense, I never got your letter. Well, I opened up the letter.

It's 22 pages of snips from things that I've said on podcasts, things that I'd written on Substack. And at the very last page, it said, because of these statements, we want you to be evaluated by a psychiatrist, and, you were to show up at University Hospital on such and such a day, at such and such a time, see a certain doctor, and bring a $2,000 check to pay him for his evaluation. Well, my attorney said, no, we're not doing that, and cited various things from the Ohio State code and wrote back a letter and said, no, we're not doing that. And then there were 2 or 3, maybe 4 other letters that came that were this long. One was saying that you well, you need to show up in front of the state medical board, but you're not allowed to bring an attorney, which was all kinds of violations of my rights.

And so every single, inquiry that they sent me, we sent them a legal document back. Well, in August of last year, at this was you know, this started in, September of 21. So now we're up to August of 23, and they they held a hearing and said, because I failed to cooperate, it wasn't because of my position on vaccines. It wasn't because of what I said about magnetism. It wasn't what I said about 5 g.

It was because I failed to cooperate with their investigation, and they were suspending my license until which time I would cooperate with them. Well, how much more can you do to cooperate when you've answered all those different things? So I they suspended my license, and about 4 months later, right around Christmas time, I said to my attorney, Eric Jones, who works with Ren's Law, he said I said, you know, I really wanna get this taken care of. Let's revisit those questions that they sent me back in September of 21. So I looked at them, and now we are 3 years later, and lots of those questions that have been self incriminatory at the time were like, oh, I can answer this.

They asked questions like, have you lost any patients because of your position on vaccines? Well, no. Quite frankly, we've gained a lot of patients because people wanna come to a doctor's office that gives them fully informed consent and it allows them a choice to be vaccinated. One of the questions was, would you give a COVID shot or any other vaccines in your office? No.

We don't do that in our office. But if they cared if they choose to become vaccinated, they're they can go to their own doctor. They can go to the public health department. They can go to CVS. They can go to a lot of places to get vaccinated.

We just don't offer that service in our office. And another question was, since you tell people not to get vaccinated for the MMR, have any of your patients contracted measles or mumps or rubella? And I answered by saying, I don't tell people to not get vaccinated. I tell them that this is the risk of the vaccine. This is the ingredients of the vaccine.

This is the risk of the infection. This is the risk rate of infection. Like, there's a few there's like 4 cases of of, rubella or whatever that's reported a year. There's like 12 cases of diphtheria. I tell them what the risk of being exposed really is.

And and if you get sick, these are the things that you can do to treat these these things, and then let them decide. If they want to go ahead and get vaccinated, like I said, they can go to their family doctor, they can go to their pediatrician, they can go to CVS, they can go to health department. We just don't we don't do that. So when I said, no, I don't tell people to not get vaccinated. I tell give them a fully informed consent and then let them decide.

So I don't know if anybody's gotten any any infection. I think the answer to that is no. And they asked me, like, 20 questions that were similar to that, that I just cut and pasted all the answers. Then we had it notarized. We had the answers notarized, and I submitted it, like, on January 1st this year, January 7th or so of this year, because I knew they wouldn't be looking at it over Christmas.

We waited for 4 months. We we contacted them by email. We left messages. We sent text messages. They wouldn't respond.

And so my attorney, Eric Jones, said, well, the next step that we can do is we can file something called a writ of mandamus, which is going to the court and to asking the court to tell the state medical board to do their job, to review my questions that I responded to, and make a determination. And the night before he did that, he called the, the lawyer who represents the state medical board and says, this is what we're gonna do, and it's not gonna look good for the state medical board, that we are forcing them to do their job. The court is we're taking them to court. We're gonna force them to do their job to release doctor Tempehne's license. And so the next morning, before we took it to the court, the next morning, the lawyer sent back an email and said, well, on further review, we've decided to unsuspend her license and reinstate it.

Then I found out through another source that there were 2 or 3 people on the state medical board that voted against that, that said, no, they didn't wanna unsuspend my license, which was kinda crazy because I've, you know, never had any malpractice cases filed to get me. To my knowledge, I haven't had any complaints filed against me that were legitimate. There was I've no I I serve no harm to the public. I don't know the only reason that they were voting against reinstating my license, there were 4 who, who refused to vote and 2 or 3 that voted against me. And the rest had said, yes, they would reinstate my license.

The only thing this entire thing was about censorship. It was about if they could shut me down economically, if they could shut down my voice, and what I was 12 disinformation dozen people named by the country. It was just another way to censor me. Did you have to retract a single thing? I had Karen Kingston on who's a biotech analyst, and she said, you know, just so people understand what's going on here, that the mRNA is a self organizing electromagnetic device.

Self organizing elect that's in the patents. It's a gene editing tool. Talk about gene therapy. She said, no. No.

No. That's a lie. It's a gene editing tool. So when you're saying that you're seeing anecdotal evidence of of metal sticking to people, well, I guess that would happen with this electromagnetic device. A self organizing electromagnetic device.

A gene editing tool. Did you have to retract anything that you have said? I did not. You were not. And it was You never got a single thing wrong.

This is what I've been telling people. The guys that I've talked to, you and and, Ryan Cole and, doctor, Pierre Kory and Elizabeth East, they haven't had to retract a single thing. Doctor Peter McCullough. No. No.

And, oh, but, incidentally, they all say that the CB 19 shots did not help a single person. Doctor Michael Yeaton said that, the ingredients and he said this on December 4th 2023 in front of the UK parliament on tape, said the ingredients were intentionally toxic. No. They were I they didn't ask me to retract anything, and I haven't retracted anything. You know, when COVID started in March of 2020 between probably around the middle of March through of 2020 through the end of 21, I did over 600 interviews, Greg.

And I did a, a webinar called the 40 mechanisms of injury, how the COVID shots can make you sick or kill you. I was high it was well well attended, and we've we've republished that because this isn't over. There this isn't over. This is just the inhale before the next exhale. This is just the pause before the next storm.

So people need to stay in the game. They need to understand what happened and why, and they need to understand that censorship is real. When Tedros came out at the World Health Organization meeting this last week and says we need to pretty much go after the anti vaxxers because they were the ones that stopped us from getting this bioweapon into the arm of every single human being on the planet. We need to shut them down. This was just another level of censorship, and it's not stopping.

It's, you know, it's gonna start again real soon. You would not tell anybody to take this particular it was not even a vaccine. I mean, it's a it's a it's a bioweapon. Why would you I mean, doctor Michael Yeaton, who worked for Pfizer for 20 years. I can't believe he's on the record, it, the ingredients were intentionally toxic.

Intentionally toxic. And they all went on to say that, you know, the people at my level, no no. They knew what was going on. They knew what they did. Yeah.

They don't want they wanna say, oh, well, now a few people got sick and we tried to do the right thing. No. They didn't. No. They didn't.

They didn't. Did they? Were they were they just trying to do the right thing? Did just a few people get sick? No.

Many, many people got sick. And the problem one of the many problems with the COVID 19 injections is that they destroy your immune system. They they take out there are in your innate immune system, which is the one that God gave you that you're born with, your innate immune system, there are, molecules, there are protein molecules that sit on the surface of every cell in your body called Toll like receptors, toll like receptors. And they just monitor 247, 365. They're monitoring things in your blood that aren't supposed to be there, and they monitor viruses and and parasites and and bacteria that have little tails on them called flagellin.

There are 10 known toll like receptors in in in human beings. They know what 8 of them do. The other 2, they're not so sure. And what they do is they is they the, the COVID 19, injections damage those toll like receptors, especially the 2 that are most important to protecting you against further and future infections. So this is why the people got the COVID shot get COVID again and get the flu and get other types of, you know, RSV and other types of infections because their natural born immune system that keeps them from getting sick from these particles, has been damaged by the COVID shot.

So, you know, all these COVID shots did was deliver damage to the people who were coerced into getting the shot in one way or another. Either they ran to the front of the line because they wanted to get it, or they were coerced into it because they they wanted to see their grandkids, or they wanted to travel, or their employer forced them to get it. They were close to retirement. They wanted to keep their job. They liked their job, and they they to keep their pension plan that I'd worked for for 35 years.

And, and some people just thought they were doing the right thing that, you know, if I got the shot, it'll keep granny from getting sick. For whatever reason, you fill in the blank that you got those shots. It was a voluntary program. Nobody held a gun to your head or held a gun to your your spouse's head or your kid's head or your dog's head and said, if you don't take this shot, somebody is dying here today. Nobody was actually forced into doing this.

It was a voluntary program, and people volunteered to take this bioweapon into their system. And it's a complete travesty. You know, with Ed Dowd's, work that he's done with all cause mortality, every single day, there seems to be another study that's coming out talking about the death rates, particularly in the UK, across the US, around the world of how many people, even if you've had only one jab, you're having getting turbo cancers. The fertility rate globally is just falling through the floor. People are sick all the time.

They've always got something. This was a complete bioweapon that was released on Americans and other people around the globe. At the very beginning, there were about 10, maybe 12 different, vaccine companies that stepped up to the plate and said, hey. We can we can step up vaccine companies that stepped up to the plate and said, hey. We can we can step up to the money trough, and we want some money for this because we can make vaccines.

And that's why I think that there is a big diversity between people who have gotten injured and people who died and people who are are still recovering from, myocarditis and kidney disease. In fact, there was a study that came out yesterday or the day before yesterday that that was taught that did a very large representative study of young people, adolescents, that got myocarditis or pericarditis. And the conclusion of the study was only the people that got the jab got myocarditis or pericarditis. So they've got long term damage to their heart. They're trying to recover from it.

This was democide. And democide, by definition, is death by government. And that's what they are trying to do again. And people need to be vigilant, and it's like fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice. It's just not gonna happen.

Boy. How many people do you think I mean, Ed Dowd is using Department of Labor Statistics and he's, you know, 1,000,000 plus a million plus dead from the vaxx. 4,000,000 cannot work any longer. Completely permanently disabled. 28,000,000, working chronically ill.

He says those are probably lows. It's all the numbers I got, but the trend is clear. How big do you think this is gonna be? How many deaths are they gonna have with in America? What did the CDC say?

676,000,000 injections and then add the bivalent. Let's just call it 700,000,000 injections. How many people are gonna die and be disabled from this? Do you think? Or do you have any idea?

Well, back when this first started in, you know, back in 2020, and I started doing the research, and I did the 20 mechanisms of injury, which is still available on our website, by the way. If you go to dr10penny.com, you can under the education tab, you can find the 20 mechanisms of injury. Actually, it's a 40 mechanisms of injury, a a webinar that we did. And I said back then, it's gonna be about 5 years from the time they got their most recent shot that we're gonna see this big uptick of the death rate, and that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing Wow.

More and more people die. And it's gonna be about 10 years, you know, from their last shot, where we're gonna be able to know how many people are dying or suffering from terrible autoimmune disease. When I got the that data from early on, I spoke to 2 epidemiologists, 1 in the US and 1 in, in the u in in Europe, who said, man, Sherry, we are in deep trouble. I mean, the autoimmune disease that's gonna happen and I read a paper just recently that talked about, the the many, many, many different antibodies that are made against the the liver, the thyroid, the kidneys, the adrenal glands, the eyes, the brain, all these different things, all these auto antibodies that are created from having the COVID shot that are developing. We we went from a 100 to a 140 known autoimmune diseases, and the new autoimmune diseases that they're seeing now don't respond very well to the existing protocols or to the existing drugs.

So if people say, well, I got the shot, and I seem to be okay. Well, god bless you. I hope you are, and I hope maybe you got a placebo or you got a very low efficacy vaccine. But you can't really say that until you're 10 years out from from the injections, and you haven't developed autoimmune disease, myocarditis, cancer, infertility, some of these things, the brain fog, the Alzheimer's, the early dementia, because we know that the COVID COVID 19 antibodies cross the blood brain barrier and go in and attack the brain. We'll see.

If in 10 years, you can say, wow. I dodged that bullet. I must have gotten a placebo. Then god bless you, and thank your lucky stars. And get on your knees and thank the lord that you were not damaged.

But we're seeing, but we're seeing a big downside right now. I mean, we're that's why I hate this whole how bad is my my batch? It did different things. How bad is your batch? I mean, you didn't keel over in the 1st week after getting it.

Yay. But, but this is this mRNA. Doctor Michael Palmer wrote a book about it saying anything you put mRNA in is gonna attack your body. I don't care what it is, what vaccine it is. Now they got Moderna has a new vax out.

You know, that's he says, I don't care what it is. Polymers have, you know, so straight up MD and a big time researcher worked with, Sushrit Bhakti. So he's a real guy. And he says it's it will, you know, kill you eventually. It'll attack your body.

So, why can't we get these these these weasels to stop this? It's like your medical board has blood on their hands. The Ohio medical board, and I'm saying it, you all have blood on your hands. There are gonna be people who are gonna figure out that you let this go down and somebody's gonna get their 700 Remington out. I mean, you can't kill people's families and go, oh, well, we were trying to and I think they got bribed.

