Bret Speaks with Ed Dowd on the subject of COVID-19 vaccines, focusing on the quantification of excess deaths, disabilities, and injuries.Find Ed Dowd on X at https://x.com/dowdedward, references to his research projects at https://www.humanityprojects.info and his book "Cause Unknown": The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Children’s Health Defense) https://a.co/d/gCFCCkE *****This episode is sponsored by American Hartford Gold. Get up to $5,000 of free silver on your ...
Their entire argument about what it is that makes us safe, they've interfered with every step of it.
There's no way to be safe.
This thing should have been pulled in the early days.
Safety signals flared all over the place in the VAERS database.
It's undeniable.
Well, it should have been pulled in the early days from the point of view of what we on the outside can deduce.
But the fact that they got rid of their control group in a fashion that was so rapid that it's impressive tells you they may well have known what was coming.
These things should never have been given emergency use authorization.
And I will also point out from the point of view of what to track going forward, the ultimate battle is over whether or not they committed fraud.
Because if they committed fraud, their immunity to liability goes away.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sitting this afternoon for me, this morning for my guest with Ed Dowd.
Now, Ed Dowd has, I think it is fair to say, come over to the light side of the force.
He was at BlackRock managing Some large number of billion dollars.
And he is therefore a finance guy who came to prominence when he met Dr.
Robert Malone at a mandate protest in Hawaii where Ed lives.
I guess from there I will ask you, I will just say welcome to Dark Horse and ask you to tell me more about that story.
Thank you so much, Brighton.
It's an honor to be here.
I first started to become aware of Dr.
Malone from your Dark Horse podcast, the infamous podcast where you and Steve Kirsch and Dr.
Malone started a fury, so to speak.
That's when Dr.
Malone started to be attacked and you started to be attacking Steve Kirsch.
Watching that in real time was super fascinating for me.
Then I found out that Dr.
Malone was coming to Maui because the state of Hawaii had draconian lockdowns and mandates.
He came twice.
I met him in October of 2020.
One.
I was invited to a dinner.
I made the short list because of my background.
We became friendly.
He and I started talking.
I said, look, I have a suspicion that this vaccine may be harmful.
Anecdotally, I was seeing things on the island of Maui.
It started with anecdotes for me.
That's how it always starts in the investment world, anecdotes.
Then you do some research.
Then you come up with a thesis.
Then you take a position in a financial security.
I said, look, I have a suspicion there's something going on here.
We'll find out more if I monitor the insurance companies and the funeral homes.
Sure enough, over time, as this data came out, Dr.
Malone would retweet me on Twitter, and I started to become prominent in the alternative news media with our discoveries.
I hooked up initially with Josh Sterling, Who was an ex-Wall Street insurance analyst for Sanford Bernstein.
He became No.
1 II ranked, which is a privilege and an honor.
We understood the insurance industry.
We started looking at the insurance industry and CDC data, and we discovered some very interesting things early on.
That's how my prominence began.
I then hooked up with two individuals in Portugal.
Carlos Alegria and Yuri Nunes.
They're both PhD physicists.
They saw me on some of the interviews.
We started talking, we formed a firm, and we decided to methodically and academically tackle our thesis that the vaccine is causing excess deaths, disabilities, and injuries.
We have a wealth of documentation, thousands and thousands of hours of work We put it all online.
We put some of our papers on ResearchGate.
We've had Dr.
David Wiseman assist on one of our papers on cancer trends in the U.S. This is a serious operation.
It's not just me with some spreadsheets spotting theories.
We also have five volunteers who want to remain anonymous, two other PhDs.
We have a retired insurance executive, and then we have PR people that help us with marketing our research.
This is not just Ed Dow.
This is the brainpower of some pretty sophisticated people.
We've presented what we think is a great theory of the case, that over the last Three-plus years since the mandates.
The health of the country, and we look at the U.S. and U.K. mostly, but we've seen similar trends in the U.K. and the U.S. where there's been excess deaths, disabilities have been on the rise, and there's a category we call injuries, which we quantify in work time loss and absence rates, which both We're corroborated in the U.K. and the U.S., almost to the same standard deviation in 2022, 12 times above trend in work time lost and absence rates.
We're just counting real-world changes in databases.
We focus in the finance world on inflection points and trend changes.
And there's clearly, across the globe, a trend change that occurred when vaccination started.
And of course, the naysayers will say correlation is not causation.
But at some point, it becomes evident that this should be looked at.
And what I've been really upset about is that the healthcare authorities and the government regulators don't seem to care at all about what we found.
And in many ways, they tried to downplay it and or propagandize us into this is now the new normal.
Well, I'm very eager to hear what it is you have to present, but I do want to point out that this issue of correlation does not equal causation is so badly misunderstood by even the educated public that I think it's important to just review the actual status of that claim.
Correlation does not in and of itself imply causation, but correlation very definitely does imply causation when it is preceded by a causal hypothesis.
So this is a question of the philosophy of science, and those who think that you can dismiss any correlation from implying causation are just simply not on solid ground.
In this case, if you have the suspicion, based on what you've seen, that the mRNA shots, for example, are causing injury and death in excess of what you would see otherwise, then from that point going forward, if that trend is manifest in the data as correlation, it does imply causation.
Does it nail it as proof?
No.
But the fact is we don't traffic in proof inside of science.
We have what we call a hypothesis that has matured because it has been attempts to falsify it have failed and it has withstood those attempts.
We call that a theory.
It is the standing theory.
There should be exactly one of them at most.
There can be no theories for something, only hypotheses.
And then if one hypothesis has withstood tests and none of the others have, then you have a theory.
So anyway, I'm not having any of this Correlation does not imply causation if you've done the work carefully, as you have, with a hypothesis that you went looking at the evidence and you found there was a correlation that pointed in that direction.
I want to go back to my investment experience to show your audience how investors think, and good investors.
A lot of us on Wall Street, we analyze trend changes, and we use math to do that.
We look at standard deviation events.
All over the work we've done on the vaccines, there were many multiple standard deviation events of inflection points.
If this was a stock, let's say disabilities, for example, Disabilities were trending sideways for five years prior to 2021.
Then, if you look at the chart of U.S. disabilities, it started to inflect in February of 2021, and rose at a rate that was three standard deviations above normal trending of that trend, and then proceeded to add an additional 4 million disabled individuals in the U.S. in about two years, into June of 2023.
If this is a stock, We have a hypothesis.
We see the change in trend.
We buy, and then we do our work.
We see the change, we buy it first, and then we fill it in with our work because that's what good investors do.
They don't really understand what's going on.
They just know something's changed, and they make the investment, and then they figure out why, and then they try to figure out if it's sustainable or if it's a flash in the pan.
A lot of times when I was buying stocks, I didn't understand exactly what was going on.
We called it a starter position.
We'd buy 50 basis points into our portfolio, then go do the work.
But you knew something had changed.
That's why my colleagues and I from the finance world are here, and we think we add value to this discussion because the data sets are so big and so massive that we've seen so many trend changes, so many inflection points that we think At the very least, the vaccines need to be on the table for investigation, and to date, they have not been.
Well, I would just point out that this is one way in which the value of finance people who are willing to be public about the way they do their work is so great, and I think largely misunderstood in a space like this, because the good thing about finance Maybe there are more,
but from my perspective as somebody who wants to understand what's taking place in the world is that the tools that are used to manipulate our understanding of our world and the universe that I live in don't apply.