This is my humble opinion because everybody did. The hospitals were intubating people for remdesivir, the colleges. You know, I everybody got bribed. The doctors, they get made x amount of people, you know, shot up with this crap. Everybody took a bribe.

I don't know how the medical community is gonna come back. But this is a, you know, what Ned Dow says is they wanna pretend we don't have an unparalleled medical debacle, on our hands right now in America and globally. What's up? Why can't we get people treated like doctor Chris Cuomo? Well, I don't I don't know about that.

I don't know about that, Greg. But, you know, every time I've listened to, and Ed's Ed's kind of a friend of mine. I've talked to him quite a bit. And I've heard some of his interviews, and he said, I don't know why we're still talking about this. I mean, the the evidence is so hand down hands down that of the damage this has caused, the deaths and disabilities this has caused, and it's getting worse.

It's it's getting worse all the time. I I had a talk today with a really, really good friend of mine, and he said, have I told you how many deaths are of friends of mine that I've had? And I said, he told me a couple years ago. I don't know where it is now. And he said, a 143 friends of mine have died from the COVID vaccine in my wide circles.

And many, many more of them have turbocancers. They've had he said, I I know 4 women that were friends of mine or friends of my wife that in the last 6 months have had total bilateral mastectomies because of breast cancer. They're young and don't have any other risk factors. He has a friend who had a a malignant melanoma that showed up on his cheek. He ended up having that resected and all sorts of, like, plastic reconstructive surgery done.

The what's happening with these jabs is not gonna end just because the last shot that you had was 2 years ago. If you got a shot and 2 boosters and you did that early on you know, Greg, in in my 40 mechanisms of injury course, I divided, vaccine the COVID shot vaccine injuries into 4 categories. Category 1 was sudden death, people who died of heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolism within the first 24 to 48 hours of the injection. Category 2, is spike protein disease. It's like the myocarditis, the the problems with the lungs, the problems with the kidneys.

They even have a name for it now. They call it a spikopathy, that they're actually is now showing up a word that's showing up in the medical literature about, these foreign proteins that are in our body. Then category 3 was the auto autoimmune disease that's coming on, and we we're starting to see that kick up. Then category 4 was the catch all other, like the turbocancers, infertility, different things like that. And the turbocancer, that is a brand new terminology in medicine.

You know, I've been in medicine for a long time, and that was a brand new word that they just developed after the COVID shots because these people had been in complete remission and their cancers came back and highly aggressive, or they got new cancers, new onset cancers, that from the time they were diagnosed until the time they died were weeks, months, sometimes even days, so that they didn't even have time to even try to start getting them appropriately dosed and go through the appropriate or the current known, cancer treatments. So this is this is democide. Democide is death by government, and I hope that people remember that and will not be fooled by the next round of scare tactics that they're going to be they're starting to ramp up about the bird flu, and it will just if remember they tried it with the Marburg virus. They tried it with Ebola. They tried it with monkeypox.

Now they're trying it with bird flu. And if you remember back 10 years or 10 year 20 years ago, back in 2004, 2005, I actually wrote a book called Foul Bird Fluids Not What You Think. We're in the process of of upgrade updating it and gonna be rereleasing it here in a couple of weeks because it's it was a historical book of things that were happening in 2005. I was writing it in real time, and what they're doing now is the same thing, except the difference is they're coming after our food supply. They are gonna be culling millions of chickens.

If, if one cow on an entire ranch tests positive for h five n one, they are, talking about killing off the entire ranch. Instead of isolating that particular cow and actually seeing if they get sick, no, we're just gonna kill them all. So they are in the process of decimating our food supply. And I think that's really, really an important fact for people to know about and to get prepared. Boy, this is these are some evil people.

I mean, they they still would stop. That's a 100% truth. Let me come back to, wow, wouldn't it be great if you could have a drug that fought cancer and shrunk tumors and binds the spike proteins? And and it only cost 6¢ a pill to make. Wouldn't that be great if you could have a drug like that?

Why are people not being treated with ivermectin? Why? It's a really, really good question. You know? And why did they make it to you know, give it this evil sort of thing early, early on?

And it was exactly because of what you said. We can treat cancer with it. We can treat, COVID with it. We can treat other viral infections with it. And it costs 6¢ a pill, 6 or 7¢ a pill.

And we can't possibly disrupt a multibillion dollar, cancer industry with something that is so effective and so, cost so little money. I have a friend right now who has a a family member that's been in the hospital for over a year and in cancer treatment. And the current bill for that fam that friend of that of their person in their family is now over 19 $1,000,000 Tough call. For being in the hospital. And so and they aren't out of the hospital yet.

And so think about what you could if if if, ivermectin really works and there's lots of evidence that it does, not it's like any other drug. Nothing is no drug, no medicine, no antibiotic, no supplement, no anything is a 100% effective. But let's say it's 70% effective, and it disrupted that entire industry. And this is one friend with 1 person in the hospital that's been in the hospital for more than a year at at, that much money. Think magnify that times the thousands and thousands of people across this country that are being treated with chemotherapy and radiation.

If that could be disrupted by a prescription, of medicine that cost maybe a $150 Yeah. Of course, big, of course, big pharma isn't going to allow that. See, Pierre Kory's, what by the time they get to somebody like Pierre Kory, who has a VAX injury, one of the few people I think you do too, Also, you treat people for VAX injury. You know, he says Ivermectin is about 70 percent effective. But, Bob, how effective would it be if you were taking it long before you got sick?

And the answer is, I don't know. I'm not a doctor, but, and what would be the downside for that? That'd be 0? There wouldn't be any. There would be no downside?

So No no drug interactions. It's safest drug. It's had a no Nobel Peace Prize for what it it does. It treats all kinds of viruses. And going back to what you said about, the new Moderna vaccine that's coming out, it's a messenger RNA vaccine.

It was just approved maybe 3, 4 days ago, by the FDA for RSV. Now, first of all, there should not be any RSV vaccines at all. Every almost every child, every child has a case of RSV by the time they're 4 years of age. It's like a simple cold, and it and they and it's it's like you couldn't tell RSV really from any other type of of viral infection like bronchiolitis, and then you have lifetime immunity. But they developed 2 new vaccines, one for adults, I guess, to give it to adults so that they could be around their grandkids.

I don't know. And then, new ones for babies that because they had an RSV vaccine that they had for a really long time, and they would only give it to preemies. But the diff the problem was is that she had to get 5 injections. It was about $1800 per shot. And, and it wasn't it didn't necessarily keep them from getting infected.

In fact, the side effects of the those vaccines was the exact same side effects as if you contracted RSV. So they came out with a new, monoclonal antibody vaccine that you only have to get one, and but instead of just giving it to high risk children, like high risk preemies or or babies that were born with maybe a congenital heart disease or that they were really high risk, that if they got a viral infection when they were, you know, premature or very, very young, they of course, they wanna roll this out and give it to every single child. And in America, there's about 4,000,000 live births per year. So they wanna give it to every single child because, of course, that's how they make all their money. And what isn't being reported, Greg, is that the this new RSV vaccine that they came out with, like, probably last summer, that they've been giving to adults, the number of deaths and side effects from that vaccine is through the roof.

And they're not talking about it. People aren't reporting it. And now with this new messenger RNA RSV vaccine that they're gonna be giving, the injuries and deaths will be double through the roof. Of course, you know, our NIH and CDC, them making, what, during the pandemic, over $700,000,000 in royalties, that wouldn't affect their decision making, would it? Of course not.

And this is sickening. And then they and then for people like you, in every doctor that I talk to, I've talked to a lot of the the cutting edge. Number 1, this is what I in my humble opinion. Number 1, every doctor I talk to is is at their they're at the top of their game. They're not the, you know, people that went to, you know, some sub medical school with no, with, no morals.

These are people who are some of the smartest doctors out here. And I haven't seen one yet had retract a single thing. Not one. You're included. Of me included.

You're included. Not one. And and every one of them was punished. You took your medical license away, tried to cut your business, took your business away. Ryan Cole had to sell his business.

Doctor Pierre Kory had to develop a whole new thing. He lost, you know, his, he was one of the top pulmonary guys in the in the world. And, you know, he lost his teaching and what I think university was I mean, they did awful things to people. And yet, when you tell the truth and what you're doing with this RSV thing so heads up. Because of the deaths and injuries, you would not recommend this new RSV vaccine to a baby.

No. I wouldn't recommend any vaccine to a baby. No. I wouldn't recommend any vaccines to a baby. You know, the the RSV vaccine that had been around for a really long time was only for high risk preemies.

Now I remember this is a long time ago now, a long time ago. It's a friend of mine who, I mean, his kids are like teenagers now, but at the time, he he had triplets. And just because they were triplets, they said they were at higher risk, and they want him to have this series of 5 injections at $1800 a piece, times 3, times 5. He's like, I don't think so. I think my my babies are gonna be just healthy and just fine.

But the pressure on him and his wife to get them vaccinated with this RSV vaccine was through the moon. And they just kept them home, and she breastfed them, and they gave them, you know, appropriate vitamins and appropriate care, and they were just fine. And they're teenagers now, and they're all robust. They're just fine kids. And so it's like this whole vaccination nation that we've become, that we just hammer these kids.

I mean, before up until this year, if you had a fully vaccinated child from birth until about 18 years of age, you got every dose of every vaccine that would be about 72 or 74 vaccines depending on how you counted them and if you encounter included the vitamin k shot. Now they've revamped the schedule. They've gone from Prevnar 7 to Prevnar 20, which is like getting 20 vaccines at the same time. They've added the COVID vaccines. They've added additional No.

They've added the they've added the mRNA vaccines that are causing all these deaths and injuries. We're gonna keep killing you. That's what they're doing. Now it's now it's almost a 105 vaccines that kids get if they're fully vaccinated. Now if you can just imagine, you know, and they do it in a real sneaky way.

This started probably maybe 20 years ago now, maybe 15 years ago when parent when, you know, the nurse would come into the the room and the mom would be there with the baby, and there would be, like, 7 syringes on the on the little tray, and the mom would say, you're gonna give my baby 7 shots at the same time? I don't think so. Well, the pharmaceutical industry said, well, we we gotta do something about that. So that's when they started to do combination vaccines, that they would put hepatitis b, HIB, polio, DPT, all in the same shot so that the nurse would come in with just one shot. And she said, we're just getting one vaccine today.

No. You're getting 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 vaccines that's just coming through that one shot. Oh my lord. Have mercy. The this is not really about, something benevolent.

I mean, this is this is a kill and main program. Is it not? I mean, they they've long said the globalist, which the medical community is all on board. And I can't believe the medical community all stepped up. Well, okay.

I won't keep my job. And they're all sick now. They're gonna kill them. Right? And so, but, this is aren't they just trying to kill off humanity?

I mean, it says in the Bible, right, there'd be no this is in Matthew 24, Jesus talking here, worst time ever. And, you know, you I used to think it was nuclear war, and we could have that too. But, you know, it's like there'd be no flesh left if the days were not shortened. So for the sake of the elect, I I shall shorten the days. This there's gonna be no no natural flesh left, these crazy morons ejecting everything right.

Am I this is where we're going. Right? A total trans trans everything world. I mean, god didn't do a good job. I'm being sarcastic.

Of course, he did. The we're we're headed for annihilation. Right? Well, a lot of people have said that. And, you know, back in 2010, the the Gates Foundation and, Healthy People 2020 declared the decade between 2,010 and 2020 to be the decade of vaccines.

And that was when a real ramp up occurred and, well, the real the pressure came on that to vaccinate more, the exemptions were taken away from many states that you could so you could refuse vaccines like California and, West Virginia and Maine and Mississippi. They all took away people's rights to refuse, and they gave more and more and more shots because if the the idea was capture. You know, if if we could capture these kids and make them sick from the time they are 2 years of age in fact, there was a thing called combo 10, that if they got all doses of 10 vaccines by the time they were 2 years of age, that people that were under Blue Cross Blue Shield doctors would get a $400 per child bonus if they got 63% of their of their practice all injected with this combo 10. We had the documents to prove that. And it was if if we could make them sick from the from the time that they're born up until they're like 2 years of age, where they have asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, insulin dependent diabetes, autoimmune diseases, chronic ear infections, irritable, you know, bowel related things.

If we could make them sick as infants, we will capture them and make them be customers for life. They will be on some sort of a pharmaceutical for the rest of their life. So in 2010 to 2020, that was sort of the the way to do it. And then they started with the COVID shots in 2020, and now it's like a kill shot. I mean, these people, I when people they're raising hell in other parts of the world.

Right? And we're starting to get that in congress with Fauci's testimony. I mean, 1, congressman said you killed people. You murdered people. Marjorie Taylor Greene, should have brought up more about the deaths and injuries, but she did say you should be in jail.

You murdered people. And now we're getting to the point where people are like, what? Wait. Wait. Wait.

I have asked my whole family. You told me that I needed to do this, and my wife has cancer, and my kid, died on the at the track and field, you know, conference that he was at, just killed over dead with myocarditis. And so this all came from the vax, and that's what people are waking up to. Are we getting a big wake up call? Your license coming back.

The Ohio Medical Board, they're scared of you. I'll guarantee you they're scared of you because you're basically your attorney said alright. You're gonna have to prove it. I think what the next step was after this thing that you filed was we're suing you. We're we're gonna get, a discovery.

We wanna know who got paid. I think Well, there was a lot of discussion about that between my attorney and myself and a few other people about, are you gonna sue them for harassment, for a loss of income that you can actually document? Are you gonna sue them for what they you know, all your attorney fees and legal fees that they that we put up with, and everybody anybody who donated to the the doctor Tempey fund, the defend DRT fund, that was great. Please keep those funds coming. I still have illegal bills that I have to do.

Can you tell me how much legal bills it cost you to get your license unsuspended for doing nothing to harm somebody? You actually did more good way more good by telling people this. Now you here are the here are the here are the, the the results from the the the reports, from how many people died, all the deaths and injuries, and all this other stuff. And, you know, you actually help people. How much did you spend on you just telling the truth?

Well, I'll just generalize by saying it was tens of 1,000 of dollars. It was a lot of money. Then there was also a lot of tens of 1,000, if not more money that was lost by income loss Yeah. Of not being able to work. So when people donated to dr10penny.comforward/defenddrt, it was great.

And so I really any of any of your listeners were, donated even 5 or $10 or whatever to support that, I'm most grateful. That was really helpful. Doctor Pierre Kory, he had to invent his own new line of work. Doctor Elizabeth Eads said, I I lost about 30 to 40% of my income. Fired from jobs.

I mean, there's not a person out there that came up and talked junk about this junk that they were injecting and still wanna inject into people. There's not a doctor out there that made money on this deal. I mean, if anything, you had to scramble to kinda replace a part of the income that they took from you. We're how do we fight back? How do are you suggesting that we have a new bird flu vaccine?

You're saying, uh-uh. Mm-mm. No. No. No.

This is not gonna be an approved vaccine in the in the traditional sense. Right? Is this gonna be another emergency youth authorization? They've already said that. They said that we did we created a bird flu vaccine 20 years ago, so it's already been approved.

So we're not gonna do any research on it. So we don't know what's in it. I mean, we, the consumer, don't know what's in it. We don't know how it's gonna be different from the bird flu vaccine that they developed back in 2,005, but that they could release it under an EUA Oh, Lord. Which I I believe that the FDA and the powers that me have found a loop hole in the law, to where they can release anything anything coming in the future under an emergency use authorization when so then they're not liable.

You can't sue them. They don't have to put up a package insert. There's all kinds of there's 3 rules that they violated when they released the EUA of the of the COVID shots. They are just out to get us all vaccinated. It's a it's a huge there's a book out there called Vaccination Nation.

It was it was published probably 20 years ago, and that's where we are today. It's they just want to get every single person injected with as much foreign matter into their body as they possibly can. I think they're just trying to kill people. Are they not? Am I wrong?

I mean, they're killing people and maiming them. They're like, oh, well, you know, what's for lunch? And let's go I mean, I mean, they are murdering people by the 1,000,000. It's by the 1,000,000, tens of 1,000,000, and injuring people by many, many millions more. We'll never know the real number, I guess.

I will will someday. But aren't they murdering people? They say you call it a genocide. They're murdering people. I guess I guess they're fixing Social Security, and they're fixing all this debt they'll never pay off.

Right? I mean, they are this is a murder program. This isn't some benevolent, oh, we wanna get you vaccinated so you'll be healthy lie. Right? I think you've summed it summed it up there, Greg.

I mean, it's not, it's it's not you know, maybe they are trying to fix the Social Security in the in the Medicare program. You know, there's only about 5 more money more 5 more years left in the Medicare program in terms of the money to support it. And Social Security, they say somewhere between 37. So if they knock off all the old people over the people over the age of 65, it that sort of extends the life of that. And, you know, democide is, by definition, death by death by government.

And by them, you know, pushing, pushing, pushing this, using mainstream media to, you know, to to push vaccines, to say they were safe and effective. And even at the you know, Peter McCullough says that that eve there were early, early signals, like, by this you know, the the shots came out in December of 20 of 2020 of December of 2019 up through the beginning of March of of, it was December of 2020 that when the shots came out and then the COVID and Moderna shot came out in January or so of 21. He said by March of 21, there were definite signals that showed how much damage that these shots were doing. And they should have been if this was about protecting us and keeping people from getting this this COVID infection, he said those signals were such that the the, vaccine program should have stopped then. But instead, it was full court press and get every as many needles in in the in the arm as possible.

And the more and more data that came out, when the first tranche of Pfizer documents came out, it was a 38 page paper, and it had 12 pages of side effects that they knew about before they ever released the vaccines. And so, you know, and we don't talk about that anymore. We don't talk about how much they knew before they even collected their $100,000,000,000 of in, in selling these COVID death shots to everyone. And people just have got to wake up to the fact, don't get any more boosters. You know, I read an article.

This was probably a couple months ago now that there was a that the c d the new c cute little CDC director was talking about, yes. We're getting ready for our 10th COVID booster. We're gonna put that out for people. And but we're kinda sad that only 23% are willing to take it. And first of all, I went, oh my gosh, 10 boosters?

And then second of all, it was like, what's wrong with those 23%? Why are there still 23% of people willing to take these shots? Well, if it's 10% of the population, that's, 330,000,000. So that's 10% is 33,000,000. And if, and then add 20%, that'd be 66,000,000 and another 3.

You're talking about 70,000,000 people up took the booster at least. 70,000,000 people. And the downside is you're not gonna escape getting sick and injured from this. Am I wrong? Well, they say, you know, I've I've had long conversations with a lot of people, a lot of people that you mentioned and also doctor Mackis out of Canada who tracks all the COVID cancer deaths because he's an oncologist by training, and a number of Canadian physicians who have died who got the COVID jabs.

And he has his data that he crunches, and it's really good data, that he says that even if you've had one COVID jab, you have increased your risk of sudden sudden heart sudden death or to developing cancer. And, yes, the more shots you have, the more more your risk is. But even if you've had even one, sadly, there is there is an increased risk of sudden of sudden death or developing a cancer. Would you recommend that people, who are worried about this, who aren't having, like, oh, well, doctor well, Chris Cuomo. I think that's a huge deal.

I brought this up when he first came out it. And they wanted to go poo poo stick your head in doo doo. Right? But he's being treated by a medical doctor with Ivermectin for a vax injury. Shouldn't people realize, wow, you mean I I need to be treated with Ivermectin if I have a vax injury and brain fog?

And he's still on the air with the, what, Redfield or the CDC director who's blurting out that this is a awful thing. We ought to have a correct congressional hearing. But he's being treated by Ivermectin from an MD. Shouldn't we shouldn't that be in the vernacular here that if you think you have a vaxx injury that maybe you need some treatment? That's where we are now.

Nobody's being treated. Doctor. Tenpenny, nobody's being treated. They're they're fine. I'm fine.

No. You're not fine. You're screwed. You've had your DNA edited. But I'm sorry.

I I get upset because, you know, watching people be murdered. But go, shouldn't people be treated by Ivermectin, or shouldn't they know about this treatment? Well, they should know about Ivermectin. They should know about EDTA chelation. They should know about oral EDTA.

They should know about nattokinase. There are a whole bunch of things. And I'm on my substack that I'm releasing this week on Saturday, it will talk about various different types of treatments that people can do at home that you don't need to get from a physician. There are lots of sources now where you can get Ivermectin. I believe in Tennessee and New Hampshire, either New Hampshire or Vermont, one of those two states.

Ivermectin is available over the counter that you can actually go and get it, and just buy it yourself. You don't need a prescription. So and there are plenty of places online and overseas that you can have access to Ivermectin. And so if your doctor won't prescribe it for you, there are other sources. You have a I really appreciate you sticking your neck out.

I'm sorry you lost your medic your your medical license, and you took of course, you took a financial hit just by virtue of the fact you had to spend tons of money and still doing so with lawyers. I but, but you have also a conference on Zeolite. A lot of, there's some new stuff. There's so much we don't know. Early on, doctor Pierre Kory was talking about vax injuries.

Now he's like a vax injury expert. Right? He knows a lot more, but there's as he says, there's still we don't much we don't know. But one of the things that's coming to light is the Zeolyte. Now you have a conference.

I don't make anything on this so people know I have you on because I think you're smart and you have something to say that's worthwhile. But you have a conference coming up in June 15th about Zeolyte, and it might help people with all kinds of things, including, maybe fending off a axe injury. Well, we've been recommending, Zeolite from a company called Touchstone for over 4 years. And the number of, testimonials that we've had have just been through the moon of people that, you know, the only thing they changed was that they started, using Touch stone spray. It's a it's a a sublingual spray, and things started getting better.

We've had parents who've said that their autistic kids, started speaking. We've had started making eye contact. We've had people who said they had horrible brain fog or lots of body pain and things got better. And yet, there are other companies that are on that are out there that are attacking Touchstone, and are a lot of other people are saying Zeolyte doesn't do anything. It's just awful.

So we decided that we would bring on a a real scientist who does real research in chemo in, in zeolite, and have him talk about the 12 or so different forms of zeolite that are on the market. And there are quite a few zeolites that are only used commercially. They're used for heavy cleaning. There are zeolites that are on the market for, industrial use. There's a couple on the market that are used for, in body care.

And so we thought, well, why don't we just have a real scientist come on and talk? The seminar is free. All you have to do is register. Just register to attend. It's dr10penny.comforward/doctorlee.

So it's forward slash drleetenpenny, doctor10penny.comforward/drlee for doctor Lee. And he's going to come on on 15th, and you have to just register to attend. And he's gonna hopefully, we'll get a lot of questions ahead of time that he can be prepared for that. But if you've registered for it, it will be by Zoom, and people can ask questions during that time. It's gonna be, right now, it's planned to be for an hour and a half.

It may turn out to be longer if there's lots of questions, but we want to educate people one what we really wanna educate people on what zeolite is and what it isn't, what are the what are the indications. You mentioned earlier about, taking too much of it. Unless you're taking, like, bottles full, you're not gonna take too much of it. But it does clean your blood, and it does get things out of your system. It goes out through your through your kidneys.

It goes out through your urine. It goes out through your stool. But it's so safe that people could take it when they're pregnant, when they're breast feeding. You can give it to newborn babies. I give it to my dog.

I put a few sprays in his water, to for him to, you know, because he's involved and he's outside and and getting exposed to chemtrails and all sorts of things at the same time. So it's we want to have this webinar. It's a webinar that you just have to register. It's for free. It's dr10penny.comforward/doctorlee, drlee.

Come 1, come all. Let's have an open open forum discussion. We are just being the host of hosting someone who's a scientist, who does research in Zeolite to hopefully answer the questions once and for all. I will also put a link up for that at the after the interview section, so you don't have to worry about writing that down and going back. But I'll put a link up for that.

Also, your your is it 40, avenues of of, of of being hurt by a CV 19 shot? What did you call it? It? The 40 mechanisms of injury. I'll put that up too.

I'll put that up too. Forty mechanisms of injury, how the COVID shots can make you sick or kill you was so interesting because we did that webinar in in, July of 22. And, and since that time, there have been dozens and dozens you know, I've I've heard Peter McCullough say there's over a 1000 studies now on the things that, that vaccines can cause damage and can and can kill you. And I see all of these you know, a study will come out, and there's this big flurry of activity. Look, the COVID shots can do this.

I'm like, yeah. I mentioned that in my 40 mechanisms of entry. I knew that from the beginning, and I tried desperately, as loudly and as broadly and as and as many times as I could. I told my my assistant, Michelle, I said, the answer is yes. I mean, whoever calls me and wants me to be on their show, whether it's a a big show, a little show, a a live broadcast, a radio show, a podcast, whatever it is, the answer is yes.

And I did over 600 interviews in about 18 months trying to warn people about what was coming through that needle. And that's why they suspended your license. Probably. Probably so. That's why.

You probably saved a lot of people, with all that. I will put up your, doctor Tenpenny. Is it, doctor doctor give me your your I'll put your website up. It's doctor10penny.com? It's dr10penny, no period.

Just dr10penny.com. Okay. We'll put that up too. Is that and then the 40 mechanisms of COVID, stuff. Last question.

I wanna end on a high note. Do you think and I I looked at your license. I thought, she's getting her license back. Holy cow. I looked at that as and with this plus the Fauci thing, we he just he didn't.