Your portfolio does not have a value based on how good people think you are as an investor.
It has a value based on whether or not you accurately understood what was undervalued, what was overvalued, what was likely to change in value.
And so the point is, you know, Ed Dowd has been trafficking in misinformation in the markets.
And it's like, well, that's not even a thing, right?
He's invested.
And if he's broke, that tells us that his information wasn't high quality.
And if he's getting richer, then that tells us that whatever method he's using is apparently functional.
So anyway, I love that you have come over from that world and are applying those tools in a place where, frankly, the entire battle has become over, you know, credibility and controls on whether you can convey your message online when the real question should be, in science, As it is in investing, the question is, do you have predictive power?
That's the arbiter of whether something is scientifically correct.
It is not whether or not scientific authorities like it or see it or understand it.
If it takes 500 years for scientific authorities to come around to your perspective, it doesn't mean it was wrong for all of those years.
The question is, in the end, did it predict what happened in the world better than other things?
So anyway, I appreciate your bringing that toolkit.
Thank you.
And what we did, we had evidence early.
We made a hypothesis.
And then since then, over the last two-plus years, we've filled in all across the T's, dotted the I's.
And if this was a stock, it would have been a home run investment because we were early, and it looks like we're going to be right.
So on Wall Street, there's a saying, be loud, be early, be right.
Nice.
All right.
So there are a couple of things I want to come back to later, but why don't we launch into what it is that you have found, what it means, what it doesn't mean, how it compares to what others have presented.
And I'll let you lead.
Yeah, thank you.
We took a stab in 2022 at something called our Vaccine Damage Report.
We tried to quantify three buckets of the human cost, and then we also estimated an economic cost for the U.S. alone, just the U.S. We took a stop in 22, and then I was tasked with going before Senator Ron Johnson, and you were there as well in 2023, so we updated our numbers.
Our numbers that I'm going to talk about are for 21, 22, and 23.
The good news is the 24 numbers are coming in way better than 23, 22, and 21.
That's most likely due to booster uptake is abysmal.
That's good news.
The bad news is, and we'll get into this, the long-term effects and medium-term effects that are unquantifiable, but we'll take a stab at that.
We did this report.
And we focused mostly for Senator Ron Johnson on the civilian labor force, the working age people.
But what I'm going to give you is the total population of the U.S. And then we're going to do some simple math and give you some ranges of what potentially has happened globally.
So, it's three buckets.
It's deaths, excess deaths.
It's disabilities and injuries.
An injury could be temporary, long-term, or permanent, and not necessarily a disability.
Here we go.
Hold on.
I want you to clarify something.
Maybe I just spaced out for a second.
You said the three buckets are deaths, injuries, and disabilities?
Correct.
And it's a funnel.
Injuries are temporary.
Injuries are the biggest number, disabilities, and then deaths.
You know, we like large data sets.
And we think, if you had to ask us what proves the theory of the case, the best of our disability work shows what's really going on with the vaccine.
The deaths, while headline-grabbing and tragic, the data is better in larger data sets.
So, the disability work we've done, we think, is really the smoking gun.
So let me just understand that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that because you have a continuum of severity and deaths are the most severe, that means they're also the least common.
And because they're the least common, the amount of the data is noisier than it would be with a larger data set.
Okay.
This episode is sponsored by American Hartford Gold.
It's never been easier than this week to argue that your assets may be safer in metals than in financial instruments whose actual value is opaque and impossible to predict.
And we've said in previous ad reads for American Hartford Gold, you already know just how unstable our institutions are becoming and how incompetent our so-called experts already are.
Interest rates are sky high.
We're caught between runaway inflation and recession.
The cost of food, housing, medical care, schools, everything is climbing.
Our leaders increasingly make no sense.
All of this threatens businesses, jobs, and retirement funds.
Finding ways to secure your nest egg and insulate your wealth is more important than ever, and adding precious metals to your assets is a great way to stabilize your investments and protect yourself financially.
American Hartford Gold is a precious metals dealer that can help you do just that.
American Hartford Gold helps individuals and families protect their wealth by diversifying with precious metals.
They make it simple and easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
With one short phone call, you can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k.
They are the highest rated firm in the country with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau.
And thousands of satisfied clients.
And if you call them right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
Contact them today by visiting the link in the episode description below or call 866-828-1117.
That's 866-828-1117.
Or text Dark Horse to 998899.
Again, that's 866-828-1117.
Or text Dark Horse to 998899.
So, in the US, and we were corroborated by a Twitter expert, an ethical skeptic, who's done a tremendous amount of work on this as well.
We came up with approximately the same number, and the gold standard is all-cause excess mortality, which means everything.
And we actually calculated our own method.
We have our own methodology papers on how to calculate excess deaths because there's debate about what's an excess death.
We have three different methodologies.
We love our method 2C, which is documented on our website.
So, it's population adjusted and whatnot.
So, the number for 21, 22, and 23 was 1.1 million all-cause excess mortality deaths.
Okay.
Just repeat that so we can get it.
1.1 million all-cause excess mortality above the 10-year trend line in the U.S. For which period?
21, 22, and 23.
21, 22, and 23.
Okay.
And so the audience knows there were 500,000 excess deaths pre-vaccine in 2020.
It's 500,000.
So, just based on that alone, let's not use the word vaccine.
This is the point I made in front of Senator Ron Johnson.
If you had to do a scorecard of how the authorities did, they didn't do very well.
Excess mortality was the same in 2021, about 500,000, and then it's trailed off since then.
1.1 million individuals excessively died during the implementation of the policies that the governments undertook in the U.S., at least the U.S. government.
So then we said, well, how many of those are vaccine deaths?
Well, are all of them vaccine deaths?
Maybe, maybe not.
There's confounding factors.
There's lockdown effects.
There was treatment issues, couldn't get access to healthcare.
So we looked at VAERS. So VAERS is the gold standard of There are 16,800 COVID-19 vaccine deaths in the VAERS database system over those three years.
As an aside, an interesting stat is 99% of all those vaccine deaths occur within five days.
That number is likely low, but let's just use that number.
We'll just use VAERS. These are doctors recording COVID-19 vaccine deaths in the VAERS database.
If you take that number, you then have to consider what's called an under-reporting factor.
In the early days, there was a lot of discussion about that.
Before getting on the show with you today, we talked to Dr.
Jessica Rose, who is an expert on VAERS. She's sliced and diced it.
We asked her about what's a conservative under-reporting factor.
20 seems to be very conservative.
This is how I'm going to get to my ranges.
A factor of 20.
A factor of 20 is very conservative.
41 is on, would be our upper range.
Dr.
Jessica Rose has come up with 31 is her own number.
So she's right in the middle.
She's between 20 and 41.
So the range is...
So that means that...
20 times the number that we see reported is the expectation.
You're not saying it's 20% low or it's 20% of the time.
No, 20 times.
20 times, yes.
And the CDC has done their own studies of the underreporting factor.
So this is a phenomenon that's well known in the medical circles.
There is an underreporting factor within the VAERS system.
And the debate has always been, what's the range?
Well, 20 is very conservative.
41 would be the upper band.
So if we take...
The 16,800 times 20, we get 336,000 vaccine deaths potentially in the US during those three years.
The upper range would be 41, which would be about 700,000 vaccine deaths.
That's the range of what we believe are vaccine deaths from the COVID mRNA vaccines in the US during that period.