The awakening is happening for people. I mean, you had people sitting in congress saying, you murdered people. You should be in jail, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Another, congressman said you murdered people. Your license be coming back.

Is are these all the, the signs that people are waking up to what kind of an awful murders disability program that the CV 19 shots were? Are people waking up? Well, it depends on who you talk to. And I don't really like that phrase waking up because I kinda feel like after 4 years, if you haven't come to the realization of what happened and what's going to continue to happen, then you're living under a rock and you're probably never gonna wake up. But I do believe that people are are starting to connect the dots.

This person died. This person's sick. This person has cancer. Wow. What is the one thing that all of these people have in common?

They all got the 2 COVID COVID 2 a COVID shot 2 COVID shots and a booster. And when they start hearing it, they're getting angry, and they're going, wow. You know? I have a really you know, my friend I was talking to about that that had told me that he has a 143 people in his close circles. He has really broad reach of social circles.

He's been he runs in a lot of circles. And a 143 of his friends have died. And he has a really good friend who just this last week, his wife had a ruptured brain aneurysm and died. And, you know, it's it's all all of her headaches and everything started after she got the COVID jabs. And and he's like, you know, and he is, he's he's, like, putting the he's connect their people are starting to connect the dots.

They're starting to see that all of us who talked about this, that tried to warn them, that, you know, gave out tons of information. I mean, every every single thing I look at, you know, Peter McCullough is on some show, some interview, and some CNN, some, you know, mainstream media. He's out everywhere, I mean, everywhere trying to warn people about what's going on with this, as were other of us, like Brian Cole and me and and, Pierre Corry and a whole bunch of other people, maybe not even as big and as loud, but, like, people that were in their own social circles, like where they went to the gym or where they got their hair done or at the grocery store, wherever they were trying to warn people about this. And we were all, you know, disparaged. We were not allowed to come to Christmas with families, and we couldn't see our grandkids.

We couldn't see all of these things. And now, suddenly, people are like, oh, I guess you weren't such a crazy conspiracy theorist after all. Yeah. Yeah. You paid dearly for it and still are paying for it.

Well, they still wanna do more with this next bird flu thing. Yeah. You you're not recommending any bird flu vaccine. You're saying it's an emergency youth authorization, which means it is experimental. Am I right?

Yep. And you're saying no bird flu. Don't do it. You're they're gonna work for You know, keep in mind And I wanna hear you say it. Do shouldn't people get the bird flu shot?

No. You They shouldn't get and they shouldn't get any of these injections. It's injecting foreign matter into your body and somehow expecting it to do something good for you. You know, do other things, incredible things to build up your health. You know, get rid of the GMO foods in your house.

Get rid of the, you know, there's the American Academy of Lifestyle Medicine has a great program that anybody can do, and they and I just love their dietary program. The number one thing is eat real food. If it comes in a can box or they hand it in you to a bag out the window, it's probably not real food. It's not real food. The second thing is eat mostly fresh fruits and vegetables.

And if you're gonna eat meat, eat good clean meat, know your rancher, know where the meat came from, and that's really important is to know your source of your food. The third thing is drink half your half your you know, if you weigh a £150, you should drink 75 ounces of water a day. Spread out over the course of the day. You can put some minerals in it. You can put, you know, stevia in it.

You can put different things in it that make it taste better. But drink whatever your body weight is, about half of that in ounces a day. Get adequate amount of sleep that that you personally need every night. You know, some people need more than others, and don't eat so much. Just don't eat so much.

You know, intermittent fasting really works. You know, some 20 minutes of exercise a day is really important. These are all simple, simple things that you can do to protect your immune system. You know, have some things on board in your house, like colloidal silver that, you know, kills off most things. Have, you know, there are lots of sources you can get for ivermectin.

There are lots of different vitamins you can take that that help to support your immune system. And if you subscribe to my substract, the dr10penny.substack.com, you know, we're posting a lot of things out there that are educational to inform you what antibodies are, how they work, what sort of foods that you should take, you know, different things that are really important. And it's free. You know, it's it's free to join our substacks. You know, the 10 you know, dr10penny.com.

I'm sorry. Dr10penny.substack.com, and the other one is 10pennywalkwithgod that comes out on Sunday, which is an inspiration, which is my book on I'm walking with God came from sourced from me writing those Substacks, and they're free. I mean, if you wanna donate to support the cause, you know, you can. It says on there subscribe, and that's that's how they they that's the language that they use. But I do them for educational purposes because I think it's really important, and, they're free.

So just sign up for free. You can go to our website atdr10penny.com. Up in the right hand corner of the page, there's a a place where you can sign up for our email list. Our emails come out 3 times a week, and it tells you what all of our our, what we're doing all week. And, they're really well done.

I'm so proud of my team and proud of my staff for the way they are. I tell people, even if you don't don't don't buy anything that we offer that is a support system, you know, look at our emails because they're beautiful. Just look at them because they're beautiful. Well, you've done a lot of good, and I'm so happy that they reinstated your license, which I think it's a marker on the road to coming out of this perdition where people will be waking up, and I'm so happy you have your license back. And, I think the, the Ohio medical board is afraid of you as they should be because you told the truth.

And thank you, doctor Sherry Tenpenny. All the links that she talked about, or most of them anyway, will be in the after the interview section. Thank you very much, doctor Tenpenny, for sticking your neck out and, losing your medical license to tell the truth, doctor Sherry 10penny. Thank you for joining us today on usawatchdog.com. My pleasure, Greg.

Thank you so much for having me.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Transcript to 28min podcast THE COVID GENOCIDE UNRAVELS - DR VERNON COLEMAN june2024

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1b7r0oi1scBG/ 

Hello. It's June 2024. Welcome to video 337. The COVID conspiracy is beginning to unravel. Researchers from the Netherlands analyzed data from 47 Western countries and discovered that there had been more than 3,000,000 excess deaths since 2020.

Gosh, they began to notice. Now, I think their figures are still far too low. Writers in a British medical journal offshoot called BMJ Public Health have asked governments to investigate possible vaccine harms. They say that excess mortality has remained high in the western world for 3 consecutive years, and they note that this has happened despite the implementation of COVID 19 containment measures and COVID 19 vaccines. This is unprecedented, they say, and raises serious concerns.

Government leaders and policy makers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality, and evaluate their health crisis policies, close quotes. I'll forgive them, they'll split infinity, because this is vital stuff. Unsurprisingly, there was very little mention of this report in the mainstream media, but this was a big step forwards. A lot of rich and powerful people are now very worried. All those doctors, journalists, and broadcasters who insisted the covid vaccine was perfectly safe will be wondering when the lawsuits are going to start and checking on their liability.

My battle over the covid vaccine started in February March of 2020, long before the vaccine was available to the public, and this is the most important development now for 4 years. It's easy sometimes to get so involved with the minutiae of what's happening that we don't have time to ask why things are happening. Covid 19 wasn't an accident of course, it was a deliberate fraud, part of the plan to lead us into the great reset. The painfully pointless lockdowns, the hospital closures, the toxic and useless vaccine, the absurd social distancing regulations, the closures of schools, and so on, were not a result of incompetence or laboratory in China. The fake pandemic didn't just happen, it was planned in minute detail.

And the consequences of the pandemic were also planned in detail. Moreover, the COVID hoax, the greatest fraud in medical history, wasn't the first attempt to terrify us and to take control of every aspect of our lives. The fake pandemic didn't really start in 2020, it started in the 19 eighties, when age was introduced as the plague that was going to kill us all. I destroyed the AIDS fraud in the 1980s, and a series of articles and TV and radio programs, in which I questioned the lies which were being told and produced a mass of evidence, which destroyed the fraud. As a result, I was banned from TV and radio, and a book I wrote was very effectively suppressed, that was back in the eighties.

After that, numerous other attempts were made to publicize threats, which were quickly forgotten, mainly different types of flu. Exaggerated predictions were made by the same people, who scared everyone with exaggerated forecasts for covid. And then, came covid, a finely honed, carefully tuned fraud, the biggest in history. There was never a shred of evidence that there was going to be a pandemic, there was never a shred of evidence that there was a pandemic, and the evidence proves conclusively that there never was one. Anyone who still talks about the COVID pandemic is either a fool or part of the biggest, most vicious, and lethal scam in history.

I first warned that the covid scaremongering was a hoax or a fraud in February March 2020. I made a video for YouTube before the CIA and other security services lent on Google, and got them to remove, ban, ostracize, and deplatform. All of those to all of us telling the truth. Millions of people around the world watched a video in which I reported that the covid hoax had three purposes. 1st, to provide an excuse to kill huge numbers of elderly people.

2nd, to lead us into a digital world without cash, and third, to introduce fraud was of course also designed to lead us population. The fraud was of course also designed to lead us into the new world, the great reset. In an attempt to disguise the truth and cover their tracks, the conspirators have used the CIA to promote the idea that covid was a result of a laboratory experiment in Wuhan, China that went wrong. Either that or it was a deliberate release of a dangerous pathogen. This piece of convenient nonsense was designed to hide very simple truths and to blame a convenient and politically useful enemy, China.

All the attempts to blame Wuhan originated with the CIA. Those who accept the CIA's claim that covid was created in a laboratory are accepting that it was special and accidental. But it wasn't special, and it certainly wasn't the result of an accident or a bizarre form of biological warfare. It was obvious to me from the start that covid was nothing more than the standard annual flu, with a dramatic marketing program. In that first video of over 4 years ago, I pointed out that the figures which had been released did not suggest a plague or a pandemic.

I pointed out that in a single flu season, it's not uncommon for over uncommon for over 600,000 people to die worldwide of the flu. Study the statistics properly, and it's clear that covid was just an average sort of flu, albeit a wildly exaggerated one. In February of 2020, anyone who looked at the covid warnings and who knew anything about flu and infectious diseases would know that COVID was a hoax, a fraud. And since it's impossible to accept that every government official and every member of the medical establishment had suddenly become incredibly stupid and incompetent. The only alternative explanation was that covid was a deliberate fraud and that a lot of people including the world's press and television had been recruited and paid to help promote it.

My reward for drawing attention to the existence of a hoax was that the demonization and the suppression was stepped up. The CIA and the British secret service were both well aware that back in the eighties, I'd single handedly used the mainstream media to destroy the attempt to terrify the world with aids. Incidentally, as an aside it should be noted that if aids still seems to be a significant threat, it's because deaths from tuberculosis and other diseases are now officially simply the ordinary flu, is overwhelming simply the ordinary flu, is overwhelming. The traditional flu virtually disappeared in 2020, authorities everywhere actually admitted this, but the number of deaths from covid, plus the number of deaths from the flu, pretty well equal the number of flu deaths from 2019. Check out the official figures figures if you don't believe me.

Moreover, as I've shown, using government figures, the total number of deaths in 2020 was no higher than average, therefore there was no pandemic. The entirely useless and potentially dangerous PCR test was used to enable the authorities to pretend that there was a pandemic when there wasn't. Anyone who was run over by a bus, but who tested positive for covid, was put down as a covid death, and post mortems have been abandoned in order to facilitate the fraud. The excess deaths didn't start until 2021, when the after effects of the lockdowns and the rollout of the COVID 19 vaccine started to result in many excess deaths. The long term health risks with the covid 19 vaccine were ignored as drug companies rushed to bring out products within decent haste.

It's now generally accepted by those who can read that the mass vaccination program is The excess deaths, which started in 2021, not 2020 note, are continuing. Birth rates are falling and death rates are rising. These figures taken from official government statistics are the same all over the world. The lockdowns, damaged health care, the mask wearing, and the damaged economies are partly responsible for what's happening, but most of the deaths are caused by the covid 19 vaccines. It was known before a single dose was injected that the covid vaccines could produce serious health problems, including blood clots, heart disease, and so on.

The list of expected side effects was horrendous and the authorities knew this, how do I know? Because I made videos in 2020, all of them subsequently banned of course, in which I described the problems which would become apparent if the vaccine was made widely available. Check out the FDA's draft working list published in October 2020. The link to this to this is on my website, vernoncorman.com. The videos I made were subsequently hacked when brand new tube was attacked, of course, but the transcripts of those warnings in those early videos are still available in some of my books, and some of the videos have been saved, and and can now be seen on www.onevsp.com, which can be accessed via my website.

And I made videos warning about how the vaccine would affect the brain and the nervous system, and how and why infertility would develop. Right from the start, it was clear that the COVID vaccine was going to be the most dangerous medicinal product ever marketed, and yet the mainstream media, and the medical profession, and the authorities, all denied that there were dangers. And now, they continue to try to find other often bizarre excuses for the explosion in the incidence of cancer among young people, and in the explosion in the number of people whose quiescent cancers have been unawoken. And of course for the increase in infertility. The authorities are paying out damages to a few patients, but the sums involved are very small.