So Carlos wanted you to know, if you had to ask him where he thinks the real number is, he thinks it's between 700,000 and 1.1 million.
So that's him.
In the U.S. alone.
Yeah.
But, you know, we're trying to be conservative and give work.
Understood.
And the U.S. population at the moment is 333 million.
333 million.
Got it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Another thing that should be known, a lot of times I talk about excess death rates or percentages.
It should be understood that when you say millennials are dying at 30% excess, that's a huge rate, huge standard deviation.
It's like a once-in-a-200-year flood.
But the absolute numbers are low.
So most of these deaths that we've seen have occurred at 64-plus.
So the majority of the people who died were older individuals.
Hold on, hold on.
Sorry.
I just know that my job in the universe is to make sure that people understand what you're saying.
Can you describe what a standard deviation is?
People will have heard that term, but they'll have a vague relationship with it.
Right.
So there's around a normal distribution we look at in finance and scientists look at it as well.
How different from the average is the observable event?
And if it's three standard deviations, that happens 0.3% of the time.
So it's very rare.
So wait, wait.
0.3% of the time.
And I'm going to get some math wrong here and you're going to fix it.
But what we're really saying is...
Most years, in fact, almost no years, will hit the exact average number of deaths.
And so the question is, how far off is this year from the expected average?
And a 1 in 300 year event is what you're talking about.
1 in 200 year, as quoted by the CEO of One America, when he reported 40% excess mortality in millennials.
In the fourth and first quarter of 2020, 21 and 22.
He said 10% excess mortality is once in a 200-year flood.
Wait, wait, wait.
I think your example was millennials.
Yes.
Remind me of the number with millennials.
What was the excess?
It's come down since then, but it peaked out.
In all of 22, it was 40%.
And it actually went to peak 40%.
40%.
And how many standard deviations is that?
He said it was uncalculable.
It's over 20.
10% would be a three standard deviation event.
So it was up there.
To give your audience an idea of what three standard deviations is, we did this to educate people on standard deviations, so a real-world event.
In your lifetime, Brett, the chance of you getting hit by lightning at least once is 3.8 standard deviations, so not very likely, correct?
Not very likely.
I have had a run-in or two with lightning, but I've never been hit.
A five standard deviation event is the chances of you giving birth to a seven-foot human being.
Not all at once, but that becomes seven foot tall.
I actually think, I mean, forgive me, maybe I'm just bent out of shape by all this gender discussion, but I think the chances of me giving birth to such a person is zero.
Oh, and you know what you're in your family.
Oh, my family.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then 10 standard deviations is the likelihood of a nine-foot Thanos-type character being born into the world.
So I just wanted your audience to understand how rare when we see signals like this.
And so in finance and science, when you see signals like this, that's...
Well, hold on, hold on.
Let me just...
And again, there is...
You and I are friends.
I will not be in any way hurt.
In fact, I will be grateful if you correct things that I say that are incorrect in any way.
Okay?
What is the likelihood of X being compared to these standard deviations?
The likelihood of seeing a year that looks like this, if nothing interesting is going on, just random noise, how many years would you have to wait to see one this unusual?
So let's say that there was nothing new going on, but some years more millennials die, some years less millennials die.
How many years do you have to wait to see a year this unusual if there's no cause?
Is that correct?
Yes.
And the CEO of One America said a 10% excess mortality would have been a three standard deviation effect, but we had 40.
10%.
Yeah, so we had three at 10, but we didn't have 10.
We experienced 40 in 2022 in his group life policies.
And how many standard deviations was that again?
It had to be north of 20.
The 40 was above 20.
20 standard deviations.
And he said 10% is three standard deviations, which he characterizes once in a 200-year flood at just 10%.
So, what this is telling us, if we do the inference correctly, is that there is at least one gigantic force acting on millennials in this period in order for you to see such an anomalous year.
The chances that it is simply statistical fluctuation is so near to zero that it is not worth worrying about the distinction.
It's effectively zero.
Something was introduced into the world that caused this.
It wasn't just weather.
Something happened that caused this anomaly.
Something bad happened.
Now, let me ask you another question.
Again, I'm just going to use my judgment here.
You said excess deaths are going down, which you think is likely the result of low booster uptake, but are they still elevated?
They're still elevated.
Okay, so I want to just point out because people will miss it.
So they're coming down.
That sort of feels like sigh of relief.
The problem with that, correct me if I'm wrong, is that when you have an anomalously high year of injuries or especially deaths, You would expect following years to have an anomalously low one, because to the extent that there are people out there who are vulnerable for whatever reason, they're harboring a pathology, maybe they don't even know they have it.
They're so old that they are looming close to death.
Whatever the reason is that you're vulnerable, These impacts that harm generations or the entire population will tend to cull those who are vulnerable for other reasons first.
And when those people are gone, it leaves a population that has been selected for not being vulnerable.
For an anomalously high year, you would expect it to be followed by anomalously low years.
And the more years you go where the number is elevated, the more you should be scratching your head.
What could possibly be doing this?
If all of the vulnerable people are being culled out of these generations, then why are the remaining generations still elevated with respect to their rate of death?
That's truly alarming.
And the math for calculating how you think about You know, a 20 standard deviation year followed by a 10 standard deviation year.
How you calculate the compounded anomaly, I don't know.
I mean, I guess I can sort of see how you would do it.
But do you agree that consecutive anomalously high years tell an even starker story?
Yes.
There's something called the pull forward effect.
If it was all COVID, let's say it was just all COVID, we know that the initial strain was more virulent than Omicron.
We should be normalized now.
In fact, we should have gone below trend because of the pull forward effect.
We have not.
One of my insurance whistleblowers told me that the old folks, because there was a huge pull-forward effect in 2020, 2021, and 2022, the old folks are running at negative 5% excess mortality.
That's because of the pull-forward effect.
But the millennials, the working age, I think it's 25 through 64.
That's not necessarily millennials, but that working age group is still experiencing 10% to 20% excess mortality.
Still 10% to 20%.
Yeah.
The reason why is because the absolute numbers are a lot smaller because people that age aren't expected to die.
The absolute numbers are smaller, but the trend is still going on.
The pull-forward effect is less severe.
Otherwise, we would have the same thing going on with the older folks.
But what we suspect is going to happen is the pull-forward effect will not normalize and excess death, and the older folks will start to go back up again.
We expect Excess mortality has come down, and then when the older people pull forward effect is washed through, we think overall population-level excess mortality will go back on the rise to somewhere between 5% and 10% run rate.
And that's been corroborated by an ethical skeptic who also believes somewhere between 5% and 10% run rate.
And so you would expect this to be mirrored by a significant decrease in expected longevity for given a birth year.
Are we seeing that?
You know, we haven't done the math on that, and there's a lot of hyperbole around that, but yes, there's been reports that the average lifespan has come down since 2019, for sure.
That was one of my predictions.
I said that this was going to produce that effect.
Yeah.
And anyway, yeah, I'll be interested to see when those numbers come out.
So, all right, I've interrupted you, I don't know, 16 times now.
Let's get on with the math.
I gave you the range of what we believe could potentially be vaccine deaths in the US for those three years.
Now, we're going to jump to Bureau of Labor Statistics database.
This is straight from the government website.
It was running between $29 million and $30 million for the prior five years going into 2021.
So, what I'm about to tell you is there were no excess disabilities in 2020.
None, Sarah.
None.
Well, actually, okay, so let's just...
I'm going to be doing this to you all podcast, sorry.
Let's think about what that implies.
In 2020, the reason that this year is so special is that it is the control year where there was COVID and the vaccines had not yet been introduced.
Correct.
So, to the extent that COVID is causing something, we should see it in 2020.
And the fact that you see no excess disability, disability is a category, right?
Correct.
The fact that you see no excess disability actually mirrors something that we have seen in other analyses, which is that the people who were seriously harmed tended to be very old and infirm already.
That this disease did have an effect on people, but it tended to affect people who were infirm for other reasons, including very advanced age.
So you wouldn't expect them to show up in the disability category if they're already disabled.
They don't show up as excess disabilities because they're already on that list, or they're not able in the first place because they're 80.
So anyway, that's interesting.
2020, you don't see disability.
Doesn't mean you don't see illness.
Doesn't mean you don't see people I've been sidelined for a couple weeks, but am I right about that?
Well, and disabilities is all ages.
The interesting thing is, if you look at the graph, disabilities actually dipped quite a bit in 2020.
Now, we don't know why.
It could have been that there were problems getting the data because of lockdowns.
But to what you just said, the people who are already disabled and elderly potentially expired.
So, during 2020, there were less disabled people to survey.
Again, this is a monthly survey.
This is real-time data.
It's a monthly survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, just like they do the payroll estimates.
These are estimates, but they sample 50,000, 60,000 people every month with phone calls.
They change it up.
These numbers are generally right.
It's not an exact number, but it's in the ballpark.
What was interesting was, starting around February of 2021, we saw a trend change, and it inflected up.
Think of a stock price basing for five years, and then it goes like this, and then goes like this.
Over the course of two years going into June of 2023, We added 4 million disabled individuals in the U.S. from approximately 30 to 34.
And let's remind people about what was taking place.
And maybe you'll have to remind me, but February of 2021 would have been early in the vaccine rollout.
And remember, the rollout, the vaccines were not available to everybody simultaneously.
So you would expect You know, they used to go to people who were already pretty infirm first, with some exceptions like first responders and doctors and things who were early on the list.
So you would begin to see that inflection point, but then they roll across the entire population over the space of how many months?
Do you remember?
I think it really started ramping in January through April, and then there were the mandates.
And the mandates, we saw, again, not my data, the site of actuaries saw in their group life policy survey an acceleration from 20% to 30% excess mortality in the age range 25% to 44%.
It spiked to 80% in the third quarter of 2021, which just happened to coincide with the Biden mandates.
Don't forget, the mandates were rolling in before Biden signed the executive order.
Wall Street led the way.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley led the way in August.
Then Fortune 500 companies followed, and then the executive order took care of all the midsize companies.
Fortune 500 companies were all on board even before Biden wrote an executive order.
My explanation for this pull-forward effect and this temporal spike to 80% was, You're a millennial.
You're either vaccine-hesitant or you already knew it likely wasn't going to kill you and you're lazy.
It's one of those two.
You didn't want to take it.
Or you're just lazy.
I remember when I was in my 30s, I was lazy about getting a flu shot or any of that stuff.
It was not my jam.
I thought I was never going to die.
They had a choice, keep the job or get the job.
That's what I think was one of the biggest smoking guns we saw is in the group life policy data.
The thing to remember about group life policy holders is they work for large corporations, Fortune 500 mid-sized companies.
This is a policy you get When you're on board with the company, it's usually one to two extra base salary.
It's a throwaway benefit.
It's funny.
I've done this many times.
You're on board to a company, you pick your healthcare plan, and then you sign your group life policy paper, and then you assign who you want to give the money to.
When I wasn't married, it was my dad and mom.
When I got married, it was my wife.
What do we know about Fortune 500 employees and these types of employees?
They tend not to be fentanyl or heroin addicts.
They tend not to commit suicide, and they tend not to get cancer screenings at that age.
I'm 57.
I still haven't gotten one.
One of the misnomers and the excuses that have been given for this time period is that people missed their cancer screening appointments.
That all decided to hit in the third quarter of 21.
You know, cancer screenings happen when you present with illness.
You don't go to the doctor and get cancer screened.
It's just not a thing.
It's too expensive.
So you get screened for cancer when you present with an illness, not as a daily or an annual check-up.
I've never gotten a cancer screening, personally.
Yeah, me either.
I've had my skin looked at just to see if there was anything anomalous, but no, a general cancer screening, no.
Yeah.
So, something temporally happened in the third quarter of 2021.
It's the Society of Actuaries data.
On our website, we've done our own analysis of excess mortality for the whole population, and we see similar type.
Our number, incidentally, wasn't as high for this age group for the general population as it was for the group life.
In fact, in the subsequent report, they determined that for the general U.S. population during that time period, excess mortality was 31%.
For that cohort, 40%.
You have to ask the question, are group-like policyholders generally less healthy than the overall population?
I would say no.
In fact, they did a study in 2016 that proved that was not the case.
That's why it's a great business.
You are insuring people who are likely not to die, and you charge companies money for that.
It's a great business.
So I just want to point out that this is the scam of insurance.
In this case, they don't have to do it through scam, but the idea of a risk pool in which you find reasons to exclude people who are likely to use the insurance, that's how you profit as an insurance company.
It's part of why, in my opinion, for-profit insurance is a problem if it's not regulated to force everybody to join the pool.
Right?
Because the companies will figure out how to insure the people who need it least and uninsure the people who need it most.
And it's a good business for them, but it doesn't do the job that insurance is supposed to do.
But in this case, you have a natural reason for people to be healthier.
So, of course, those are the people you want to insure.
Right.
There's a distinction in the insurance.
Group life policies are what we call not underwritten.
There's no need for a medical checkup.
But if you were to get a supplemental whole life policy for $1 million, or a term life policy for $1 million, whatever it is, Then you undergo what's underwritten.
They send a doctor.
They check you out.
They do an examination.
So this group, this group-like policy, they were just given it for free because the map has shown over time that it was a very healthy group of people that weren't expected to die.
And they could precisely figure out how to do it and make lots of money.
It's kind of like if I was to start an insurance company, I might be willing to insure people for an excellent rate, but they have to sign up, you know, at the top of Mount Whitney, right?
And it's like, okay, anybody who can get up there, I'm willing to give them a good rate, you know, and I'm not going to check them out, but the mountain checked them out.
It was typically seeking a diminished amount of money, one or two times your base salary.
In a lot of corporations, the bonuses are bigger than the base salary, depending upon what level you are.
It was not a lot of dollars they were putting at risk.
Yep.
All right.
Tell us what else we need to know.
All right.
So, we immediately shot up to 3 million in excess disabilities into June of 2022.
No, September of 2022.
Then we plateaued.
Then in June of 23, we quickly rose another million.
We've been plateauing ever since.
The good news, bad news is we've plateaued at this level.
That's the good news.
The bad news is we haven't come down.
If this was to normalize, it should be coming down.
My fear is, and we think also what's going on is that plateauing is some of those disabled people are dropping into the dead category.
And then over time, if the medium-term to long-term effects show up from these, it could spike again.
So it's plateauing.
So if I was a growth stock investor, it's consolidating before its next big breakout move, either it's up or down.
We don't know yet.
Well, I would also point out, so A, a plateau isn't really a plateau, logically speaking, because of the pull-forward effect.
You should expect a decline.
So a plateau reflects something remaining elevated.