In the UK, patients who were given contaminated blood are being given up to £2,700,000 in compensation. But patients injured by the COVID vaccine are being given the standard vaccine compensation of a little more than a £100,000. The mRNA vaccines are now being used to bring in other mRNA products. Journalists who cannot read properly still believe that the covid 19 vaccines helped save lives, and so with enthusiasm based on ignorance, they welcome mRNA technology. And the alleged success of the toxic and utterly useless COVID vaccine has enabled politicians, doctors, and journalists to promote the massive range of childhood vaccines, which have for years been causing massive damage to immune systems and general health.

As I've been pointing out for decades, no research has been done to find out if it's safe to give so many vaccines to babies and small children. The conspirators are terrified that the truth will spread about the COVID vaccine because they're desperate to keep selling all the other horrible vaccines they're using to kill, maim, and make big money. It wasn't just the COVID vaccine, which was responsible for the many unexpected deaths of course, though the vaccines are the biggest cause of the problems, and they will continue to maim and kill. Right at the start of the vaccination pro campaign, I said that anyone giving the covid vaccine should be arrested for manslaughter, that's changed. Today any doctor or nurse still recommending or giving the covid 19 vaccine should be arrested, not just for manslaughter but for murder.

If they don't know the dangers by now then they're too stupid to practice to be in practice, Actually, they're too stupid or corrupt even to work for the BBC Facebook or YouTube, and you have to be stupid or corrupt or both to work for the BBC Facebook or YouTube. The fake pandemic was used as an excuse to introduce a whole host of dangerous and damaging changes in our way of life. Face masks were introduced and in some parts of the world made compulsory, even though there was never any evidence that they did any good, but plenty of evidence that they were dangerous. My book on face masks is banned, but you can download a free copy on my website, w ww.vernoncoleman.com. It's packed with over a 100 items of scientific evidence proving that face masks do no good, but much harm.

There are still people wearing face masks and I fear that at some time face masks are going to come back in a big way. Social distancing was introduced on a whim, there was never a shred of evidence for that nonsense. A cough or sneeze can send a germ around 30 feet, but this was considered impractical, so people were told to keep 6 feet apart. Even Fauci in America can't explain the 6 feet rule, this was utterly pointless. It was merely part of the training and frightening process.

As I said 4 years ago, the whole social social distancing nonsense which caused so much distress was just made up. Lockdowns were part of the general compliance program, which had begun begun years earlier with the absurd pointless expensive and environmentally damaging recycling programs, now largely discredited. Lockdowns, now now recognized by their compliant advocates in politics and the media to have been useless and dangerous, forced people to stay indoors and to do their shopping online, thereby preparing them for net 0 in the new world of 20 minute cities. We knew that the frail and the elderly and the disabled were imprisoned in care homes for absolutely no reason whatsoever, but it was part of the plan. Small children were forced to keep apart from friends at school for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Do you remember those pictures of children playing, if that's the word, alone and in marked off areas of playground? Whoever thought that one up should be hung drawn and quartered. Huge numbers of politicians and their advisers ignored the rules because they knew, as well as we did, that the rules were absurd and unnecessary. The conspirators used their carefully planned fake pandemic to introduce a number of other changes, which were designed not to combat the renamed over promoted flu, but to help make huge alterations in our way of life and to help reduce the size of the world population by killing a lot of people. The lockdowns and the closure of many hospital wards were designed to damage healthcare systems and to create huge waiting lists, so that thousands of patients would die long before they could be diagnosed, let alone treated.

The medical establishment announced that diagnose and treating, diagnosing and treating patients should be cut back, because of climate change. Today in the UK, GPs who've been allowed to work an average of just 24 hours a week, and to stop doing home visits, night calls, or weekend calls, or even to stop being seeing patients at all, and now being bribed not to refer patients to hospitals, where waiting times already stretch into years, and when there are and where there are already said to be up to 12,000,000 people waiting for treatment. GPs complain that they're overworked but they're lying, there have been there are far more GPs available today per 100,000 patients than there have ever been, and GPs do far less work than their predecessors, it's because GPs aren't working properly that hospitals can't cope. Furlough schemes were introduced to get people accustomed to the idea of staying at home rather than working. Today in the UK there are over 9,000,000 people claiming sick pay.

The non existent imaginary disease known as long covid is responsible for millions of healthy individuals staying at home, permanently signed off work, and turned into professional invalids. The furlough schemes in the UK cost £70,000,000,000 and help to wreck the economy. Crazy loan schemes result sorry. Crazy loan schemes resulted in massive frauds. What a surprise.

Public spending rocketed as government incomes fell. Everything that happened was designed to make states bigger, as countries everywhere became increasingly communist in their design and outlook. Today countries owe so much money that they're going bust, and in a few years time there'll be no money to pay pensions or benefits to anyone, there are going to be armies of people begging for food. Watch my last video if you want the facts. The coronavirus hoax was also used to help suppress free speech and silence those daring to question No one bothered to notice that the medical establishment is No one bothered to notice that the medical establishment is nearly always wrong.

The medical establishment always gives the impression that it's right about everything, and journalists always assume that the medical establishment is always right, because well it's the medical establishment. But the evidence proves quite firmly that the medical establishment is nearly always wrong, until it's forced by circumstances or by campaigners to change its view. Doctors now kill or injure more people than cancer or heart disease or infections. Thanks to the medical establishment, 1 in 6 hospital beds are occupied by patients who've been made ill by doctors and 4 out of every 10 patients who receive a prescription drug suffer serious and sometimes lethal side effects. The fake pandemic enabled the authorities to ban public meetings at the last minute, and I had a number of books banned.

Publishers everywhere dumped my books in some cases literally. The irony is that I'd much rather have books burnt than banned. If there are books around to be burned then at least they've been published. When books are banned then they don't exist to be read or to burn or to be burned. My first book about covid was called coming apocalypse, and I had quite a job to get it published.

I wasn't allowed to mention the words covid or vaccine. It came out in April 2020 and was the first book to describe covid 19 as a hoax and a fraud. The coming apocalypse has nothing to do with covid of course, covid was just a weapon. I received death threats too for daring to tell the truth. Bizarrely, some of them from trolls, presumably without any medical training or experience, but who presumably approved of the vaccine.

Supporters of the vaccine who received rude comments online were protected and received much sympathy, but it seemed it was okay to threaten someone questioning the vaccine. Two tyres on our car were cut most of the way through. During 2020 and the years which followed, advisors and institutions gained massive power over everything we do, and dictated domestic and foreign policies everywhere. Organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and of course, the WHO, grabbed massive amounts of power. In the UK today, the state spends 46% of GDP, and taxes are doomed to rise interminably as the cost of providing services rises on the number of people working continues to fall.

What an irony it is that the number of people who want higher taxes and more government services is almost exactly the same as the number of people who don't work and don't pay any taxes. This is a phenomenon which has been coming for years, but the fake pandemic accelerated everything. Early in 2020, I had warned that the fake pandemic would be used to kill old people and that was exactly what happened. Kill shots of morphine and midazolam were given to thousands of elderly residents in care homes and hospitals as they were murdered to make space for the thousands of covid patients who never appeared, and do not resuscitate notices were slapped on millions of patients the elderly, the sick, the disabled, and the mentally ill. Around the world millions of patients have been starved to death or have died of dehydration because they were denied a drink of water.

In a few poor countries, individuals who fell ill with covid simply stayed in bed and treated the infection as if it was a flu, which it was. But in the UK, Canada, in the USA, in the EU, and in Australasia, and most other rich countries, patients were killed en masse, and those who tested positive for the useless PCR test were put down as having died from COVID, even if they'd been run over by the number 13 omnibus or hacked to death by a mad axeman. All this has led us inevitably into the global program of euthanasia, which is today the single greatest threat we face and a threat which most people continue to ignore. Doctor assisted suicide has become legal in many countries and the poor and the disabled and the anxious are being invited to sign up to end their lives. Long waiting lists mean that patients in pain and misery are happy to sign up to end their lives.

My video entitled, they want to kill you, here's how they'll do it, explains how they're already using euthanasia programs to get rid of people. You can find it via my website, verlandcoleman.com. If you haven't seen it yet, you should watch it, and look out for the media promoting people who are talking about the wonderful afterlife we can enjoy, if only we be sensible enough to sign up for the doctor assisted suicide program. And of course, as I warned the world over a year ago, the conspirators are pushing us inexorably into world war 3. Absurd warmongering policies are clearly designed to start a nuclear accident, and that's why the conspirators and their handmaideners have steadfastly refused to debate any of these issues.

Oh, and there's one other thing, the confusion and fear created by a deliberately planned fake pandemic has given the conspirators an opportunity to introduce solar engineering. Have you wondered why we're getting so many grey hazy skies? Blame solar engineering, a k a solar radiation management. I've always been opposed to capital punishment, but I've decided that I'll make an exception for the geoengineers and climate engineers who are behind the sprinkling of 1,000,000 of tons of light refracting particles in our stratosphere. I've spoken and written before about the sprinkling of powder in the skies.

It's known as solar engineering or solar radiation management, of course. These chemical clouds are designed to cool the earth, and the insane people behind it believe or pretend to believe the mad theory known as climate change. Virtually no independent scientists believe the climate change theory, the vast majority recognize that it's a confidence trick, but the conspirators are using climate change as an excuse to block out the sun's rays, even though they know the damage it will do. There will, they admit, be inevitable side effects to their plan. And what are the side effects?

Well, the one side effect is famine, another is flooding, and then there's drought, and it's already happening. When you hear about flooding and drought, it's probably caused by man made climate change, but it isn't caused by industry, or cars, or aeroplanes, or farting cows. It's caused by corrosive idiots spraying powder into the stratosphere. These easily dismissed side effects, which are resulting in 100 of 1000000 of deaths are being deliberately caused by solar engineering, and solar engineering will reduce the size of the world's population. These utterly insane and criminal plans have never been approved by any electorate or by any elected bodies, and it's happening already.

The people responsible for solar engineering should be arrested, tried, and then shot. They were menace to mankind. The COVID 19 pandemic was a hoax. It was the biggest fraud in medical history and after a number of failed attempts which took place from the 1980s onwards, it was designed to take us into the great reset. Can we stop them?

Of course, we can if we fight hard enough, we can stop them by sharing the truth with as many people as possible. Most people still don't realize how close we are to the end of life as we know it. If we lose, then we lose everything we hold dear. We'll become slaves, oppressed and crushed, and living in all wells nightmare. So we have no choice, we have to win.

We have to expose their lives and stop their plans for the great reset and net zero. We have to ensure that the entire staffs of organizations such as Google and YouTube, Facebook, the BBC, the mainstream media, and social media are arrested as traitors to mankind. Right from the start, this war has been about information. It was always a propaganda war. The conspirators bought the media and they demonized and lied about free thinking truth tellers.

TV and radio stations and newspapers became propaganda vehicles. Since I created the first video called the coronavirus hoax, I'm banned from all mainstream media, all social media, and 99% of the internet. That's in the last 4 years. Publishers who'd worked for me with me for years ran away because of the lies told about me. No one dares interview me, lest they lose their podcast platform payment scheme or channel.

All the sites in my name on social media are fake, set up and run by the 77th brigade for all I know. All I have left is my website, www.vernon cormann.com, which carries new articles every weekday on my video channel. The website and the videos are all entirely free and my videos have not been monetized. Please visit my website as often as you can if you want to keep up with what's happening and tell people to go there. Subscribe to my video channel on bit shoot.

My channels on YouTube and brand YouTube were banned or hacked a long time ago. My books can be found via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com. Please remember, you are not alone. More and more people are waking up, and once they're awake, they don't go back to sleep. Distrust the government, avoid mass media, and fight the lies.

And thank you for watching an old man in a chair.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

read transcript 27min podcast BREAKING! U.S. PLAN TO DEPLOY SOLDIERS TO FIGHT RUSSIA ! W/ SCOTT RITTER

https://www.bitchute.com/video/3f6zz8SVFZw/ 

Hey. I'll see you in Rutherford, New Jersey, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Ontario, California, Davenport, Iowa, Las Vegas, Chicago, Chicago, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Go to jimmydohr.com for a link for tickets. Hi. You know what?

We got Scott, Ritter back with us because I wanted to get his expert opinion and have him explain this story for us. So this is a big story, from today, revealed NATO plan to get US troops to the front line to fight Russia. Alliance prepares for rapid deployment of American soldiers amid fears Moscow is plotting major war with Europe. NATO leaders previously agreed to ready 300,000 troops for rapid deployment. So this is US troops are gonna go fight Russia?

Could tell tell me what this means. Well, right now, the United States has approximately a 100000 troops in Europe. That's not enough to wage a wage a a war today. But, you know, it's enough for a a presence, a trip wire. But if there was a war with Russia, NATO would need to mobilize a considerable amount of combat capable troops.