But the other thing is, I wonder, one of the things that's been so dramatic here is that the range of pathologies is extremely broad.
And so there's a question about What is the range in lethality, the temporal range in lethality of the pathologies?
In other words, remember what you...
I know you remember, but people will remember what you said sometime earlier in the podcast about the VAERS system and the majority of deaths being within five days of inoculation, right?
But it doesn't really mean that the majority of deaths are within...
Five days of inoculation.
What it means is the likelihood that you end up in the VAERS system is dramatically higher.
If you die right after they pull the needle out of your arm, then the idea that this is a death that should be reported is quite clear.
Now, there's still a vast underreporting effect.
But if you die a day later, it's still fairly clear.
Two days later, it's still fairly clear.
But there comes a point At which somebody dies, and it's suspicious, but it's much less likely to find its way into the system.
So this is that same question.
We've got acute pathologies, which show up as deaths within, you know, a year of death.
Inoculation and that will plateau, but then we also have chronic conditions that are causing people to be sick over long periods of time.
We certainly have heard a lot about turbo cancers, but the question is, do we think they're causing only turbo cancers or are they also causing traditional slower cancers which aren't showing up in the system in large measure because it takes a while to get sick enough for you to go to the doctor and say, hey, what's going on?
So anyway, there's a question about Going forward, are there long-term pathologies that match the same pattern we've seen with the short and medium-term pathologies that will continue this trend indefinitely?
And it's very hard to even answer that question until you get to that point in history.
Hard to answer, but we had a kind of a groundbreaking report last summer.
We analyzed the UK disability.
It's called the Personal Independent Payment System, PIP. They go into much more granularity than our disability data, which is just one number.
There's no causes.
We got their database, and we created a baseline of new claims.
We started to see new excess claims starting to take off in 21, 22, and 23.
The pathologies, the body systems are all over the place.
Cancers, musculoskeletal, skin, blood.
The numbers are mind-boggling.
Overall, Of all the body systems, there was a 1.7% increase, I think, in 2020, which is no ice.
Then there was a 20% increase in 2021, and then a 76% increase in 2022.
Then it dipped a little lower in 2023.
It's like 68.
But it's going to bankrupt the UK personal independence system, these types of numbers.
You can go on our website.
We have interactive charts.
You can look at body system and then drill down into the specific Parts of the body system.
The pathologies are wide and varying.
As we roll through time, it's going to be harder and harder to pinpoint it to the vaccine, per se.
But we know now, there are things going on anecdotally in the big data sets that have changed, and they've changed dramatically.
This is going to be a problem for years to come.
All right, I want to take a little detour here.
One, we will likely never know, but one thing that I think is worth considering is that the dip that you see in 2023 is really downstream of A social phenomenon where a small number of us were able to resist the coercion and get the message out that what we
were being told about the safety of these inoculations was simply not A reasonable conclusion, either from the evidence or from the description of the mechanisms of action that this was not telling us that these shots were safe was a lie from the get go.
It had to be because to say something is safe is to say it is without risk.
And for a brand new inoculation, you couldn't possibly know that it was without risk.
So the discussions that we had largely in the world of podcasts and social media Had an effect, and that effect is twofold.
One, yes, it caused a degradation in the rate of inoculation, but what was the second effect?
Oh no, I've forgotten, Ed.
Darn, that doesn't happen very often.
Maybe it will come back to me as we are talking.
Yeah, go for your next point.
So, the disabilities are 4 million, and we ran some correlations to tracking all-cause and access mortality.
We found a relationship of this is all cause.
For every one excess death, there's four disabilities.
That's the number we're going to use going forward to make some estimates.
Again, it's a funnel.
Deaths are the smallest because of the most rare disabilities.
Are less rare, but they're smaller than the next bucket I'll talk about, which is injury.
Keep in mind, and again, this is all on our website.
We do the correlations.
We do the math.
For every one excess all-cause mortality death, It's for disabilities.
Now, if we were to do it against our estimate of vaccine injury, the ratio would be higher, but let's just use four.
Four is a good number.
Keep that in mind as I roll up into the global estimates that I'm going to talk about using the US data.
Now, let's talk about injuries.
Injuries, we did an analysis at the Pfizer clinical trials, and we discovered that there were events that happened.
Again, the categories were temporary, injury, long-term, or permanent.
We found in the vaccine arm, there were 18% more injuries than there were in the placebo group.
Now, mind you, the placebo group was not saline, so they had injuries, too.
So the 18% is the differential between the two groups.
Wait, wait, wait.
The placebo group was not given saline.
What were they given?
We don't know, but it had adjuvants.
It was, you know, it's your typical...
They don't give saline.
They give some other vaccine or something else.
So there were injuries associated with the placebo group because it wasn't saline.
So that in and of itself is...
Yes.
Beyond maddening.
For them to tell you that a shot is safe when they have loaded up the control group with something that will cause a certain number of injuries to mask the injuries that are caused by their goddamn shots is criminal in my opinion.
So the actual numbers were 23% injury in the vaccine arm, in the Pfizer arm, and 5% in the placebo group.
So to be conservative, we take the difference, 18%.
So we're using 18% of those who are vaccinated had some sort of reaction to it, whether it's temporary, long-term, or permanent.
So 18%.
The number we come up with using the number of vaccinated, which, if you go online, is 230 million, or about 70% of the U.S. population.
We had a range of between 28 million for the working age group, total population 41 million injured.
Something.
Something happened.
Interestingly enough, that's...
41 million injured, you say?
Yeah.
Total population.
That's a staggering number.
Correct.
But how does that manifest?
So, we looked at both in the UK and the US, work time, there's beautiful stats, lots of data, absence rates, and work time lost.
And the trends are very stable.
They don't move around.
And they started going crazy in 2021 and 2022.
In 2022, they came down in 2023, but there's still seven standard deviations above.
This is, again, how it manifests.
You miss work.
You're sick.
Something's happening with you.
12 standard deviations is crazy.
That's like a black swan event times two.
We saw a similar pattern in the UK, absence and work time loss data.
So, two countries crossed the pond, 21, 22.
So, when we talk about injuries, you could say, oh, Ed, that's just a made-up number.
Well, how does it manifest?
It manifests in real-world data.
So, here's our estimate of injured.
And, oh, by the way, here's a real-world statistic that's showing something's going on.
So, that's how it looks.
This two-countries thing, you've got...
Quality data from two countries that show the exact same black swan times two event.
That is Philosophy of science-wise, extremely powerful evidence of a cause.
In other words, remember that the idea is you could have a wildly anomalous year just by accident, but there's a level of anomaly that is so great that it's not worth wondering if it's an accident because the chances of such an accident are effectively zero.
When that happens in two countries at once in the same direction, that tells you that whatever is going on is highly likely to be a cause shared between those two countries.
Right.
And what's interesting is the absence of work time loss did go up a little bit in 2020, as you would expect as a lockdowns.
But what was telling was the acceleration into 22 from 21.
That's when it really took off.
And also in the UK, similar graphs and almost identical standard deviations, which we were like, well, it's the same standard deviation.
Wow.
That's wild.
So this does remind me of the thing that I forgot earlier, which was the second effect of what I believe was a small number of us, including both you and me, changing the public narrative by discussing what was unreasonable about what we were being told.
That also created an effective control group.
And I always wondered, and I spoke about it at the time, about whether their obsession with getting everybody to take the shots was about obscuring the harms.
That to the extent, just as we find that in their safety test, that they have actually created injuries in their control group, thereby masking the injuries done by their product, We're
good to go.
But the obsession may well have been about preventing us from being able to do the exact analysis that we're doing right now.
What is causing this?
Well, ultimately, we will get to the question of, well, Did this befall people who said no?
That's ultimately what this is going to hinge on.
And those are studies that need to be done, but we don't have the vaccine status.
This could be solved if we had excess mortality assigned to a vaccine status, which we don't have.
So, that's why we're guessing.
You know, I want to point out to your audience that the Pfizer clinical trial destroyed the control group because they said, oh, it's 99% effective and morally we cannot withhold it from the country.
So, they destroyed their own control group.
Right.
Which they do.
This is a little known fact.
I mean, it's well known in circles that think about clinical trials and how they are run, but it is little known by the public, which is that there is an ethical principle that says if in the process of testing a remedy, therapy, preventive,
you find that the efficacy is so high that We're good to go.
This is a metric that they shoot for.
They want to hit it because what happens is if they do hit that number, by whatever means, fraudulent or not, if they hit that number, they get to, in this case, vaccinate their control group, which then erases our ability to compare the two groups over time.
If there are long-term impacts, we won't be able to see them because now everybody's in the treatment group.
So that's a trick, and it is a trick.
This is not the only place that has happened.
So yes, it definitely happened here.
But that is standard operating procedure for these people.
They shoot for that target specifically so they can get rid of the control group, and it's diabolical.
The speed with which they got rid of this control group, I think, was one of the fastest ever, probably.
I mean, this was done...
I mean, I think you're right, and it is ethical, but I was shocked at how quickly they covered their tracks.
Yeah, they covered their tracks is right.
Logically speaking, this is unforgivable.
Look, I get it.
The theoretical argument that you've got people who are sick, or in this case are vulnerable to a disease that could make them sick, and they've participated in your study and you happen to have the thing that will immunize them, of course you've got to give it to them.
It's their moral right to have it.
I understand that, but that's not what's going on here.
We have a right to know long-term what the implication of these drugs are.
And if they were going to make the argument, you know, they would say, well...
Once we start introducing these things into the population, now we have a much larger sample with which to look at the long-term implications of these things.
If there's a signal, it'll show up.
Really?
Where?
VAERS. Really?
Are you checking?
If you were checking, what did you do with the unprecedented safety signal that was in there?
Why didn't that cause you to pull these things from the market or at least pause the program?
Right?
So the point is, their entire argument about what it is that makes us safe, they've interfered with every step of it.
There's no way to be safe.
This thing should have been pulled in the early days.
Safety signals flared all over the place in the VAERS database.
It's undeniable.
Well, it should have been pulled in the early days from the point of view of what we on the outside can deduce.
But the fact that they got rid of their control group in a fashion that was so rapid that it's impressive tells you they may well have known what was coming.
These things should never have been given emergency use authorization.
And I will also point out from the point of view of what to track going forward, the ultimate battle is over whether or not they committed fraud.
Because if they committed fraud, their immunity to liability goes away.
There's lots of what I would argue is prima facie evidence of fraud.
It would.
Correct.
And so if we can get a judgment that says this was fraud, fraud, then suddenly there's a question about whether or not all of the presumably ill-gotten gains that these people have managed to accumulate can be recovered and dedicated to helping those who were injured or killed recover.
Obviously the dead won't be recovering, but their families can recover from their loss.
So, you know, this is a very live question.
Even if the mRNA platform were never going to be used again, which is clearly not their plan, this needs to be kept alive because we have to get to the bottom of what happened.
And how it happened in order to make the people who were injured as whole as they can be.
I agree.
And this is one of those issues that I'm not going to let go of.
And I don't want to see this memory hold under any administration.
So this needs, you know, we're only as thick as our secrets and this needs to be a national conversation with everybody involved.
Absolutely.
All right.
So what else do we need to know?
All right, so let me roll these up into the global estimates.
And it's now, you know, we're using some back-of-the-envelope math, which is what we do as portfolio managers and analysts on Wall Street.
So I gave it the U.S. numbers, which we've done a lot of work on.
So how do you estimate global?
Well, you make some assumptions.
So we estimate that around 5 billion individuals, that's been widely reported, got the vaccine on the planet.
5 billion got which vaccine?
Just all vaccines.
So that's why we give these huge ranges.
Including the Sinovacs and the Sputnik?
Yeah, yeah.
That's why we give these wide ranges, because we don't want to over...
So, 5 billion people on the planet got a vaccine of some sort.
If you apply the range of the death rate in the US that I gave you earlier, you get a range of globally 7.3 million to 15 million died from the vaccine.
7 million to 15 million.
Yeah.
There's been a study by Dennis Rancourt.
We've looked at his methodology.
It's different than what we do.
We're not saying it's wrong.
It's an estimate.
He came up with 17 million, which I think you talked about.
Our upper range is right there with Dennis Rancourt.
Disabilities, when you look at the ratio of 4 to 1, you multiply the 7 million and the 15, possibly 15 million times 4, you get a range of 29.
Let me see.
I got to look at the numbers.
29 to 60 million disabled globally.
Okay.
29 to 60 million disabled globally.
Correct.
And then injuries, if you take 18% of the vaccinated, just using the Pfizer, so again, this could be money, but we get a range of, at the high end, 900 million, 500 million at the low end.
500 million to 900 million who had an injury that has not disabled them.
Yeah, correct.
One of the things that I think started this conversation between you and I, and I'd love for you to talk about is, you were on Joe Rogan recently talking about the fact that this vaccine seems to shut down your immune system, IgG4.
Gee, wouldn't that present a whole host of issues that might Be indicated in absence rate data and work time loss.
The scientists are coming up with the mechanisms.
We're not scientists doing that work.
We're just counting.
We're coming at it from two different ways, and we're getting explanations now.
So let me just connect a couple dots here.
So the IgG4, just I'll briefly re-explain it so people know what we're talking about.
It was discovered empirically that people who received two or more of the mRNA-based shots, and most of the shots given in the U.S. were mRNA-based, In fact, I think all the boosters are.
But people who got two or more of them had a class of antibody, IgG4.
So IgG is immunoglobulin G, and this is a subclass called IV. Immunoglobulin just means antibody.
So IgG4 showing up was interesting because IgG4 is known to be a signal that the immune system uses to turn itself down.
So you can imagine if you're having an allergic reaction to something that being more immune is not a good thing.
You want to be less immune.
And so the nature has given us a mechanism to turn down an immune response just as it has given us a histamine mechanism to turn one up.
To have the mRNA shots triggering people to produce IgG4 Associated with spike protein especially is alarming.
What it means is that there's something about these inoculations that is doing the opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do.
Not only they're failing to produce immunity, they're producing anti-immunity.
Anti-immunity to what?
Well, potentially lots of things.
If your immune system is turning itself down, then you're more vulnerable to anything that the immune system is fending off.
Let me connect one more item in here.
What that means is your burden, as long as these shots are affecting you, which could potentially be for the rest of your life, we don't know, then you are more likely to have more pathogenic illnesses.
How many more?
It's hard to say, but some more.
And the problem is that pathogenic illnesses do damage to the body.
That is inherently what happens.
And they do damage in, you know, one of a couple ways.
Bacteria can destroy cells, viruses commandeer cells, and then your own immune system destroys them.
So sickness, pathogenic illness, is a damage-causing mechanism.