They simply don't have them today. This 300,000 rapid deployment force exists only on paper at the moment. But one of the problems NATO has is because it's a peacetime military alliance. How do you get troops from the port to Eastern Europe? All the NATO logistics that existed in the past got troops from NATO ports or NATO airfields in Western Europe to Germany, which was the front line.

West Germany was the front line with, East Germany, the Soviet Union, etcetera. But now that the NATO has expanded to the Russian frontier with Poland, the Baltic States, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, There isn't infrastructure to support this, and there's insufficient troops in. We used to have 300,000 troops in Europe and could deploy another 250, 300,000 within 10 days. Today, we have a 100,000, and we don't have the ability to surge forces in. And so any reinforcement that take place is we'd be bringing troops over on ships.

They'll arrive in ports. One of the big ports they've arrived would be in Hamburg or Antwerp. Previously, they get off the course and ride on German highways to a German frontline. Now they have to cross borders. NATO hasn't figured out how to move troops from one nation to the next, how to do customs clearance, how to avoid bottlenecks.

2, none of their highways or bridges have been reinforced to handle large scale military movements. So even once they allowed it to happen, the infrastructure would collapse. 3, there's no redundancy. Meaning that if there's one bridge over the river that you gotta get your army over and the Russians blow up that bridge, you don't have a plan b. D, how do you get troops that you you you can get them to Poland, but how do you get them to Romania?

How do you get them, to Finland now that Finland joined? And so what NATO's doing now, they just did an exercise, in, for instance, in Norway landing a couple hundred American and Finnish and Norwegian marines, and they wanted to get them to Finland. To get them from Norway over the mountains down through Sweden, up into Finland to the front line, they realized the infrastructure doesn't exist. So if Russia was to go to war with Finland, NATO couldn't reinforce Finland even though they promised them they could. So they have to spend money now building superhighways, new bridges, port facilities, and then they have to plan.

What happens when Antwerp no longer exists because the Russians took it out? Where do you land? What's your plan b port? And this is what this plan is right now. NATO is saying, we can't do this, so we have to have come up with a plan to do it.

The bad news is it makes it look like NATO and Russia are going to war. You know what the good news is, Jimmy? They can't do it. It's too expensive. Is that to scare us?

What so why yeah. So so has Putin been threatening to go to war with these smaller countries? Putin has been saying the exact all Putin has done is defeat NATO and their proxy, Ukraine, in Ukraine. Nate Putin has humiliated NATO. The defeat of NATO's technological superiority.

You remember when the Leopard tank was the magic weapon Yeah. But they found out that it burns? They they they the Abrams was the magic tank. Oh, it burns too. There's no such thing as a magic weapon.

All the weapons that the west thought would give it the technological edge over the Russians don't. HIMARS, that multiple launch rocket system, it uses a GPS guided warhead. The Russians jam it. The HIMARS doesn't hit what it's supposed to hit. The same thing with ATACMS.

It gets jammed. There are no magic weapons, and this has humiliated NATO. And the other thing NATO realizes, and general Cavoli, who's the US commander of, ground forces said, NATO had never imagined the scope and scale of the violence taking place in Ukraine. They weren't prepared to suffer the casualties for the sustainability factors. And so what's happened is that NATO realizes it can't fight the Russians, that the Russians have the better army, the better way of doing this.

And so NATO now is screaming. They have to turn to their taxpayers and say, you gotta pump up 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars now to rebuild our military. And the taxpayers are saying, why? Why are we gonna do that? Well, because the Russians are threatening to invade.

The Russians aren't threatening to invade. All Russia's done is beat NATO in a war that NATO started. So why then would this why so it says revealed. So that means that on purpose, NATO revealed this plan. For us to be scared.

Is and who is that? Is that for us to be scared? What's this for? Well, I think the reality is somebody in NATO went, this is insane, and they revealed it because, remember, this is just paper. These are just words.

Those 300,000 troops don't exist. They haven't recruited them yet. They haven't trained them yet. Germany, to give you an example, has said that they're going to expand this battalion they have, a couple hundred men in, as I think, Lithuania to a brigade of 4,000 men. They're supposed to make everybody scared on that.

It may not happen because Germany has to first recruit the troops who agreed to be stationed overseas. They can't just take a a brigade out of their army and station in Lithuania. The constitution prohibits that. So they have to recruit 4,000 Germans who agree to be stationed overseas, and then they have to equip them, which means they have to build new tanks and armored vehicles, except they can't because America blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, which brought into cheap gas, which allowed the the the the, you know, the the steel plants to produce steel. Those steel plants had to shut down because they can't afford to produce steel.

Germany can't make steel to make tanks. They can't make the tanks to make the to build the battalions to this is all of NATO is a disaster like this. It's just a one big giant cluster you know what. And, that so I think what happened here is, somebody looked in there and said, we need to nip this madness in the bud. Let's reveal this plan so that Scott Ritter can mock it on Jimmy Dore's show and kill it.

And so that's what this is? So this isn't anything to actually be afraid of? We can't do it. That's like me Jimmy, that's like you say yeah. Okay.

Jimmy, tonight I'm announcing that I'm, I'm gonna build a space rocket and I'm gonna go to Mars. And you're and and you're like, oh my god. If Scott goes to Mars, that'll disrupt the universal balance. Scott ain't going to Mars because Scott can't build a rocket. NATO can't do anything that's on that headline.

They can't do any of that. So So so, you know, what I so Biden recently gave the go ahead for Ukraine to go ahead and attacks targets inside Russia. Yeah. Is that act is that actually a major escalation? And I saw Medvedev kinda hint that this could turn nuclear.

Is that also something we should worry about? This is where I have to get really, really serious right now, because I I try to answer things I mean, I answer it honestly, but, like, that headline's a joke. So I I bring humor into it. You know, the, the the bulletin of American atomic scientists, they they have this thing called the doomsday clock. And, recently, they set it at 90 seconds.

They say we're 90 seconds until midnight. I'm here to tell you right now that if you were being honest about the doomsday clock, you would set it at 1 millisecond to midnight. And what I mean by that is as you and I are speaking right now, this is the most dangerous situation the world has found itself in since the Cuban missile crisis. We are this close to a thermonuclear war. One miscalculation, one mistake.

As we are talking, this miscalculation took could occur. And, the Russians will send nuclear weapons into Europe, we will retaliate, and the world will end within a matter of span of an hour and a half. This is real. I hope everybody listening to me right now goes to bed and and and shakes and is scared, because you need to be scared. You need to start calling people in Washington, DC saying, what the hell are you thinking?

Because the whole purpose of allowing the Ukrainians to do this is to bring harm to Russia in hopes that Russia will accept a peace plan coming out of a peace conference that's taking place in a week that isn't gonna take place because nobody's going to attend because Ukrainians are a joke. But we can't admit that, so we give the Ukrainians permission to do what the Ukrainians say they want to do, which is to bring harm to Russia in Russia. If you go back Jimmy, just to put this in perspective, go back to you know who Ray McGovern is. I I former CIA guy. Great guy.

Yes. You know, in the buildup, before this became a war between Russia and Ukraine, the the Russians actually submitted a draft peace treaty to the United States and said, this is this is how we could prevent a war, by talking about how to come up with equitable, relationships. In the discussion that the Russians had with the United States, they said, what we really fear is that you're gonna put missiles in Ukraine, and those missiles are gonna strike our strategic facilities. Because you see, when the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Right.

So all of the strategic things, the command centers, the missile silos, and everything, were in the center of Russia, far away from NATO. It took NATO a long time to get there. But when if Ukraine joins NATO and you put these American missiles up to the front line, they can now strike Russia's strategic command and control. And Russia said back then before the war, if you put missiles in Ukraine, it will be a war. Jimmy, we put ATACMS missiles with a 300 kilometer range, a 300 mile range, 300 mile range in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are using them to strike targets in Russia.

Targets the the range arc includes command and control, radars, missile silos, nuclear storage facilities. Russia cannot allow this to happen. They can't. It's existential in nature. And if Ukraine makes a mistake, right now as we talk, if Ukraine makes a mistake and fires a missile that hits a Russian command and control center, Russia will nuke Europe really now as we speak.

Well, I mean so doesn't Russia understand that that would also mean the nuclear annihilation of Russia? Vladimir Putin has addressed this. He said, we won't start the war. We have a nuclear doctrine that's quite clear. But if you hit us with nuclear weapons or if you use conventional weapons that threaten our nuclear deterrents, we will respond.

We understand that we will go to heaven as martyrs, but you'll go to hell as the people who started a nuclear war. That's the Russian approach. The other thing that Vladimir Putin has said, and I'm saying this because there's people out there who say, well, Russia's just bluffing. He has gone on national TV and spoken to the Russian people and said, there will be no phone calls. There will be no negotiations.

All orders have been signed. All orders have been issued. When the time comes, it will happen instantaneously. And do you think Americans are just so used to living with nuclear weapons and they think that they'll never be used? No.

I I think what happened is I mean because we lived with nuclear weapons in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and early eighties, and we were scared to death. I can tell I grew up there, Jimmy. I I was scared. I lived in West Germany. I lived next to a nuclear weapon storage facility.

My dad was a commission officer in the air force at the headquarters. On occasion, he would go into the bunker, which you go into the bunker when you're ready to go to war. He would call my mom and say, gather the kids because this might be it tonight. The whole world might end. And we would be there because we live next to the nuclear storage facility that would get hit with a nuclear weapon and we would die.

I played football when my dad was in the bunker. They had an Audubon going by. And you know how when sunlight hits a rearview mirror, hits a windshield, every time you did that that flash? Yeah. I'm on the football field looking at flashes on the Audubon thinking, oh, shit.

Excuse me. Oh, that's it. It's over. As a freaking high school kid, I was scared to death of nuclear weapons because they were an ever present reality. I learned to respect nuclear weapons, which is why when I was a weapons inspector in the Soviet Union in 1988 to 1990, destroying these very same weapons, I was so damn happy because I said, we're getting rid of these things.

We're creating peace and harmony in the world. I might grow up to have children and grandchildren. Yay. And then we went into this period of time where the weapons still existed, but people forgot about them. People forgot to be afraid of them.

People don't think they're real. People can't imagine that they're going to be used. I'm here to tell everybody in your audience that the United States, like Russia, has a nuclear war plan. You know how we win the nuclear war? This is the sickest part.

By being the largest remaining civilization on the planet. Now some estimates say that we will be down to 40 to 30 or 40% of our current capacity. That'll but if we as long as we can be the largest remaining civilization, we will continue American global domination in a post nuclear environment. That's the definition of victory in a nuclear war, and this nuclear war could happen literally right now as we speak because of the strange loading. So why why aren't there so why aren't there why do you think there isn't more people screaming with their hair on fire about this to stop the Biden administration from letting Ukraine do this.

Well, I mean, I tried. I I I was supposed to speak at the rage against the war machine, rally, and, you know, the libertarians shut me down because I'm a bad guy, apparently. Right. I've been screaming till I'm blue in the face. The the the problem is, again, I'll just be honest, the the antiwar movement in America is so fractured.

They just can't get along. They're a bunch of hippies that, you know, have their own they want their own slice of the pie, and they just can't agree. In 1982 in June of 1982, the antiwar movement put a 1000000 people into Central Park to protest against nuclear weapons and to protest in favor of arms control. Ronald Reagan, the crazy communist hating republican president from hell, He's the guy that signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, Jimmy. He's the guy that sent me to Russia to get rid of those weapons.

He was influenced by a 1000000 Americans marching in Central Park. Why can't we get a 1000000 Americans marching in Central Park today? Why on this, survival, the very survival of our nation of the world, why can't we motivate all these people out there to realize that any other cause you have is meaningless if the world ceases to exist. That's that was I was part of the people trying to convince people like Code Pink and the other people that you know, the the joke I do in my act is like, well, yeah, I'd like to stop a nuclear war, but not with those people. Not with them.

Yeah. Not with them. So, I mean, it just shows that they're not really serious about it, and it's more of a cosplay organization. And, it wasn't just Code Pink. It was a lot of people.

So, wow. Well, one second to midnight as the doomsday clock. I That was that's doctor Strangelove, that I mean, I can't believe that's the plan. That movie's the plan? That movie's the plan.

You know, the well, again, the first when we first came up with the nuclear war plan, John f Kinney was the first president to be briefed on it. It was called the single integrated operation plan or SIOP. He went to the Pentagon to get briefed on it. When the Pentagon briefed him that the plan was to destroy the world to keep America, then Kennedy turned to his advisers and said, and and we call ourselves the human race. And then he screamed at the guys.

He said, this is insane, literally insane. You can't ask me to push the button to destroy the world. You have to give me options. Then he was assassinated. When when, Lyndon Johnson became president, he was briefed on it.

You know what his response was? This is insane. You can't ask me to destroy the world. You have to give me options, but the Pentagon only has one option, destroy the world. They pretend to have other options.

They briefed every president, up during the cold war on that. Every single president, including Ronald Wilson Reagan, said, this is insane. You have to give me options. And then the Cold War ended. And then we forgot about nuclear war.