Those damage-causing mechanisms take your lifetime capacity to repair and replace your tissues, and they put it on fast-forward.
If you lose a bunch of cells, you've got to replace them.
And you don't have an infinite capacity to produce cells forever.
We have finite limits on almost every tissue.
There are a couple of exceptional tissues, but almost every tissue has a limit to the amount of replacement tissue it can make.
So if you're getting sick more, and if you've watched what happened in the US and presumably around the world this summer, people were just regularly sick in a season when there would be very little illness in a normal year.
So, what is the effect of that?
Well, we should expect it was damaging the tissues of people who got sick and hastening all of the pathologies that come from reaching the end of your capacity to maintain your tissues.
It's aging them.
So, we should expect an IgG4 signal to be correlated with increased pathogenic illness and an accelerated rate of senescent, which will lead to decreased longevity.
It's that simple.
And why this is not alarming to the authorities that are charged with keeping us safe, I can't say, but that's bizarre.
Do you agree?
I do 100%.
I've been screaming from the rooftops.
These signals are everywhere.
And the science is starting to, you know, That's what we needed.
We needed people like yourself and others to come up with the mechanisms of action that can explain what we're seeing in the real world.
The real world signals should have at least launched an investigation.
I went before Senator Ron Johnson, and I've said to him privately, this is a national security concern, especially in the military.
I've talked to Colonel Theresa Long.
Between those who quit because they didn't want to get the job, those who are vaccine injured, and those who were having problems recruiting because of the woke ideology, we won't have a standing army in five years.
Because what people don't understand is, for every one person on the front line, there's seven support people.
So things just don't get launched when there's not enough people.
And that's where we're headed.
Yeah, and there's an even worse but more subtle problem, which is because the vaccine mandates existed in the military, they ended up selecting for people who were compliant.
That those who were not going to accept this, you know, and they refused religious exemptions, exemptions for people who had sensitivities.
So to the extent that there were people who were alarmed that they were being told to take what amounted to a gene therapy for which there was no long-term safety data, those people left or were punished until, you know, they were discharged.
Leaving a force that are the kind of people who don't resist these sorts of mandates.
And the question is, if somebody in the executive branch wishes to do harm to the American population and they need the military to be compliant, well, they now have a much more compliant force.
So not only do we have problems with morale and recruiting that come from a variety of things, some of it from the mandates, some of it from the woke ideology.
But the force that remains has been selected to be more readily abused.
So just as we find the lessons of informed consent that arose in the aftermath of World War II have been lost, we've also lost the idea that you must refuse immoral orders.
What we have is a force that has accepted immoral orders.
In this case, they've harmed themselves.
But, you know, it makes them much more likely to be willing to do unconstitutional things.
And that really is a reason for alarm well beyond the medical implications of these things.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long is retiring soon.
She did not get the vaccine.
She was a whistleblower.
And she is leaving the military and she's young.
Right?
Yeah, I've heard many of those stories and interviewed a number on Dark Horse.
It's very alarming.
All right, so what else do we need to know?
Well, so the good news is we, you, many other heroes had an effect in the world of, through a Whisper campaign, Stopping the booster uptake.
Some of it could have been also the thing didn't work.
People noticed on their own that you kept getting COVID even if you took it.
A combination of the two.
I believe we've mitigated some of the damage.
What we don't know are the long-term effects and how fast it'll accelerate and if they'll overwhelm us or not.
And there is a theory out there, I don't know how to pronounce his name, but Geert, who says that...
Yeah, he's predicting mass death at some point because of what's happened.
I hope he's wrong.
So I will offer one caution.
I've interviewed Garrett a couple times.
I like him.
I think he's a very careful thinker, and I believe he's on the side of righteousness.
I think his predictions about the proliferation of viral variants have been on target.
And so far, his predictions of mortality effects, at least the timescale is wrong.
I'm hoping, you're hoping, and I'm sure he's hoping that he's wrong altogether.
But anyway, a word of caution to the extent that he has said that a wave of death is coming.
The wave has come.
You found it, but it's smaller than the one he has predicted, thankfully.
Yeah.
The other thing to think about long-term economic implications from what just happened.
We took a stab at economic costs.
During the pandemic, there was about $40 billion in economic costs the 2020 year.
21 through 23, if you add up the three buckets, we've got about $235 billion in economic costs.
Now, that's from the national accounts, and it's not taking into effect the multiplier effect, lost productivity.
That $235 could be $1 trillion.
We don't know.
It's affected real-world counting in other areas, like the unemployment rate, we think is being undercounted.
Because of the disabilities, and this caused what we think is going to be one of the biggest Federal Reserve policy blunders ever, keeping rates this high this long.
Also, we're starting, I want to give people some hope as to some people are cluing in.
We've been contacted by one of the largest medical companies in the country.
I won't say which one.
They're trying to figure out why their clientele is dying off at accelerated rates.
The person who contacted us, the C-suite told him everything's on the table.
He found us, and we hope to be working with him soon.
Of course, this is an opportunity for us to start revenues for our company because We're not going to do that work for free, but what we've done has been for free for humanity.
It seems to me that as we roll through time, this issue is only going to get bigger.
If it doesn't, we have to make sure it does, because this is going to be with us.
We need solutions.
We need to think about the structure of the economy, what the long-term impacts are.
For me, we're going to be talking about this for the next 100 years, I think, unfortunately.
So this raises a question.
On the one hand, you've done a tremendous service for humanity looking at actuarial data, insurance data.
And insurance companies should be just like finance people who doesn't matter whether people think they're smart or not.
The question is, does the portfolio grow at an impressive rate?
Insurance companies ought to be quite indifferent to what people say about medical phenomena.
They ought to be very eager.
In fact, if they can figure out what other people believe that isn't true, then they're in a position to profit greatly because You know, insurance companies participated in getting people vaccinated to the extent that they had a bunch of people that they insured who then they steered in the direction of a remedy that was actually toxic.
That's bad for the bottom line.
So you would imagine that insurance companies would get really good at just ignoring what they're being told and following the evidence where it leads.
But that is not happening.
And that's the question.
Let's take the case of statins, for example.
Here you have a drug that we are now coming to understand was Of no real benefit to most of the people who took it.
Almost all of them, in fact.
That it was about treating a metric, and the metric was misportrayed.
And, you know, at the same time, insurance companies, you know, when you don't get one of these, what do you call them, insurance Group life.
Yeah, group life policies.
When you buy a policy on the open market, they ask you all kinds of stuff, and the stuff actually steers you right into...
Big bad pharma remedies, pharma remedies that you'd be better off without.
So I guess the question is, why is the insurance industry not showing signs of natural selection where insurance companies that don't listen to the CDC, you know, or the National Institutes of Health outcompete those that are slavishly devoted to whatever lies they're being told?
Why don't we see that?
Well, interestingly enough, Josh Sterling, who I told you about earlier in the podcast, he started the Insurance Coalition to Save Lives, a nonprofit, and he's got a bunch of insurance industry executives who are Talking about these issues, they have to dance around the V word because there's still a lot of denial in this industry.
But they are looking at these issues.
What is going on?
Can we figure out a way to save lives?
Because the insurance industry actually, back in the day, they created a lot of the great building codes and fire codes because they were losing a ton of money.
The insurance industry shouldn't do this again when it comes to the health.
That's what they should be doing.
The good news is, it's starving.
As you know, things are slow, and there's still a lot of denial.
But the good news is, there are people within the bowels of the insurance industry that know what's going on.
Insurance executives are not the bravest of folks.
They're very conservative.
We just need someone somewhere to break the tide and someone in the C-suite to say something.
I hope that day comes soon.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, in this terrible era, is it possible that we could source some of the testicles that are being cut off of people and we could give them to the insurance industry so that they could be bolder?
All right.
That's a grim joke.
I'm sorry for making it, but...
I love it.
So, Ed, I know you have a fairly interesting story of what woke you up, not with respect to COVID, but just sort of more generally.
You want to tell us how that happened?
Sure.
I was a Wall Street executive, and I had a view of myself in the world that a lot of us had, that it was organized in a certain way.
The financial crisis came along, and that's when I started to question things, because it was a debt problem that was solved with debt.
They solved the debt problem by creating more debt.
That was very interesting to me.
What else was interesting was not one banker went to jail for the abject fraud that was committed.
It was fraud like we've never seen before, and not one banker went to jail.
Something else was afoot.
I had struggled with alcohol my whole life, but it was highly functioning.
I quit drinking in 2005.
Five years later, as happens with a lot of people that get rid of their medicine, I suffered from mild anxiety and mild depression.
I sought the help of a therapist who then referred me to a psychiatrist who then said I was bipolar too and I needed to be on a host of these drugs.
These drugs ended up making me catatonic to the point where I needed to get electroshock therapy.
After the electroshock therapy, I was still on all these drugs, but someone in my circles, a psychiatrist who shared my drinking affliction but was sober as well, he pulled me aside and he said, you know what I do for a living?
I said, I know you're a psychiatrist.
He said, no, I actually take people off these drugs.
He told me back in 2012, what we've all come to find out, I think last year, a study came out about the fact that the saying, you have a chemical imbalance, was never proven in a clinical trial, and that it was nothing more than pharmaceutical marketing that became the truth.
It became a truth, such a deep-seated truth that everybody repeated the lie.
When he told me that, he said, I'm going to take you off all these drugs, and you're going to cure your depression by doing spiritual work, physical exercise, and change your diet.
Sure enough, I titrated off all the drugs and started to heal.
And it took a couple of years, but I became the person I am today.
What's interesting is my memory is better now than it was pre-everything because I was one of those people that had an anxious mind.
I was always toggling in the past and the future, never in the present moment.
I do a lot of present moment thinking.
So that's how I combated my anxiety and my depression is I don't really worry too much about the future.
I kind of I have very deep spiritual practice with God, and I believe that the more you're in the present moment, the better off you are.
So that's helped me.
But after my electroshock therapy, I noticed something interesting.
I don't know what it did.
But I saw the world in a different way, and I started just questioning everything and started to voraciously consume anything conspiratorial or alternative.
Some of the things I've discarded, some of the things I've discovered tend to be true.
My journey of awakening began around 2013.
We moved to Maui in 2014.
Unfortunately, my depression and my troubles affected my marriage, so I got divorced in 2018.
I've been noticing strange things in the world occurring, and I use my pattern recognition skills from Wall Street to see the big picture, and I've created an analyst mosaic for how I view the world.
I view what's going on lays at the feet of central bankers and politicians because the debt-based monetary fiat system is nearing the end game.
Mathematically, it needs more debt creation at faster rates.
It's at the point where the debt creation in between crises buys us shorter and shorter amounts of time.
Eventually, the system has to collapse.
Obviously, the timing is anyone's guess.
I think it's closer than it is farther away.
To justify another round of government spending and global government spending, we'll need an even bigger crisis to justify it.
That's why I jokingly said it wouldn't surprise me if there was a quote-unquote alien invasion, because that would be the mother of all world defense government spending, and it could kick the can down the road again.
I see the world holistically, and I believe my personal journey with the medical system awakened me to such an extent.
Once I questioned the pharmaceutical industry, I just started questioning everything.
That's why I think you and I talked offline.
We think this vaccination issue is such a big deal because so many people live in what we can call the matrix.
They have a worldview that's been fed to them.
And if you could show them that this one thing, just this one thing, they'll start to question and go down their own rabbit holes in their own journey of discovery.
Because trying to red pill someone, we all know the difficulty in that, and it's hard.
But once you get a wedge issue like this, and this becomes something that people can sink their teeth into, because I've always said before the mandates and before the vaccines, I knew the system was rotten, but I accepted it because it didn't affect me.
I figured I'd just muddle through.
And then when it manifested into this jab and this force, that's when I said I had to speak.
So that's when I clicked from hopelessness to action.
Overnight.
Yeah.
Yeah, I always say that some stories diagnose the system and the COVID story Diagnosis the system.
You can see the failure of academic truth-seeking.
You can see the failure of government.
You can see the failure of journalism.
You can see the corruption of the social media apparatus.
You can see the tendrils of pharma.
You can see the international non-governmental organizations.
It's all visible if you know how to understand the story of COVID. And so that's one of the reasons I won't let it go.
But there's also the fact That people are used to a world in which the arguments about this candidate versus that candidate, it's very hard to detect the impact on your life of these things.
And that's not true for the COVID story because people actually got sick with something that was almost certain to have been man-made and therefore they can compare the days of their life that they've lost.
People lost loved ones to it.
So they have an understanding that these are life or death issues.
And then most of us know people who are injured or no longer with us from the so-called vaccines.
So that instinct to treat all of these things as abstractions about which we can be very passionate, but at the end of the day, who's to really say what turned out to be true?
In this case, the confusion resulted in self-harm at an extraordinary level.
And if there's one message I have for people, that's very painful to look at when you have been made complicit in your own injury.
But don't look away because they're not done with us.
They've told us where they're going.
These mRNA shots are their plan for all of their old shots.
They're going to refresh them into new shots.
They're going to make many new kinds of shots with this platform.
They're going to obscure the harms.
They're going to pretend that they're effective.
They're going to put them on the childhood vaccine schedule and kids are going to get them.
They're going to use governmental mandates.
This is all Going to happen again if we don't use the painful example of COVID to figure out what happened and build safeguards that ensure it can never happen again.
I agree wholeheartedly.
And, you know, this is the one issue I think can be the one that awakens so many people.
And that's why, personally, I won't let it go.
Yeah, I'm right there with you.
Is there anything else you wanted to present?
I think that's a good first discussion.
I can come back on.
We can go down other rabbit holes if you want.
Yeah, there are no triggers to those things.
In fact, watch where you step because it's all rabbit holes.
I like going down rabbit holes where we have evidence and things that make sense if you just use your critical thinking skills.
I'd be happy to come back on.
For people who want to look at our data, it's humanityprojects.info.
That's our landing page because our website is It's been produced by PhD physicists, so it's obtuse.
We have someone in the PR world create a landing page that can get you quickly to where you want to look.
I can be found on Twitter, at DowdEdward, D-O-W-D, and Getter, at EdwardDowd.
I did write a book, Cause Unknown, The Epidemic of Sudden Death in 21 and 22.
If you want to try to convince your loved ones, I've heard it's had some success in converting people to stop at least taking boosters.
Fantastic.
We will link all of those in the description to this video.
Ed Dowd, it has been a real pleasure, as I knew it would be, and I'm looking forward to the next discussion.
Thank you so much, Frank.
Great to be here, and an honor, and good luck with your event.
Thank you.
It will already be over, I suspect, by the time this comes out, but maybe not.