We forgot that there was this plan there. And then George w Bush after 911 said, we can never allow this to happen again. We have nuclear weapons. Find a way to make them relevant again. And now we lived in an environment where there was no more Soviet Union.

We didn't have a threat, and so we started to use our nuclear supremacy as a way of leveraging global power. And we now have guys who have reimagined nuclear war using the same models that we used back in the sixties, That when we go to war, if there is a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia and the United States and China, our goal is to keep enough of our civilization intact that we are the largest surviving civilization while we destroy the rest of the world. I would like to ask Joe Biden because here's here's the thing, Jimmy, to show you this. Joe Biden knows this because he's been in the senate. He's been in he's been the vice president.

When he ran for president, he said, I want to change the nuclear posture of the United States to, a deterrence only model, meaning that's a single use as that we only have nuclear weapons for one thing. And that's if you drop nuclear weapons on us, we use nuclear weapons against you. That's it. Sole use. He promised that he would do this.

I went to a INF reunion, intermediate nuclear forces reunion, where all the arms control people, the inspectors, the negotiators were there. And they brought in a senior administration official, who asked to remain anonymous, and they were asked the question by us, the guys who got rid of nuclear weapons, who know something about arms control. We said, the president ran on this platform. Why didn't it happen? He's the commander in chief.

Why didn't he keep this promise, the most critical promise? And they said, well, the the interagency wasn't ready for this. Now did you vote for the inner agency in the last election, Jimmy? Did you see them on the ballot? Inner agency?

Inner agency. So that's the deep state. That's the group of the defense department, the CIA, Department of Energy, state. They they Mhmm. They basically this the establishment come together in a group, in a cabal, and they control the national security of the United States.

The interagency wasn't ready for this. Well, I mean, my god. Couldn't the president just say, hey, interagency, you're fired. You're all fired. You're all unemployed right now.

I bet you can't. Hire people that are ready to do this. But Joe Biden backed down because every president backs down because you can't take on the establishment, and that's the problem. Which is what Chuck Schumer told Nancy, Rachel Maddow that if Trump is not he's not being nice to the intel CIA and the FBI and the deep state, and they've got 6 ways to Sunday to mess with you. Well, we see how it is.

Right? They did Russiagate on him. They lied to the FISA court 17 times to get taps on his phones. They've impeached him twice, and now they've got 4 different, felony, trials against him. One more ridiculous than the next and they just convicted him.

So Yeah. So that's what that so you're so even if you are a mild speed bump, which is all Trump really was to the empire, a mild speed bump, they this is what they'll do to you. And so Chuck Schumer really did give the game away. It's like the the the the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, they don't work for the president. They don't.

They work for They work for themselves. They work for themselves and a handful of billionaires who actually run things. Probably trillionaires. Wait, Scott. Does that continuance of government, is that what you're talking about with the keeping the last civilization around?

Like when they, whenever Edward Teller made the hydrogen bomb, they started having this whole thing at digging bases so that the powerful could be safe. Is that what that is? Well, there absolutely. You know, the irony here, and I I again, forgive my smile, Jimmy. Sometimes things are just so ridiculous that you have smile.

And if you don't find humor in life, you go insane. But the irony is all these guys who have fallen in love with nuclear war now, they think that all that infrastructure still exists. They think they're gonna live. But what they don't realize is when the cold war ended, we stopped funding that. I used to train as a firefighter in, in hazmat response.

We would do, railroad rescue operations in one of these places where they used to have a train line going into a tunnel into a mountain, where they would take all the congressmen, everything in there to hide. Well, they shut that facility down. They haven't been maintaining it. It's mothballed, and we've been using those tracks to train on derailment. And these guys believe that if they have a nuclear war, they're gonna get on a train, and it's gonna take them some place to live.

They're gonna show up in one of these facilities and realize that the filters haven't been serviced, and, radioactivity is gonna come down. They said, well, that can't happen. You should well, you guys didn't fund the servicing of the filters. The water supply hasn't been replenished. You're all gonna die.

And I just hope that I'm still alive when the flash comes in their head that they screwed up, that they thought they were gonna be part of the 30% to survive, and the realization is nobody survives because nobody's ready for what a nuclear war is gonna bring on this world. What about that $2,000,000,000,000 they keep losing every so often? I bet I bet you could fund some pretty cool stuff with that. Vegas, baby. Vegas.

I don't know. I don't know where it went. Okay. Alright, Scott Ritter. I appreciate.

Thanks for your insight into all this. I would that's chilling, actually. I appreciate it. Oh, thank you. Thanks for having me.

Okay, Bob. Hey. Get this. So we all know that the mainstream news media is not reliable. How can you trust them when they've never told you the truth about Russiagate, Ukraine, COVID, lockdowns, anything.

That's where our sponsor we have a new sponsor. Ground News comes in handy. Ground News is an app and a website, And what they do is they gather related articles from around the world in one place so you can compare coverage. So it's not they don't generate the news. They compile the news.

And then they give you the visual breakdown of the news outlets and tell you if the source has a political bias. And if it does, what's the political bias? And how reliable that the reporting is and who owns them. So it's super helpful and transparent. Check this out.

So, like, if you search Russia Ukraine, search Russia Ukraine war, and you'll see how it's covered. Here we see a 111 total news sources. 18 of them are left leaning, 9 are right leaning, and 27 of them are centrist. The bias distribution is 50% center, and even it even shows their logos along with their, factuality and ownership. So this is a pretty helpful this is pretty, dare I say, use an old timey term, this is a neat website.

So this is a good way to do your own research. So you get there. You see that they they help you by seeing what the bias is, by who owns these news out. But they compiles all different kinds of, sources around one news story. So it gets you access to independent and international perspectives, not just nationalist sources with the same political agenda.

It helps you find the discrepancies and how certain topics are covered and shows you how corporate agendas can influence the news you read. Sounds a lot like this show. Sounds like this website does what this show does. Sounds nice. So if you wanna see it for yourself, go to ground.news /jd.

Ground.news/jd. Use the link below, and we're gonna get you 40% off unlimited access. Go to ground.news/jd. We're gonna get you 40% off unlimited access. Think critically about the news you consume.

You come see me on tour in Rutherford, New Jersey, Minneapolis, Ontario, California, Las Vegas, Davenport, Iowa, Chicago, Illinois. We're doing a live panel video show, special surprise guests on that show in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Go to jimmydohr.com for a link for tickets. And make sure you go to Jimmy Dohr because they don't wanna buy it from a second reseller.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 32min podcast THE JAB IS A TOXIC BOMB & NON-EXISTENT 'SPIKE PROTEIN' - DR. STEFANO SCOGLIO & TORSTEN ENGELBRECHT

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qsXmTpLlMqbK/ 

Hello, everybody. Welcome to a new edition of transition TV dialogue. Today, I have a very special guest again. It is Stefano Scoglio. He's a top expert in microbiology and naturopathy and probably the best known and most important critic of the corona policy in Italy.

He has summarized his criticism in his book, no pandemic from false science to the greatest hopes in history. This is actually the cover of the original version of a Stefanos book. It's only exists in Italian language, but it is really worth reading. In this book, he also addresses, the issue that the COVID gene injections can cause severe health damages, but he contradicts the common assumption, which is that the health damages occur because the mRNA in these injections is introduced into the cells, making them to produce harmful spike proteins? And what evidence is there, at all that the COVID gene injections can do serious harm, and serious damages to health.

That's what I would like to discuss with Stefano Scoglio. So, yes, Stefano, welcome, and thank you for taking the time, to do this talk with us. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody seems to agree that the mRNA injections, work by teaching ourselves to make spike proteins.

The only dispute is whether these spike proteins produced a harmless or harmful. But in your opinion, it is not the spike proteins that do these health damages. In fact, you say that the idea, that spike proteins are produced is a kind of a chimera. What evidence is there to support your thesis? Yeah.

Actually, there there is only evidence, the scientific evidence is only about the fact that it's impossible for mRNA to enter the cell and produce anything. Anybody who talks about and accept the story diffused by, you know, pharmaceutical companies, just accept that as a as a given, but nobody's going to read the the damn literature, scientific literature. In my book, I report all the scientific literature up to 2021 that is at the same time that vaccines were, released, and and that also explains why this material is so toxic without needing to inter to to introduce any spike protein. Right now, we have a big, big problem and that is we don't know how to make the the the m the the genic material enter the cell. They describe the cell as a formidable barrier.

This is exactly the the the the word. Live cells are formidable barriers, and they indicate. We're talking about the top researchers, k, in the field of MRNA, and and the and these are the only study existing. They say, there are many factors, 5 factors, in fact, external ribonucleases, a exocytosis instead of endocytosis. The the internal mechanism that expels 98% of anything that enters plus internal, endocellular ribonucleases.

These are all agreed by science scientists that, you know, make make it impossible for the, material to enter the cell and get into the ribosome. And finally, the the they indicate the 5th element, which is the most important of all. You know? The thing is they indicate that they are so highly immunogenic. They use this word immunogenic.

Immunogenic means able to irritate so much the immune system that it reacts very violently. Okay? So it means toxic. Immunogenic means highly toxic. In fact, they describe this material, mRNA and and synthetic lipids as self adjuvant.

That is whereas in other vaccines, like, for instance, chill children vaccine, you have to introduce aluminum, for instance to make the the the the the immune system respond. Here, you don't need to add anything because this material is as toxic as aluminum or worse. It's so highly toxic that as soon as you injected the immune system, attacks it and explodes it into millions of pa or nano particles in the body. And I conclude, this is actually what has been proven afterwards because the only study that has done has evaluated the biodistribution of the Pfizer vaccine is a Japanese study done by the Japanese government incorporation with Pfizer. Pfizer tried to, secrete it, but it was released through a foyer.

And in this study, they see that in the mice where they injected the the material, the material was found unaltered, unmodified, unchanged, and that is if it had entered this entered the cells, it would have been metabolized. You wouldn't find it the same way in which you would find it you you inject it but they found it exactly as they injected it which means no enter into any cell, diffused in all organs of the body and particularly liver, spleen, and and female ovary and kidneys. But even, Robert Malone, for example, considered the inventor of the mRNA, yeah. Technology or gene injections sees the danger in the spike proteins, or let's take the US cardiologist, Peter McCullough, just like Malone, a widely known critic, of the COVID, policy and gene injections who recently published a study, together with other researchers concluding that only, that not only does the SAS, cough to spike protein is an neurotoxin, but the mRNA inject of a vaccine vaccines are also capable of delivering the protein to the brain, increasing the risk of neurodegenerative diseases. So if even these known, sciences and critical scientists talk about, how can they talk, bullshit?

How is it possible? Or how can it be possible? I would say that, I would say the 99% of the scientists today talk bullshit, essentially because they they adopt a methodology that is bullshit methodology that has been there for a long time. Nobody questions it. Robert Malone might have been the inventor in the eighties, that is 40 years ago, but hasn't worked on the mRNA for decades.

You don't find any article of him in the last 10, 15, 10, 20 years. So it's not really an authority in what's been going on with that. But apart from that, the point is how do they find the spike protein in the body? See, isolating a protein from the blood, it's a simple task. There the methodology has been known since since the eighties.

There are technique technologies, machines that you can buy and isolate proteins from the body. So we have 100 of 1000000 of people injected with the vaccine. So how much spike protein there should be in the world? You know, like tons of spike proteins, okay, that you could actually, take from the blood and isolate. Do they ever do that?

No. When they say that they spike protein, the only the only way they do it, it's through antibody test. And the antibody test, it's a fraud. If you want, I can explain to you why it's a fraud. So what they do, they take the the, the blood and the serum of a patient.

So let's say that's has been vaccinated, then, what they do, they test it through this ELISA test and they put it in touch with a with a with a spike protein in this case, for instance. But it's a spike protein made in a laboratory. It's it's an artificial. They comb it they call it recombinant spike protein. K?

It's a synthetic by spike protein. Now the problem with, antibodies is that they're really not specific. In other words, the if we consider antibody specific, we should have, like, you know, 1,000, tens of 1,000 of different antibodies. One for each disease. Instead, we only have 5 immunoglobulins, only 2 are tested, EGG and EGM and the problem is you wanna show me that they are specific what you're supposed to do you take this serum which has a lot of antibodies because you've been vaccinated which which which means you've been injected with a very toxic material and your your immune system has reacted, generating a lot of antibodies.

So you take this cell with a lot of antibodies, you wanna do a proper test to see if it's specific, you take it and you put it in touch with the spike protein with aluminum, with the mRNA, original mRNA, with 5 different toxins and only if it responds to the spike protein, you can see that is specific. As is this test ever done? No. There's never any control. They take the material with the with the immunoglobulins.

They put it in touch with the spike protein that reacts because it reacts to any toxin. So it will react also to the synthetic Spike protein and they say, ah, that means the specific antibodies for the Spike protein, that means the body is full of spike protein, but it's a fraud. But, however, recent study, shows that the spike protein from the COVID gene, injections, remained in a person's tissue, and immune cells for months after injection, the study examined blood samples from 50 vaccinated individuals who continue to suffer from persistent symptoms, such as fatigue, brain fog, or headaches for weeks, and months after vaccination. These samples were compared with blood samples from 35 vaccinated individuals, who had no such symptoms and the researchers found significantly elevated levels of the spike protein and the blood immune cells of of those who suffer from symptoms after vaccination. So, doesn't that that counter your view?

That's explainable with what I just said. In other words, if they compared, people were sick and people were not sick, Clearly, the people who are not sick did not produce a lot of there there were stabilized and didn't pro did not produce a lot of immune, immunoglobulins antibodies. The sick people through vaccines, intoxicated by the vaccine produce a lot of antibodies, and they keep doing the antibody test. They do not find the product. My challenge is 2 things, my challenge is to these people.

And, of course, they will never accept it. And that is 1, isolate a spike protein as such from, a vax from a vaccinated person. It's possible to do it. There are machines to do it. Why don't you do it?

Why don't you take the blood and isolate this spike protein as such? And you just do it indirectly through antibody test. The the second thing is you wanna be proper and a proper scientist. When you do the antibody test and you wanna show that it's specific for the spike protein, test it together with 4 other toxins and see if it if it actually specific to that or it responds to all the 5, to the all the 5 toxins, which is exactly what will happen because antibodies are universal. Not only that, they are so efficient that they actually are able to attack any antigen, any foreign antigen, any toxin in less than a nanosecond.

So they don't even need to to memorize anything because they're so fast in getting anything new that arrives. Less than a nanosecond is an unimaginable, period of time. So there are all these things and I say, you wanna you wanna really prove what you're saying that there is spike protein, isolate it physically from the blood. To if you do the antibody test, do do it with the control. Otherwise, it's all fraud.

But Just just to sorry. Just to conclude. The problem is mRNA and synthetic lipids like PEG, there's a huge literature showing that they're the most toxic material existing today on Earth. They are inflammatory. They they are edemigenous.

They generate edema in all the membranes. They generate, blood blood clots. K? They they generate autoimmune autoimmune, autoimmune reactions, lipodystrophy. There's a huge list of of what toxic toxicological that they can do to the body.

So anything that happens after vaccination doesn't need at all spike protein as a cause. MRNA and synthetic lipids are more than sufficient to explain these these damages. But as someone showed me, level, laboratory, report claiming to have found a last call to, spike protein on the test result. It, it says the test measures the humoral adaptive immune response against the spike protein of SARS CoV-two. So what what's what's do you think about that?

That that's exactly what going on here. Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. They do not measure the spike protein in itself. This they measure the u moral immune response.

In other words, again, antibodies immunoglobulins. That's what they test. They all do that indirectly through that's what humoral anti humoral immune response means. It's antibody test essentially. And so so it goes back to what I said before.

Nobody does the finding spike protein as such. While, you know, other proteins like the c reactive proper protein, it's tested directly. So why don't they do it for the spike protein? And and just to add one one comment, the thing is, see, my position is more radical than whatever is is proposed by people who propose the spike protein. Because in my case, if I'm right and I think I'm right because all the literature shows that, these are not even they cannot even be called vaccines.

They're just toxic bombs because if they're not able to produce any viral antigen, that means they don't perform as vaccines. So they're not vaccines. They're just toxic bombs. So the the criticism is much more radical and goes to the fact that the and they knew that because as I said, all the literature up to when they release the vaccines show shows what I said, impossibility of entering the cell. So when Pfizer released the vaccine in Moderna, they knew very well that no spike protein would be produced and they would only intoxicate people.

But are you are you alone with your view? I mean, or is there at least, a certain number of of people? Yeah. Yeah. Thinking the same way you do or and expressing it also.

I think I'm pretty alone in the sense that, you know, I haven't, I haven't, this is my first international interview, you know, in in this area. Yeah. There are some people I know in Italy, some researchers who agree with me, but, of course, we are a minority. What about the other experts, saying that, SARS CoV 2 and other viruses has not have not been proven, like Andrew Kaufman, Samantha Bailey, and so on. I haven't talked to I haven't talked to them about this.

So, maybe maybe with this interview will be a way of getting in touch with them and and, involved in them in this debate. But, I think what I'll do, I'll try at least to translate into English the section of the of my book that talks about this. So there will be also the or the bio b biographical, bibliographical indication of the scientific studies that I'm quoting, about this showing that it's not just my idea. This is based on on the literature. I mean, you know, I have no interest in doing this that that differently.

If I add, you know, if if there were production of spike protein, I would probably join the group saying, well, by spike protein, it's toxic and generates, you know, harms. The thing is when I went to look at the literature because that's what I do, I found that this is a a just a story. I know. And then and then the spike protein itself. Does it exist in nature in your view?

Is it, definitely only, an artificial lab product or in in vitro in vitro, tests? Yes. Absolutely. Also, because the virus doesn't exist. You know?

If the virus doesn't exist because has been prove has never been proven to exist, has never been isolated, and we have almost 250 FOIA, freedom of information acts request around the world asking, can you show me the documentation about the the isolation and therefore identification and therefore existence of the virus? All 250 answered, we do not have it. K? Okay. But but in regarding the virus, it is said that, the virus does not exist, but the particles claim to be viruses do exist.

And they may be, for example, the particles, being produced by the body itself. The the particles claim to be spiked proteins. What is it then? Yeah. It's a spike protein produced in the laboratory.

It doesn't exist in nature because the spike protein is supposed to be a part of the virus that does has never been isolated and therefore doesn't exist. So in nature, there's no toxic spike protein, has never been found, never been isolated, never never been found in the blood. As I said before, I repeat, all they do, they take a synthetic, lab made, lab created protein that it's toxic. And they, you know, they put it in touch with the antibodies and say that the antibodies are specific in in the in this fraudulent way that I said before, and therefore, there must be spike protein in the body. But spike protein, if the virus is not proven to exist, there is no spike protein of the virus either either.

And that's actually the case because the only spike protein existing it's the one made in the lab. In fact, sometimes and that's the other challenge. The other challenge that I I advance to the people who support these these thesis. Sometimes when I talk say these things, they they they react by saying, oh, but there's a lot of studies showing that the spike protein is toxic. Yes.

Go and read them. There are only studies on the recombinant spike protein on the protein made on the laboratory in the laboratory. So, again, the challenge is find the spike protein in the blood and then we talk. There's no such thing. There's no there's no one single study that does that.

It's only direct through antibodies, and despite protein tested, it's always the recombinant protein be within the lab, mainly in Chinese lab. Regarding the lipid nanoparticles, you you say, the, yeah, the actual toxic, components. Effect checkers of, the German television network are, ARD reported that a study showed that these lipid nanoparticles in fact cost information in mice, but that the nanoparticles studied are not identical to the ones used by BioNTech, and Moderna and the mRNA vaccines as, an expert, named, who was a full professor of pharmaceutical biology at the University Nuremberg, explained, therefore this 4 months is saying, would, he would be cautious about drawing conclusions, conclusions about other vaccines. Also the study was on mice. So the results cannot be directly transferred to humans.

Moreover, he says that local information may well be desirable in a vaccination. So, what do you think about that? Well, if I I would agree with the with the person who says that, but then we would close toxicology. In other words, toxicology should be closed tomorrow because all the toxicological studies, oh, look at that. They it's always done on animals.

Why don't they do it on humans? Why don't they inject poison on humans to test it? Well, they've done we've done it with the vaccine. But in terms of toxicological studies, the the parameter, the the standard is animal studies because the idea is that if something is toxic to the body, to the body of an animal, may be toxic to to to a a human. There are parameters like safety reduction standard so that when you when you use a dose on a mice, then you reduce that of 10 10 times because of interest interspecies variation and then another 10 times for interspecies variation, there's mechanisms to to pass from animal to humans.

But that's the standard of toxicology. If you don't accept that, then you toxicology should close tomorrow. And the other thing is I would ask this person, why is it then if it's not the the the toxicological studies on animals are not valid claiming that toxicology is to be closed tomorrow. Why is it that the study that did Pfizer on the new Omicron vaccine, it's done it's been done on on 8 mice. Why that why would that be valid then?

That that they shouldn't be valid either. So the point is if the mRNA is toxic in itself, in fact, is more toxic than the lipids. And so what in your view is the hardest evidence that the lipid nanoparticles are toxic? Well, there's a lot of studies, in literature showing that, you know, PEG and the other and these other lipid nanoparticles are toxic. It's in the literature done clearly on mice or or other animals because you don't do toxicological studies on humans by definition.

Recently, a globally unique study has been published showing that, toxic components mainly metal elements such as cesium, barium, titanium, and aluminum are contained in all samples of, of COVID gene injections from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna. And another ingredient of concern mentioned by critics, of these gene injections, Graphene Oxid, but the European medical association writes us that it has not seen any credible evidence from its evaluations or from ongoing testing that any COVID nineteen vaccine is terminated with Graphene Oxide, which is not a recognized excipient in medicines. What is your knowledge about Graphene Oxide? Yeah. Yeah.

Graphene oxide. Yeah. The thing is, I don't exclude that besides these very two toxic component that are declared, mRNA synthetic mRNA and synthetic lipid nanoparticles. I don't exclude that there may be something else. We had the germ the the Japanese government sent back 4,000,000 doses of Moderna because they found particles of steel in in the vaccine which may be also due due to contamination.

So it's possible that there's something else. It's not necessary to explain the toxicity, as I said, because mRNA synthetic mRNA and synthetic lipids are enough to explain all the toxic results of these vaccines, but there may be something else. As to Graphene, there may be some other metals, you know. But as to Graphene, I tend to be suspicious in the sense that, I also believe that there's no so far credible evidence of the presence of Graphene. I've seen studies by a few researchers like the the the Spanish researchers where they talk about, or other researchers doing like dark field microscopy.

And dark field microscopy is a very good tool. I use it too. In fact, I'm a I'm a certified dark field microscopist among other things. But the thing is, you can see the blood that is like rotten. You know.

You can see these images of blood really reduced to with a lot of cloth blood cloth and a lot of, you know, dark material. It it's really, bad after you you vaccinate you you're vaccinated with these vaccines. But the thing is when they get to the graphene, both the, Spanish researchers, the Italian researchers that I saw, they say, we found dark particles that look like graphene, resemble graphene. Now this is not a conclusive finding. You know, I I saw, recently, Campra's this this Spanish researcher saying that it tested the the the presence of graphene also with the with the vibrational methodology and the vibration of this thing, seem to correspond as of all I mean, we're we're entering a field that it's not really solidly scientific anymore.

So, why do we need to get into this very shaky ground, you know, being more liable to being accused of being, you know, like, charlatans or anything like that. We don't need that. If you really wanna work on graphene, take the blood, take the particles that are dark, test them chemically to find if it's graphene or not. You cannot come up with the, oh, it looks like graphene and then everybody, oh, there's graphene in the vaccine. This is not the way it should work.

It's not a serious way of proceeding. So last point, there are also fears, that vaccinated vaccinated people are contagious. Biomedical expert, Philip Van Wahlbergen, for example, recently claimed that unvaccinated, other than the mRNA vaccines, unvaccinated people have Graphene and nano particles in their blood that are transmitted by people who have received the gene injections against COVID, are such fears justified? No. The That that vaccine vaccinated people are contagious.

No. They're not contagious because, for one thing, since there's no production of spike protein, what they how do they con you know, do contagion to anybody else? The thing is, these guys saying graphene is, you know, somehow transmits and contagious. But, again, there's no proof that there's there's graphene. And all these stories about the Graphene being a transmitter and so forth.

It's all in the stage of, you know, a lot of, you know, storytelling, but there's not really anything, substantial being, you know, that has come out yet. So no. There there's no Besides, personally, I don't believe to the contagion theory in general. And, But, but he's also referring to the nanoparticles. And the nanoparticles can can something toxic from the vaccines, transmit, from the vac vaccinated person to another person.

No. In fact, all the literature, scientific literature explains that these nanoparticles, they're deposited, as I said, these Japanese biodistribution study showed that it's deposited in all the organs and it's very difficult for the body on its own to take them out of the organs and the tissues where they where they are. So there there cannot they they don't transmit to anyone. In fact, the only thing that I've seen people getting sick after getting getting close to a vaccinated person, But, you know, who are these people? People who listen to people who are saying that the vaccinated people are are contagious, they get into paranoia, and 2 days later, they're sick.

Why? It's the mind. So thank you, Stefano, for this, very interesting talk and for the time you, you you, yeah, took to to do this talk. And, thank you also to all the viewers, for taking the time and yeah. See you hopefully soon.

Bye. Thank you. Thank you very much.